Ginsburg: If I Resigned, Obama Couldn't Appoint 'Someone Like Me'

[steve2470]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ruth-bader-ginsburg-elle-magazine-replacement

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a message for progressives who want her to retire under President Barack Obama: That ain't happening, and even if I did, my replacement would be nothing like me.

The leader of the Supreme Court's liberal wing told Elle magazine that if she did so, Obama would not be able to secure Senate approval for "anyone I would like to see in the court."

Here's a snippet from that interview:

I’m not sure how to ask this, but a lot of people who admire and respect you wonder if you’ll resign while President Obama is in office.

Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can.

[elleng]

1. Right,

so stfu, everyone, please. She KNOWS what she's doing.

[billhicks76]

23. Yes She Does

And she knows Obama is a weakling too who should be playing hardball. He has leverage he could use but he curiously doesn't. What...do our real leaders, NSA and CIA, have embarrassing photos of him or emails he has sent? What the Hell is going on? Its not just because there is a republican majority in the House or that there are less than 60 Democratic senators. Cmon.

[cascadiance]

2. Another good reason for Elizabeth Warren to run!

I'd earlier conjectured if this was why she was holding off retiring when she said she wasn't earlier...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265745

If we want to ensure we have a non-right wing SCOTUS, the best way to make that happen is to get someone like Warren to win the nomination. I'm pretty sure that Ginsberg who happily step down if Warren were selecting her replacement!

[pnwmom]

10. Yeah, one less vote in the Senate will be very helpful.

Ginsburg isn't saying Obama wouldn't nominate a good Justice. She's saying the Senate wouldn't confirm one.

[Fearless]

11. Let us in Massachusetts worry about that.

We're pretty good about that sort of thing.

[pnwmom]

12. Oh, really. Scott Brown wasn't your best moment. n/t

[Fearless]

13. Really now? One in the last sixty years. Really.

He was quickly dealt with as well.

[pnwmom]

18. He was there long enough to doom the public option. If a Dem had replaced Kennedy,

then we wouldn't have needed the Independent Lieberman to overcome the filibuster.

It's ironic that the State of MA was critical in that defeat, since they led the way in healthcare till then.

[hughee99]

22. And if the Dem didn't run one of the worst campaigns in recent history,

a Dem would have replaced Kennedy. To his credit, Brown shook a lot of hands and kissed a lot of babies while Coakley acted as if the campaign was a nuisance and having a "D" after her name was enough to win... and she was almost right.

Hell, we're not even afraid to change the rules about special elections and appointments on the fly to make sure we get the "right person" in the job.

[Fearless]

42. No more culpable than every other no vote.

He was found for the error that he was, and is now running in NH after being soundly beaten by Elizabeth Warren in the next election.

We've fixed that issue. We also have a history of electing strong DEMOCRATS to Congress and the Senate.

Only one Republican has held a MA Congressional seat for more than two terms (four years) in the past 31 years! There have been ZERO Republican Congresspersons from MA since 1997.

In the Senate, Scott Brown is the ONLY Republican Senator to sit for MA since 1979. The last to sit a full term was 35 years ago! Equally so, only THREE Republicans have held Senate seats in MA since WORLD WAR TWO! Since 1926, the Democratic Party has held 68% of Senate seats. Since 1979 Democrats have held 96% of Senate seats in Massachusetts. So please don't imply that we should have tried harder. We damn well pull our weight.

[mr_liberal]

20. She was nominated by Bill Clinton.

She's waiting for Hillary.

[hlthe2b]

3. She's right... a sad statement on our future, frankly...

[woolldog]

4. I'm glad she came out and said this.

She's probably right, but it's still a calculated risk. I would rather have whoever Obama can get through now, than a Republican appointed justice 5 years from now. I guess we'll see.

[FoxNewsSucks]

5. She's right,

and the really sad thing is that if the parties were reversed, a republicon president would have little or no trouble getting a right-wing extremist through the Senate. Unfortunately, Democrats would let it happen.

Don't think so? Two words: Roberts and Alito.

But at least Harry Reid managed to "keep that powder dry".

[zeemike]

25. Yep...that is how it works.

The Conservatives have a veto with the filibuster and use it...the Dems do too, but they never use it so they can get along...is that not an abusive relationship?

[sheshe2]

6. I love this woman!

As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can.

Thank you Steve!

[steve2470]

8. my pleasure ! :) nt

[sheshe2]

9. :)

[ohnoyoudidnt]

7. I can see her point, but I hope she has a lot of years to go on the bench. nt

[Terra Alta]

14. Gindsburg is a national treasure.

I adore her.

I hope she stays strong, healthy, and lives to be 100+.

[mr_liberal]

15. Well, Democrats are in the majority, so if she's right

then no Democrat president would EVER be able to appoint someone like her.

