Search the Lounge

Categories

« CFP: Public Health Surveillance, Spying on America for its Own Good | Main | CFP: Empirical Analysis of Wealth Transfer Law »

November 27, 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

For to buy a firelock

Post hoc hogwash, mostly.

American Democrats thought the heir apparent would win the 2016 election in a landslide. Why hold RBG to a different standard in this regard?

Regardless, her true legacy involves her work's leading to the rest of the West's loss of interest in SCOTUS. Nothing can be learned or gleaned from someone lacking a genuine jurisprudence, i.e., where anything that advances social justice in the case at hand IS the best and true meaning of the constitution.

anon

The comment above is so true.

The Mencimer quote succinctly sums up the reasons that recent leftist outrage about referring to "Obama judges" was the epitome of hypocrisy.

Guest

I agree with firelock’s first comment, in substance if not in tone. Justice Ginsburg did not retire because she, along with most others, believed there was a near-zero chance that President Trump would be elected. Post-hoc attacks now on her judgment at that time is only fair to the degree that you thought that at the time she was wrong.

anon

The argument isn't that Ginsburg should have retired in 2015 (that would have just given Trump/Clinton 2 nominees). It is that she should have retired in 2011 or so, when Trump was a TV star and the next election was anyone's guess.

Matthew Bruckner

When RBG retires, my personal wish is that she be replaced by someone with a similar judicial philosophy. But she's entitled to her job for as long as she wants to do it. And I'd never tell her to retire sooner than she wishes to.

Howard Wasserman

There is always a risk of a change of party control, either in the White House or the Senate (it is not clear a President of one party will ever again appoint a Justice with a Senate majority of the other party). So at what point should a Justice begin thinking of retiring to avoid this problem? Is it time on the bench? Is it age--and if age, how old? Ginsburg was 60 when appointed and 68 in 2000, when the prospect of a change loomed? Should she have considered retiring then?

Steve L.

In 2013, Barack Obama was president and the Democrats had just held on to a slim majority in the Senate. Justice Ginsburg was 80 years old and a multiple cancer survivor. That's when she should have considered resigning.

Anon

"I'd never tell her to retire sooner than she wishes to"

That may hold true when the job in question is librarian, banker, or teacher. But when failure to retire could easily result in one's life work being rescinded, and millions of people affected by that prospect, then it is not so simple as a matter on individual choice. It is a public trust.

For to buy a firelock

'The argument isn't that Ginsburg should have retired in 2015 (that would have just given Trump/Clinton 2 nominees). It is that she should have retired in 2011 or so, when Trump was a TV star and the next election was anyone's guess'.

False. The article claims that such calls only began in 2011 and continued thereafter. How many people, however, were in fact making this argument in 2011 other than Randall Kennedy? The article does not say. It is by 2013, Mencimer tells us, that 'the drumbeat' for her retirement was at 'a fevered pitch'. Again, how many were actually, regularly, beating on the drum? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds?

Once again, this is mostly just post hoc hogwash.

Don't get me wrong, though: I fully agree that she ought to retire post haste.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad