"But the tragedy of the Social Democrats could not be fully explained by bad luck. They had had their chance to take over Germany in November of 1918 and to found a state based on what they had always preached: social democracy. But they lacked the decisiveness to do so. Now at the dawn of the third decade they were a tired, defeatist party, dominated by old, well-meaning but mostly mediocre men. Loyal to the Republic they were to the last, but in the end too confused, too timid to take the great risks which alone could have preserved it, as they had shown by their failure to act when Papen turned out a squad of soldiers to destroy constitutional government in Prussia."
-The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer
I take small solace knowing that essentially 90% of the German judiciary was on some equivalent to the federalist society.
That contributed to the collapse of weimer because the judges would execute the leftists, and give knee slaps to the violent conservatives.
We aren't at that point of utter decay yet, but we are in a really bad spot with our judiciary. It's only 30% fedsoc, but the positioning of those members is deeply problematic and their power is much stronger compared to the weimer judiciary.
So yeah small solace
>but in the end too confused, too timid to take the great risks
This reminds me of Joe, thinking (or at least acting like) Graham and his other old GOP Senate colleagues are still acting in good faith.
The problem is that this is what happens when one party decides that democracy is optional and they also have an overwhelming stranglehold on the security services. Can't really have a republic when about a quarter of the population is actively hostile to what that would mean.
I’m not scared of Trump. I’m scared of the next guy who actually understands the shit Trump supports but doesn’t talk like a used car salesman from Queens.
This is absolutely the right and smart thing to do, and I’d bet a lot of my money they won’t do it.
If they were to do it, though, it would have to be a CERTAINTY that Biden could replace them—none of this Garland bullshit.
I think there is a zero percent chance one Supreme Court nominee could be confirmed before November, much less two. The Republicans would throw everything and the kitchen sink to stop the nomination and Senate Democrats wouldn't fight back because they love bipartisanship and collegiality more than they love their country.
And a chance to fill an empty Supreme Court seat motivates conservatives more than liberals - Republicans have spent the last *three generations* telling its voters control of the Supreme Court is the most important issue in American politics - so leaving that seat empty will boost conservative turnout more than liberal. Or do y'all not remember the last time Trump was running for President with an empty seat riding on the results?
She does not have to retire and see if Dems could fill it.
She would do what Kennedy did; “I would retire only if you can fill the seat before the next court season” (conditional retirement).
Why Kagan though? She is 64 years old. She will easily survive another 4 years of Trump. Sotomayor is older and diabetic but also very unlikely to die in the next 4 years.
Because...the Senate picture is dicu post 2024.
Do you know what is the seat the Dems can HOPE to flip?
Ted Cruz in Texas
Dems have more chancy senate seats in play in 2024.
2026: republican will have more seats that could be contested. But realistically...very few will flip.
The republican had the Senate then?
I agree Schumer will likely F it up somehow, still.
Other than his banker donors and Israel, Schumer doesn't really give a shit.
Democratic leaders keep saying that democracy is at stake, but they sure don't act like it. They're not even willing to pressure Sotomayor to retire to avoid a 7-2 SCOTUS.
It feels like Dem leadership is largely indifferent to Republican fascist aspirations because their big money donors realize that isn’t a threat to their financial interests.
What are they gonna do? Sotomayor has a lifetime appointment to a job people dream of. She has no family to retire to. No amount of pretty pleases are gonna make her give that job up.
Sotomayor claims to have cried over recent rulings from the conservative justices, yet she's not so upset that she'll give up power to ensure that the balance doesn't get even more lopsided. Seems to me it's not only the conservative side lacking people who actually give a damn about the country. After all if RBG had simply done the responsible thing and stepped down in 2014, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Well, I think saying what's wrong with you for not retiring when you're 80, like in rbgs case and doing it at 70 are fairly different scenarios. There's no reason to think she wouldn't survive another 4 years if trump wins or even 8 if a Republican replaced trump in 2028. Really it's not a stretch to think she has three to four presidential terms to time her retirement.