She's just making up excuses for why she wont retire. And all thats doing is giving a Republican president a chance to replace her. Then what will she say? Happened to Thurgood Marshall and we got Clarence Thomas.

Republicans wouldn't filibuster anyhow. Its swapping a liberal for a liberal, just like Kagan and Sotomayor. It wouldn't change the balance of the court.

[nevergiveup]

16. She is correct

and it is also correct that a President Christie or President Jebbie Bush would likely have little difficulty nominating and getting confirmed another Alito. I believe she is the possibly one of the finest Supreme Court Justices ever and I do not think she should resign at this point, but the fact of the matter is that she is getting up there in years and we might possibly be playing with some serious fire if the Repubs take the White House in 2016.

[mr_liberal]

17. She disagrees with Roe v Wade.

How does that make her one of the finest justices?

She's a good reliable liberal, but nobody considers her one of the great liberal justices like Hugo Black or William Brennan. She hasn't had that much impact or influence. she could be replaced pretty easily.

[Bartlet]

24. She dissagrees with the way Roe was ruled

Not in the ruling or the right itself.

She disagrees with the way Roe was decide based on the doctors right to practice their profession not on a womans fundamental right to control her body. She thinks that the ruling jumped the gun and forced states to accept abortion when they would have done so eventually causing resentment and fueling the anti-abortion movement for 4 decades of violence.

You seem to think that Ginsberg disagrees with the right of a woman to control their body, perhaps you should do some research on her position.

[mr_liberal]

28. She thnks "it went too far and too fast" and that

states should have been able to decide for themselves. She opposes Roe v Wade. You're the one that needs to do your research. Anybody can, all they have to do is google Ginsburg Roe v wade.

She would have ruled to only protect abortion in cases of "life of the Mother", that would have left states to ban abortions in every other case. Thats not pro choice and being for abortion rights. Thats not even as good as most republicans, most republicans allow for rape and incest as well. Its shocking that she believes that. She should retire for that reason alone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade_n_3261187.html

[former9thward]

38. She is entirely correct.

Abortion rights were moving in a progressive position rapidly until Roe v Wade. Ronald Reagan, as governor of CA, singed the most liberal abortion law in the U.S. All of this ground to a halt with the SC decison. Then it became a huge national fight and both sides dug in their heels.

[freshwest]

19. She understands political reality. Love her!

[mr_liberal]

21. How so?

You have a Democrat President and Democrat senate, if you couldn't replace her now when could you?

[Bartlet]

27. When we don't have

a black president in office that the republican minority is willing to go to any length to stop from having any success, including filibustering any and all nominees to all levels of the judiciary. Ginsberg can not be replaced during Obamas term by any nominee that isn't a conservative leaning centrist like Kennedy.

[freshwest]

29. Thank you.

[mr_liberal]

32. lol His post makes no sense

Obama has had two liberal supreme court judges confirmed already and many lower court judges.

You have a Dem president and a large Dem majority in the senate, you wont find a better time than now especially since waiting might allow a republican pres to replace her instead.

[HERVEPA]

34. Large majority in the senate.

This is shit-stirring.

[mr_liberal]

35. 8 seats is large for the senate

and its 10 if you count the two independents that caucus with the Democrats.

[mr_liberal]

30. So Kagan and Sotomayor are conservative leaning centrists?

They vote the same as Ginsburg.

[former9thward]

39. All three vote with Roberts at least 77% of the time.

A majority of SC decisions are 9-0. http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

[Recursion]

43. That's because a majority of SC decisions are about legal technicalities

I mean, a property easement either is or isn't in compliance with Federal statutes, you know?

[former9thward]

44. SC decisions are not about property easements.

Do you really believe that? It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring a case to the SC. If it was a simple decision it would never make it to the court.

[Recursion]

46. Sure they do. I was thinking specifically about Brandt from this term

The majority of cases are not about big momentous issues like Hobby Lobby; they come from two circuits having two contrasting rulings on (usually mundane) aspects of law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is quite possibly the smartest person working in government today

And I include NASA.

Keep on wit yo bad self, RBG.

[dflprincess]

31. Not just couldn't

But wouldn't.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. Are you saying Sotomayor and Kagan aren't in her mold?

That would be an extremely stupid remark. Stop acting like Obama has a history of appointing conservative Supreme Court justices.

[Agschmid]

36. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Sotomayor and Kagan pretty much always side with Ginsgurg.

Obama appointed them.

Do you not like them or something?

What votes didn't you like?

Just curious....

Or were you attempting to engage in knee jerk Obama bashing without actually thinking about what you were typing?

Methinks its the latter.

[former9thward]

40. They also side with Roberts 80% of the time.

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

[bhikkhu]

41. Mostly because there is no one like her

She's one of the most intelligent and (trying to think of the right word) robust women there is in public service. I hope she can stay for many more years.