Most ironic political demand of the year . . .

Most ironic political demand of the year . . .

It's time to retire! Democrats are shouting this at supreme court justices Elena Kagan (age 62), and Sonia Sotomayor (68).

No $hit. 100% true. Democrats really, really, are begging for these retirements, according to pieces in “Vox” and elsewhere. For those insulated from a diversity of political views, Vox is “progressive/left of center”, and in addition to its website promotes ifs views through YouTube, Netflix, podcasts, Twitter, etc.

So where's the irony? That an 80-year-old president with either senile dementia or sleeping sickness should remain in office, and appoint successors to SCOTUS justices decades younger than himself?

Or that Vox and similar sites are too effing stupid to be believed?

I'm going with “stupid”

By all accounts justices Kagan (the supreme court's first openly “enthusiastic female softball player”) and Sottomayor (“smarter than a typical wise Latino grandmother”) are more alert, harder working, and better able to speak without cue cards and easter bunny escorts than the president.

And if they decline in vigor – which probably won't be soon – hopefully they will do the right thing, and resign.

Does anyone believe Biden – given the chance – would discover and appoint replacement justices of higher caliber?

I don't regularly follow who votes how on the supreme court. So I can't cite a list of the decisions by left – or right leaning – justices that I disagree with. But I'm sure that if Kagan and Sottomayor were communists or Taleban apologists, someone would have told us.

All this conniving (getting rid of Kagan and Sottomayor) is of course predicated on worry that not only will Biden lose the white house to some republican in 2024, but congress might flip again too.

Hey, Vox unpopuli – the answer to that problem is straightforward. Run a democrat presidential candidate capable of actually governing and explaining his or her decisions.

Unless you don't have any . . . ?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

I'm not American but what strikes me as a greater issue is that the SC is so undemocratic. There is no way that Americans would vote for a Federalist Society majority and the removal of Roe vrs Wade. Rather that retire, justices should be up for re-election.

I get that it is in the Constitution but ( charitably speaking) the Republicans beant conventional norms to get what they wanted. So no wonder Democrats have a hard time accepting this.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Burnley123 Bear in mind is that one reason the Court does not reflect the views of a majority of Americans is the Electoral College, which has resulted in several presidents being elected with a minority of votes; the minority presidents then appoint Justices that reflect the minority. At present, four Justices were appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. The Court should be 7-2 in favor of the majority Democrat voting populace instead of 6-3 for the minority Republican voters. Basing the presidential election on the popular vote would fix that over time.

There are a number of things that could be done to change the Court to be more representative of the majority of the nation, including term limits for Justices, mandatory retirement age, adding more Justices, etc.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Burnley123 there are a bunch of states which allow "direct election" of their state level judges. the voters in those states don't appear to regard this as in any way eliminating controversy. the very act of campaign fund raising, muck raking against your opponents, and making TV ads hypothesizing how you will rule in upcoming cases is contrary to what our founding fathers envisioned as learned men, with tenure, free to hear evidence dispassionately and give their rulings free from political pressure.

it certainly hasn't worked out that way, has it.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@windinhishair we could easily have direct election of presidents. all it takes is a constitutional amendment. congress - which has been under sole democrat party control for several years - repeatedly declines to draft such an amendment, and submit it through the process for debate and ratification.

This is similar to their disregard for Roe (reproductive rights). Again - they were warned - for years - that the original Roe decision could be flawed, and that an amendment would ensure it abortions would continue to be at the discretion of the expectant mother and her doctor. Again - democrats declined to carry out their constitutional obligation

Want to debate the 2nd amendment (gun control)? I can do this all day.

Political activists would rather leverage controversial court cases for campaign fund raising instead of address them head on with the constituitional amendment process.

Perhaps they are just too exhausted to tackle this, after voting themselves raises, and increases in the national debt cap?

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@SusanInFlorida Republican states will never approve of a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. Democrats would gladly do so. The problem is with the Republicans, not the Democrats. The same thing applies to reproductive rights. Democrats tried to get an Equal Rights Amendment passed in the 1970s, and it came close, but many Republican states don't want women's rights, so it failed as well. The lack of progress is purely a Republican issue.

When you say you can "do this all day", do you mean blaming the victims?

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@windinhishair well, that's the amendment process. state level ratification. and it doesn't have to be 100%. just 2/3rds. Are you saying you're unfamiliar with how this works? Or that democrats don't control 2/3rds of the states?

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@SusanInFlorida You clearly are clueless about the process and the electoral situation in the US. Foreign bots often are. Allow me to educate you. The Democrats don't control anywhere close to 2/3 of the states. Any Democratic amendment is doomed to fail before it starts, because Republican states will never vote for it. It doesn't matter if 2/3 of the voting public approves of it, like reproductive rights, since the states will never approve of a constitutional amendment for it.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida Democrats do not have the trifecta in 33 states. There are currently 23 Republican trifectas, 14 Democratic trifectas, with the remainder having divided governments.