>even 8 if a Republican replaced trump in 2028
I still don't understand why people assume Republicans will *ever* let a Democrat win again post Project 2025, in 2032 or beyond. They are not interested in legitimate elections.
We just take for granted that there will be free and fair elections going forward.
True. But that's leaving the future of SCOTUS up to chance. Dems have the presidency and the Senate right now. Who know when they will again. SCOTUS is already lopsided against them. so it would prudent for them to take every precaution in safeguarding the remaining liberal faction of the Court.
It's pretty similar. The average human life expectancy for women is 80. Sure she's not past the age of dying any second. But it's an average. She's 10 years from death
Go retire for God's sake.
At 70 she has 16 years left, on average. You need to reference an actuarial table. The “80” is average life expectancy for someone born today.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
What is it power does again?
None of us are ever willing to easily give up power. She is no exception to that. Neither was RBG.
And let’s say Trump wins and republicans take the senate, Thomas and Alito also won’t retire.
It wasn't about power for RBG, she wanted her successor to be appointed by the first women president. Still not a good reason at all for getting us in this mess but if you want to critique her decision it was more about her ego than about holding on to political power.
RBG played a massive role in roe v wade being overturned. I used to really really like her, now I see her for the selfish narcissist she was. She picked a few more years of work over having a legacy. Screw her and all the geezer justices that won’t retire.
Exactly. If Sotomayor and/or Kagan die at an inconvenient time when there's a Republican President and the conservative-liberal balance gets even more lopsided, that will become their legacy and overshadow everything they've done in life too. If they do care at all about preserving their legacies, they should retire at an opportune time (like right now) rather than leaving the fate of SCOTUS to chance.
Duty to country and principles might do it. Just look at the situation RBG left us with. People like them only have their legacy to care about. They don’t want that to be their legacy.
At 80 that might work at 64 and 70 no. It's too speculative. Who knows who the president and Senate will be in ten years which is a realistic time frame for them to live?
That sort of makes the point, though. Why should we gamble on an uncertain future when we know that replacing them today would be relatively drama-free? Why run the risk?
We are way too close to the election for any potential replacement now. That ship sailed a couple years ago, which made it even more of a stretch.
Now, if Biden wins, then you have a more legitimate argument on your hands. I feel like 64 and 70 is still just a bit too young to push them out, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
just a reminder, it was about five weeks between RBG's death and Amy Coney Barret's appointment as her successor.
there are 29 weeks until the composition of the Senate changes. at that pace, six new justices could be confirmed and appointed
Because we didn't work our entire lives to be on the supreme court. So of course we'd swap them out for an interchangeable justice. We arent ending our career prematurely. And it's all upside for us. It's kind of like saying why don't you give me all your money and just get it over with? Makes alot of sense until you're the one giving something up.
She’s not ending her career prematurely though as any university, think tank, really anyone would love to hire her if she left the bench. She would have no problem making money, and she would honestly make way more than she is being a justice. The problem I have with her making the decision based on what she wants is that the supreme court is bigger than her, it’s not just another job. The stability of the Supreme Court is by far more important than her living out her ideal Supreme Court tenure and retiring only once she’s on her deathbed. Plenty of people have sacrificed their wants for the good of others.
The current situation is now part of her legacy tbh. She refused to retire.
Overturning of Roe is on conservatives for sure. But her refusal to retire when Obama asked her didn't help at all.
Breyer, Kennedy, and other justices have been successfully pressured into retiring. There’s no guarantee it would work on Sotomayor, but why not at least try?
and they’ll all selfishly stay till their last breath anyway… its what all lifetime politicians do. They won’t think about the overall good of doing it but whats in it for themselves, just like RBG
Just like live-forever Ruth Baeder B…h when no amount of personal begging by Prez Obama could get the cancer affected only-I-can-do-it Ginsburg to retire. And just before she died, she knew the horrific consequences of her hubris, a Trump appointed arch conservative justice.
