Should a liberal Supreme Court justice resign next year?

[Alhena]

assuming that, say, Stevens (who is approaching 90 I believe) or Ginsburg decide that there is no way they will be able to stay on the court for the next president's full term, would it be better for them to resign next year so that the stakes will be plain to everyone? I think the Roe v. Wade issue helps us in the election, and the danger of it being reversed will be clear to everyone if there is an opening on the court waiting to be filled.

There's no need to worry about Bush getting a replacement nominee approved by the Dem Senate- there's a long tradition of the Senate not approving candidates in the last year of a lame duck's term. That being the case, I'm inclined to think that if a liberal justice knows he won't be able to stay for 4-5 more years, he or she should just go ahead and resign late in Bush's final year.

[loyalkydem]

1. unless

the nation wants a court that leans to the right.

[Mz Pip]

2. Whatever long traditions

the Senate may have had in the past, they no longer apply to this Senate. The Republicans would demand a vote on a replacement and the Dems would cave and we'd end up with Ted Olsen or Edith Jones or Janice Brown.

Hang in there Stevens & Ginsburg.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Totally Committed]

3. Neither of those judges is "Liberal", only seem so in relation to the other

RW Jack-booters on the court. They are middle-of-the-roaders, at best.

Please realize that no genuinely LIBERAL SCOTUS Justice will ever pass the Senate again. It has been made impossible by not only the RWers in the Republican Party, but also the mealy-mouthed appeasers in our Party as well. Middle-of-the-road is the best we'll ever see again unless there is a watershed event that changes things drastically.

TC

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Ginsberg is not a liberal?

[Totally Committed]

13. Some REAL Liberals are named downthread.

Ginsburg doesn't come close. The fact that she seems so "liberal" speaks to exactly how extremely RW the rest of our SCOTUS is.

TC

[Solo_in_MD]

14. IMO she is as liberals named later, she is just not as grandstanding about it

Her writings are well done and hard core liberal as any other modern justice. With her being the second woman named to the court, and clearly on the liberal wing, she has not gotten the coverage the waffling O'Connor got.

[onenote]

8. who were some of the true "liberal" justices of the past?

Douglas would be one

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren

[CatholicEdHead]

9. Maybe eventually but it will be tough for a generation

Eventually "liberal" will not be a four letter word to some.

[Warpy]

4. Given the Senate's deplorable history of rolling over for Stupid

I think we can safely say if a liberal justice retires, the USSC will be rendered completely anti American.

Between the GOPs and the Blue Dog Dems, there is enough to confirm any joker who is sufficiently hostile to labor and adoring of corporations.

[MasonJar]

6. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Stevens is

not going to stay too much longer; that said however, I think that the candidates need to pound on the Supreme Court selection when the Democrats select their nominee. If another Conservative wins the White House, I'm moving from here. Although at that point it won't really matter because the world will be screwed anyway, and the earth and its creatures. Man may not deserve to survive, but we will take the innocents with us.

[question everything]

7. NO!

The court can still debate and rule even when there are less than 9 justices.

And what happens if the Republicans take the White House, again?

I remember the previous liberals who, too, were old and fragile but hung on through Reagan and Bush the first until Clinton came on.

[TheDonkey]

10. Could also galvanize repub voters

who will sit the election out because of the war.

[Cosmocat]

16. YEP ...

We have republican voters about as disfranchised as they can be right now ... You put a SC Justice seat in play, and it gives them the brass ring again ...

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas in 1968, he didn't get confirmed...

But the reasoning wasn't because Johnson was a lame duck.

[depakid]

15. The Dems will approve whoever Bush sends up

That much they've already proven- time and time again.

Indeed, I see a situation like this as a BIG negative for the party's candidates. It'll make them look inept and weak- standing up for nothing, deflating their base and all the while hearing the same criticisms from Republicans and their noise machine as they would were they to show some political fortitude.