Write Review
1,893,192 Total Reviews 3,655 New Reviews
13,676 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Dem Calls For Sotomayor To Retire Are Problematic For Biden
cks175 43 Reviews 141 reads
posted

RBG screwed Obama and the Democrats when she didn’t retire, opening the path for ACB to be nominated by Trump and confirmed by McConnell’s Senate.

Now the chorus is rising for Sotomayor to retire. She’s diabetic, not very healthy and sometimes travels with a medical nurse.

But can Biden really ask her to step aside because she’s too old?
Telling Sotomayor that she should step down for the good of the country in favor of someone younger with similar views is not a case Biden can credibly make
Related Link: Josh Barro: Sonia Sotomayor Must Retire

RespectfulRobert6 reads

It would never come from him directly. It would come from people she is close to, that she trusts, people who put country over themselves.  
Did you ever see Goodfellas? Remember Paulie, the boss? He told someone to tell someone something so it didn't lead back to him. Yes I just opened myself to "Biden equals the mob" jokes but I think you get my point. lol

ReplyQuoteReport
cks1759 reads

Reporting on the retirement push dates back to January.
From Politico:

Some Democrats close to the Biden administration and high-profile lawyers with past White House experience spoke to West Wing Playbook on condition of anonymity about their support for Sotomayor’s retirement. But none would go on the record about it. They worried that publicly calling for the first Latina justice to step down would appear gauche or insensitive. Privately, they say Sotomayor has provided an important liberal voice on the court, even as they concede that it would be smart for the party if she stepped down before the 2024 election.
True, it’s unlikely that Biden is going to pick up the phone and have a retirement talk with Sonia. But the concept still holds, Biden flacks asking someone to step aside, for the good of the country, because they’re too old.

Methinks this will be a slow brewing but developing process.

ReplyQuoteReport
RespectfulRobert7 reads

Maybe someone like President Obama. Or her liberal partners on the bench. Or people who were very close to RGB that Sotomayor really respects. Those are the ones who may convince her, not any political henchmen in the Biden Admin.

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie6 reads

I don't think it's because she is too old.  They think she is too unhealthy.  

ReplyQuoteReport
cks1754 reads

Enabling President Joe Biden to appoint a younger liberal justice now would head-off the possibility of a 7-2 conservative majority, should former President Donald Trump return to the White House in 2024, multiple liberal columnists argued this week.
New York Magazine columnist Jonathan Chait likewise wrote Thursday that Sotomayor — “69 years old and a diabetic former chain-smoker” — should acknowledge the “partisan nature” of her position and step down soon, “when she can be replaced with a like-minded justice, rather than gamble”
Related Link: Liberals Start Nudging Aging Supreme Court Justice Toward The Door As Possible Second Trump Admin Looms

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie6 reads

At least they speak the quiet part out loud.  The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "partisan."  It's supposed to make sure laws are in accordance with the US Constitution -- that's it's sole purpose.  It's not supposed to be a super-legislature.  

ReplyQuoteReport
impposter18 reads

Have you followed Supreme Court Justice nominations and votes for the past 50 years or more? Have you ever heard of the Federalist Society? Have you read about the Clarence and Ginni Thomas controversies? Etc..
.
http://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/weird-thing-to-write-experts-call-out-amy-coney-barretts-passive-aggressive-shot-at-liberals/
“Weird thing to write”: Experts call out Amy Coney Barrett’s “passive-aggressive” shot at liberals
Barrett split from conservative majority — but used her opinion to admonish liberals in "unusually biting terms"
.
"Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett split from the conservative majority’s reasoning in the Trump ballot case but went after the court’s three liberals in “unusually biting terms,” according to CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.
.
"The court’s majority ruled that states cannot disqualify a presidential candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — also known as the “insurrection” clause — and only Congress could enforce the provision.
.
"Barrett pushed back on her conservative colleagues for “breaking significant – and in her mind unnecessary – ground in the breadth of their legal reasoning,” Biskupic explained. “But then she admonished the court’s three liberal justices, who also split from the majority’s legal rationale, in unusually biting terms.” ... "
.
"... But Barrett’s opinion, which was joined by no other justice, “had the effect of highlighting the tensions between ideological factions and the power of the conservative majority, rather than neutralizing them,” Biskupic explained. ..."

Posted By: lester_prairie
Re: “partisan nature” of her position
At least they speak the quiet part out loud.  The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "partisan."  It's supposed to make sure laws are in accordance with the US Constitution -- that's it's sole purpose.  It's not supposed to be a super-legislature.  

ReplyQuoteReport
lester_prairie5 reads

Partisan may be ideological, but not everything ideological is partisan.  

For instance freedom versus slavery is ideological.  I presume you would want the SCOTUS in the freedom ideology.  

The role of the Supreme Court was intended to be to faithfully uphold the US Constitution.  There are means to amend that Constitution.  It should not be up to the SCOTUS to amend it.  That's what the people do through their state and federal representatives.  That is the originalist ideology.  

It's only a "partisan" issue when one group decides that the SCOTUS should rubber stamp some policy goal that is not authorized by the Constitution.  And there certainly are advocates both left and right, Democrat or Republican who want special un-Constitutional laws.  On the religious right, for example, enforcement of religious beliefs vs tolerance of religious beliefs.  The legion of leftwing infringements on the Constitution are too numerous to mention.

The "originalists" aka "conservatives" on the court simply attempt to enforce the literal text of the Constitution.  There is a shit load of Constitutional powers that offend me as a libertarian.  Nevertheless, the a Libertarian SCOTUS member who decided to just ignore the Constitution and enact or prohibit whatever laws he felt like, would be a partisan justice and abusing the powers granted to him.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!