You're assuming that Senima and Manchin would vote to sit two justices right before an election.
They're just Republicans in a blue suit. Hell I think both of them are independents now.
This is a silly point.
They can do what Breyer did. Indicate intent to retire upon confirmation of a replacement.
You can probably get one or both of them and if not, they just don't retire.
Sinema is an egomaniac but overwhelmingly votes with democrats, and if you think Manchin is just a Republican in a blue suit, compare him to whatever dumpster fire comes after him in West Virginia.
Yup and no Republican is going to vote on it. Even if they're on their way out there's the hope that eventually they can make a comeback.
It's definitely not the same as RGB not retiring when the Democrats had a solid majority in 2012.
>Democratic leaders keep saying that democracy is at stake,
It is at stake. We have a SCOTUS Justice who literally hung an American flag upside down and another who has received over $4 million dollars in gifts from partisan political donors. Both Justices willfully lie about it.
Sadly Democrats are more afraid of bad optics than they are losing Democracy. The Senate judicial committee should be investigating Alito and Thomas right now.
Don’t forget that Trumps justices all perjured in their confirmation hearings… Roe had 50 years of precedent of law and they would not support overturning it! Also people have dropped the investigation of Kavanaugh’s rape and the sudden resolve of debt. Coney-Barrett was in a weird cult and little experience as a courtroom judge or even as a lawyer. Her confirmation was a travesty like Gorsuch was stollen. Obama was denied his selection because he was in the final year of his presidency and Trump was in the last months of his and the Republicans railroaded her through in lightening speed when RBG died! Both Roberts and Alito served together to rip away voting rights when they were lawyers. Thomas was a sexual predator.
They don’t deserve to be self governing! In my opinion we need to impeach Thomas and Alito!
Funny to hear "democracy is at stake" when talking about the highest court in the land presided over by 9 unelected judges who serve for life. What a democratic system!
Isn’t this the point of life time appointments. The judges don’t owe anything to anyone once they are appointed. Dem leadership can’t force them to do anything and they shouldn’t be able to.
Because they don't actually believe that. The two parties don't care who's in power because they will be able to milk the cow no matter which teet they suck. They are in collaboration. There is no rivalry.
I'm still voting D down ballet, but only because I genuinely believe Trump is a threat for several reasons. And I'm not sure if the institution will allow him to reign as a king like he wants.
But I don't know how we get out of this hole. The government has been captured by a single ruling power.
The ~5% of the country who identify as far-left & repeat the genocide Joe shit aren't really thinking about the consequences of their actions. Half of them are still pissed that Bernie wasn't selected (despite Biden giving them more policy wins than Bernie would have), and the other half are accelerationists who want a fascist to win so the "revolution" happens quicker.
A lot of them are, 100%. But there's a huge chunk of people 24-35 that also fit into the description I'm listing. People who were college kids in 2016 and become radicalized by Bernie Sanders losing.
Seriously. I hang out on the Crooked Media Discord and the far, far left there is willing to throw everything - The election, the nation, the world - Down the drain for Gaza. I don't know what pill they've taken, but it's definitely not blue or red. They're bonkers.
It is amazing to me that pretty much anyone at the campus protests will tell you with absolute certainty that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, via social media, to help get Trump elected, but then will completely deny that the sudden influx of claims of "Genocide Joe" all over social media could be anything other than completely organic and honest.....
It's ok, because the alt-left thinks that's a good idea. Then people will be forced to revolt against the new right-wing authoritarian.
You can't make this shit up.
Accelerationism is just as dangerous an ideology as Qanon. They share a lot of the same characteristics and end goals, just with different ideologies taking power.
