Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals why she didn't retire during Obama's term

[Celerity]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reveals-why-she-didnt-retire-during-obamas-term-2019-09-19

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a question for the critics who think she should have stepped down during President Obama’s administration:

The Supreme Court justice and “liberal lion” defended her 26 years serving on the highest court in the country with NPR’s Nina Totenberg at a NYC event on Wednesday.

“It has been suggested by more than one commentator, including some law professors, that I should have stepped down during President Obama’s second term,” said Ginsburg, 86, as reported by CNBC. “When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think that the President could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate? Who you would prefer on the court than me?”

Plus, work gives the Notorious RBG life. She recently finished three weeks of radiation therapy in August for a tumor on her pancreas. She also had surgery in December for another cancer found on her lungs.

“This is my fourth cancer bout, and I found each time that when I am active I am much better than when I am just lying about feeling sorry for myself,” said Ginsburg. “The necessity to get up and go is stimulating. And somehow, all these appearances I’ve had since the end of August, whatever my temporary disability is, it stops, and I’m OK for the event.”

snip

[Jose Garcia]

1. Republicans didn't control the Senate until 2015

[Oregon1947]

2. True, Rethugs didn't control til '15, she should have retired.nm

[Initech]

3. Now I am not a praying person...

But I pray to God every night that she survives this nightmare and we get a competent president back in charge who will appoint a solid replacement for her and she can retire in peace.

[Celerity]

5. without winning back the Senate, there will be no replacement for her other than a RWer the next

time the Rethugs have both the POTUS and the Senate (which may be non-stop if Rump wins reelection.) We will probably never again see a Democratic POTUS-nominated SCOTUS candidate get a vote by a Rethug Senate, especially one led by Moscow Mitch. He will stall it out eight straight years if necessary (assuming we win 2 POTUS elections in a row.) 5-2 hard RW works the same as 7-2 (assuming RGB dies or becomes incapacitated sometime between now and 2029, and Breyer either dies or retires then as well.

TBH, the entire US constitutional superstructure is being shown to be it has foundational long-wave flaws that have taken over two centuries to expose, but now are probably fatal in the long term with MASSIVE moves by us. These include vastly expanding the size of the House (the helping both the EC and the House overall), adding PR and DC as states (and probably splitting California into 2 states) to give us 6 new Dem Senators and stave off for another 50 years or so the coming RW-favouring 70-30 paradigm (within 12, 14 years 70% of the Senate will be controlled by 30% of the population, with that 30% being far more RW, older, whiter, less educated, more fundie religious, and more RW than the other 70%), and also packing the SCOTUS. I would also completely advise a large, large stripping away of power from the Office of President, as it is now on the verge of truly being an 'Imperial Presidency.'

[mr_liberal]

7. That's ridiculous. They wouldn't block a nomination for 4 years especially if it was

a liberal replacing a liberal (Ginsburg). Politically it'd be impossible.

[Celerity]

11. watch it happen, especially if we win the POTUS and then the economy tanks

The Rethugs will then have little fear then of losing Senatorial control in 2022 and will keep on blocking. There is no legal way to stop them at all. The only way is to take back the Senate.

These are new times, uncharted waters we are steaming into. The Rethugs are on the verge of a completion (structural wise) of a 50 plus year project of re-aligning and reshaping the nation from local state and federal level. If they maintain control on key state assemblies they can cement the RW gerrymandering based off the 2020 Census. If Rump wins reelection they can possibly take the SCOTUS to 6-3 or 7-2 HARD RW (via RBG and Breyer out), plus refresh the Thomas RW seat, and IF we have truly catastrophic luck, Sotomayor's diabetes (she is getting worse and worse, with multiple hospitalisations) beats her down, and the Rethugs take it to 8-1 RW.

Bookmark this. If we win the POTUS and fail to retake the Senate, I fully expect I will be shown to be right IF RBG and/or Breyer pack it in or die. A removal via death or retirement/incapacitation of a LIBERAL SCOTUS justice is GOLDEN for the RW. Moscow will stall out until he either loses control or they win back the POTUS in 2024 or 2028. If Rump wins and they hold the Senate, I also wager Thomas will retire, probably in the first two years, as IF Rump wins reelection and the economy goes pear shaped, the Rethugs are in mortal danger in 2022 of losing the Senate.

[elocs]

4. My question would be, "Who would I prefer on the court other than one of Trump's stooges?"

Anybody picked by a Democratic president.

[FBaggins]

17. I wouldn't go that far

But someone 80% as good as her and 30 years younger would have been nice.

[mr_liberal]

6. She said this before and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now.

The issue is her age and health and making sure a Democrat president (Obama) replaced her and not a Republican (Trump).

The reason republicans blocked Garland is because it was Scalia's seat and it was an election year. They would have had much less reason to do that if it was Ginsburg because it would just be a liberal for a liberal.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Don't get me wrong...

...I have nothing but respect for RBG... but this sounds like ego.

[Leith]

9. Not a fair question

Most of us do not follow the careers of judges. The only time I google one is when he or she is on the local ballot.

[Celerity]

12. 'Most of us do not follow the careers of judges.'

I think the vast majority on here follow the SCOTUS with great passion.

The general populace? NO, not at all, on that I agree with you 100%.

Hell, most could not even name a SCOTUS justice or two, and more than likely have no clue who their House Rep is, or who is the VP, and probably couldn't name both of their 2 Senators either.

I am back and forth between Los Angeles (and often other cities), London, and the Nordics for years now, and the political apathy and ignorance in the US is off the charts. Custodial democracy in its absolute worst iteration.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Would prefer someone who I wasn't afraid of dying before Trump is out.

[Skittles]

16. NO SHIT

[Skittles]

13. oh please

[Celerity]

14. What part draws this response? TIA nt

[Demonaut]

15. she's awesome!!