We can be mad all we want about people protest voting, and I understand some of the frustration, but at the same time (and I am leaving all my own personal opinions on Gaza at the door here), it angers me that Biden and his administration haven't really changed course on their Israel policy. It is their policy decisions on Israel that are causing this huge blowback, which may cause a key portion of the democratic electorate to tap out of the election. Let's not forget just how close this election may be and how important swing states like Michigan are. I want Biden to win btw, I'm doing everything I can to convince the people I know to vote for him, but by far the best way to mitigate that would've been to listen and change policy and earn those votes back. That's how a democracy works. We all know Trump is terrible, but many people (especially young people and Muslims, but it spreads across many other key demographics) are apalled by what is happening and are going to protest vote over Gaza in November, and I fear Trump may actually win if Biden doesn't do anything to meaningfully bring these people back in.
>I fear Trump may actually win if Biden doesn't do anything to meaningfully bring these people back in.
There's genuinely nothing he can do at this point to bring those voters back. 3+ months ago the left wanted Biden to publicly call for a ceasefire and shit on Bibi. He did both. Now it's the US needs to completely abandon Israel and tell them to leave Gaza with no ceasefire from Hamas.
It's the same thing with student loans. The left demands Biden get rid of student loan debt. He tries, it fails. So he still does a substantial amount, and it's crickets from the left. The same people calling him genocide joe demanded student loan forgiveness, and are the same who refuse to credit him for any positive actions they agree with. Trying to appease the Twitter left is never going to lead them to credit him and bring them back into the fold. It's why Biden needs to reject the nomination at the convention and let another candidate take over.
Handwaving away protesting genocide as virtue signaling is kind of gross. As if there’s no way people could feel legitimate empathy for a population being brutally decimated
It’ll cement his legacy as the new GOP face to a degree that never Trumpers could not disavow or distance themselves from. Seating 5 conservative justices would be a huge win for their party that would go beyond a single generation.
I would never gamble something like that on Sinema and Manchin doing the right thing, but even putting that aside, this is the very last thing the Democratic Senate candidates would want. There’s also a good argument to be made that it would destroy Biden’s chances at reelection.
Then wait until after November 5. The new senate doesn’t get sworn in until January. If Dems end up losing the senate, Sotomayor should resign early November and Dems can use their last few weeks in the majority to confirm her replacement by December.
That still depends on Sinema and Manchin doing the right thing - except now they can plausibly say “the people have spoken” and break with the Democrats.
Absolutely. My first thought was those two: Sinema and Manchin would find a way to insert themselves into the issue over SCOTUS in their final months in the senate.
You know what’s better than demanding that liberal justices step down from the bench going out and getting people to vote for Biden and making them understand all the different issues at stake with another Trump presidency.
To the poster I replied to I didn’t mean you personally more figure of speech
Well sure, but that’s why I said a gamble. Seems like it would be far different thing to be confirming two justices at once while Manchin and Sinema are both having million dollar corporate jobs shoveled at them. In fact, in that scenario, I basically have zero faith in Sinema. Plus, it would be awfully tempting to “compromise” by confirming one nominee but not the other.
Vox has been absolutely rotted lately, and it's disappointing to see this subreddit going along with their stupidity. Republicans would run on the Supreme Court and it would galvanize their base. Democrats would fall to infighting and vulnerable Dems across the country would be forced to run on issues they don't want. Right now the Democrats have plenty of great policy proposals to highlight and the Republicans have a senile old felon weighing them down. Making the election about the Supreme Court would hurt the Democrats.
Does anyone know if Vox is funded by Qatar or something? This is so stupid and such an obviously bad idea that I refuse to believe an actual thinking left-leaning person even contemplated it. The Supreme Court drives Republican turnout. It creates discord among Democrats.
The choice is between dissents written by Kagen and Sotomayor and risking 7-2 or 8-1, vs dissents written by some other liberal justice. Like what are we even talking about…
Oh and a reminder, because of the senate map, there is approximately a 0% chance the Dems will win the senate in 2024 and pretty unlikely they will win it anytime soon after that. So yeah, hopefully these two women don’t die in the next 10-15 years.
But then you get takes like this - [Disablity leaders push back against calls for Sonia Sotomayor's retirement (19thnews.org)](https://19thnews.org/2024/04/sonia-sotomayor-retirement-assumptions-diabetes-ableism/)
"I trust that, like all disabled people, she knows best about her body. Bodily autonomy is not just about reproductive rights. It’s about allowing people, including disabled people, to choose how they want to live their lives,” she said"
We're cooked for sure. The ADA itself is going to be overturned if the court goes 8-1.
I bet she is on the best insulin cocktail Eli and Lily can make (not the 25 buck walmart insulin), so the T1 diabetes may not necessarily affect her life expectancy.
Why do people say type 1 as if it's defcon 1? It's an autoimmune disease that unlike type 2 is not a reflection of overall metabolic health and can be completely managed. It's like taking thyroid.
It's remarkable, really. Are they unwilling to learn? Do they just not give a shit? How much more of an A/B test does one need than Kennedy vs. Ginsburg. There is no long-term thinking, just little internecine squabbling and self-righteous scolding as the ship is sinking.
People have too much ego and *never* want to self-sacrifice. They have their pet issues and biases and can't get the fuck off them.
"I'm old. I'm disabled. I cannot abide the notion that people think I should retire just because the stakes are big! That minimizes everything I am as a person!"
Or "How dare you tell a woman to retire!"
Fuck your vanity.
And yeah, people are unwilling to learn. Ever notice how every single young generation that comes up hears from their elders "voting fucking matters" and they tell those old folks to fuck off, basking in their misplaced cynicism thinking it makes them wise?
It's pathetic but that is the story of people at least in America. Too much ego, vanity, and definitely not enough willingness to learn without getting *fucked* by their own stupidity firsthand.
Yup, i’m a progressive liberal but goddamn!
I understand these people get to the Apex of their profession and when faced with keeping their SCOTUS post or retiring early and letting someone younger take their place, they always make the effing selfish choice.
Like WTF!?!?
At least these two...I can sorta understand. They are not THAT old or have had heath scares. Freaking Ginsburg was a beatch. The selfishness...and lack of judgement.
Yeah, but barring a timely demise they'll obviously wait until there's a Republican president to select their replacements whereas now Dems have the Senate and the presidency so now is the time for Sotomayor and Kagan to step aside to safeguard the already lopsided balance of the Court.
The problem here isn’t the justices. It’s the Democrats. A party that can only win the Senate on rare occasions is not viable.
The question shouldn’t be how to pressure Sotomayor to retire today. It should be how to change the party platform to be competitive. Planning for 15 years of not holding the Senate is nonsense party strategy.
This.
Joe won 25 states, Trump won 30, Obama won 28 & 26, Bush won 30 & 31. Clinton won 31 & 32.
The Democrats are competitive in fewer and fewer states each cycle. Joe could win this fall with 22 states (losing AZ, GA and NV and keeping the blue wall states)
And it is becoming harder and harder for them to compete in the Senate. Last time Democrats had 50+ senate seats was 2012 (not counting the two independents who might as well be Democrats) And they were only above 50 for 2008, 2010 and 2012. Since 1994 the GOP has won 50 or more in 10 elections.
The senate is a croc of shit. Wyoming with 600,000 people gets 2 senators and California with 40,000,000 also gets 2 senators. With all these Midwest states getting 2 senators with such low populations and being MAGA land, it doesn’t seem likely.
It’s not a given that small states will always vote Republican. They didn’t always do that in the past.
Democratic policies today are extraordinarily popular in big cities. They need to appeal to rural voters more. This is a fairly recent problem. Clinton’s Democrats were competitive in many small states that are thought to be red bastions today.
Clinton was able to win red bastion states because there were still legacy democrats in many of those states. The entire political structure of each party is completely different now compared to the 90s. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was anti tariff and free trade during the 90s, and has pretty much 180d from that position.
Not just that, I don’t even know what policies the DNC can come up with to win rural voters and appease them without absolutely throwing one part of the democratic coalition under the bus
>Not just that, I don’t even know what policies the DNC can come up with to win rural voters and appease them without absolutely throwing one part of the democratic coalition under the bus
From a purely strategic perspective, the question is *who* they could even throw over to build a better coalition.
You can't toss them over precisely because they're more interested, privileged and energetic. Many may not vote but they run a lot of the infrastructure of any party or activist group.
You're right, can't argue the point. I suppose Dems could try to get progressives to tolerate some of the working class' more "deplorable" views, make compromises on things like the 2nd in order to win. Try to promote a more pragmatic mindset.
I don't think it's primarily about policy. I think it's primarily about how Democrats look and act. Billl Clinton won in rural communities, and Carter before him, mostly on vibes. Rural voters tend to feel talked down to by Democrats, with Hillary and Kerry being particularly awful at this. They don't feel like Democrats care about their way of life.
The most obvious policy problem I can point out is that Democrats are for spending big on a strong social safety net that doesn't really service the rural community in practice. So rural voters feel like they pay lots of tax and don't get lots of value. I have never talked to a rural person who thought the federal government was doing good things for their community.
In terms of issue positions, the one that would bring the most returns in rural communities is immigration. The conversation in Washington today is overwhelmingly about border security, but rural voters are troubled by the cultural effects of all sorts of immigration. When Democrats speak on immigration, they need to do a better job explaining why the immigrants that will arrive under their policy will strengthen America and improve the lives of Americans already here. Specifically, I think moving to skills-based immigration would sell much more effectively in rural communities than current policy.
It will be difficult to change minds now, but I think the Democrats position on guns is incredibly counter-productive. I suspect they could win Alaska if they were more pro-gun.
The democrats could honestly STFU about guns and likely do much better. Gun control isn’t something they are going to be able to enact, and running on it hurts them much more than it helps.
Even though I am pro-gun control, I don't have a problem with just dropping the issue. It is not a good hill to die on right now. But I don't know if it will move the needle unless dems are actively cheerleading gun violence the way the MAGAs are. Otherwise they will just accuse the dems of being secret gun controllers.
Post Sandy Hook, Colorado passed a raft of minor gun laws. A seat that had been held by democrats for a long time was lost in a recall election. This term a few more passed, I have no clue what’s going to happen in November, but it could cost another seat or two.
yeah the gun issue is tough as iron in right wing voters. if they didnt change their minds after Sandy hook nothing will move them. The gun laws being made by dems dont so jack shit anyway. It's window dressing. I would not be sad if they just stopped talking about it. Something like universal healthcare or a new round of stimulus checks would do more to stop gun violence than the performative laws the dems have to move heaven and earth to get passed.
Exactly. Beyond that, it isn’t just conservatives who own guns. I hunt with mostly liberals and yep, we all own guns. It’s just not our whole identity. Hell, I take a week every year and my coworkers just know it’s a fall guys trip. They don’t need to know that I’m doing long hard hikes with a rifle, trying to put an elk in my freezer.
I dislike this take. It comes off as thinking non urban voters are only interested in banning abortion and deporting homosexuals.
The raving right is not big enough to elect the mass of politicians the gop consistently fields. The people in the center who still feel abandoned by democrat policies could be persuaded to vote for democrats if there were policies that actually worked for them. They have actual experience living through these policies and seeing how they pan out. This was absolutely clear in 2016 and the Democrats were like "uh, whatever". Plenty of rural voters are facing the same income inequality as urban voters and could easily vote together if these issues were taken seriously.
Social equality politics is important, but it is too often used as a screen for the fact that the Democrats aren't actually interested in balancing the inequality in this country. Social policy around race and sexuality in no way prevents us from taking care of everyone. But that is the image that is easily built by the on-the-ground realities.
The issue, as always, is that you can't protect minorities, fund rural communities AND give rich people whatever nonsense thing they are demanding this year.
Dems actually have a pretty good chance in 2024. They faced equally bad odds in 2020 and 2022 and still came out on top because Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot with garbage candidates despite Senate maps generally being titled in their favor.
Your main point is still correct, though. Dems shouldn't be beating the farm on holding the Senate for another two years and both Sotomayor and Kagan should step down for younger liberal justices ASAP.
The best senate maps for Dems are on 6 year cycles. 2022, 2028. If Biden wins in November its unlikely a Dem wins in 2028 since parties usually switch after an incumbent leaves (Bush Senior is the most recent example). So, 2034, or 2040 become the next good chance.
Democrats just can’t get the senate back unless they can make in-roads into the middle of America. Losing Ohio and Iowa as battleground states has been disastrous
She’s not as healthy as a horse, she’s an obese 64 year old. I don’t doubt she gets the best of treatment but obesity increases your risk for countless illnesses.
This is such a stupid argument made by people who think they’re being really smart.
Manchin and Sinema have explicitly said they won’t support Dem judicial appointments going forward that lack bipartisan support. Republicans will NEVER support this stupid “install younger liberals” plan. So, there is ZERO ability to replace any retiring justices between now and the election.
That means, these discriminatory, ageist arguments that are so popular among young, supposedly anti-discrimination progressives, all lead to a dead end. Yes, Boomers suck. Yes, everybody’s too old and everybody should retire and make room. And yes, if they die with a Republican in office, they’ll be replaced by conservatives. That’s all true. But you still literally can’t replace them, so they’re our only option, “too old” or not. If they WERE to retire today, we’d have 2 vacancies waiting for whoever wins the presidency in November. Look at the polls and explain to me why I’d want THAT.
Attacking “Democrats” for not forcing justices to retire seems to be the only point of this exercise. If you’re an angry progressive, this whole argument seems designed to convince you that older Democrats are your real problem, not MAGA Republicans. Since the 2016 primary, that’s been an appealing argument to some. But given the argued-for “solution” is 100% not possible, the whole debate seems pointless.
Time spent convincing people to vote for Biden is far more constructive than convincing them to be mad at Elana Kagan for selfishly existing.
This is correct. Winning happens at elections. Democrats, specifically liberal ones, seem 100% allergic to this logic.
Trump 2016 is proof, and the way they are attacking Biden and refusing to vote for him proves this out again.
There is a level of naivety that I can't fathom amongst these voters.
I wish Democrats could at least run on policies that acknowledge the GOP's pure and unabated descent into fascism. They should run on packing the court and impeaching every conservative justice, whether immediately possible or not. Sometime in the next 50 years it'll likely be doable. But Boomer Democrats still crave "normalcy" and want to act like it still exists.
The only reason to make this argument is that democrats don’t have enough national support to get a more progressive court seated.
Basically saying there’s not enough of us to vote this reality, so we need court justices to be magnanimous.
If trump gets reelected, it is all but a guarantee Alito and Thomas will step down. That means the former president, literally the worst possible person to appoint supreme court justices, will have appointed 5 out of the 9. More than half the court will preserve his legacy of intolerance and hate. At best, they use the advantage to press a conservative agenda. With a solid 6-3 majority, say goodbye to Brown v. Board.
I'm not gonna lie, I got clickbaited to this thread thinking that the headline was a call to resign in protest, not "resign to get a strapping young whippersnapper to hold the seat for their longer lifetime"
And if even one senator dies before they are appointed?
The moment Republicans have say so over Supreme Court justices appointments, no Democrat President will appoint one. Republicans have ruined the Supreme Court.
At present the oldest members of the supreme court are Alito (74) and Thomas (75), and Roberts (69) is tied with Sotomayor (69).
Furthermore, [life expectancy tables](https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/publications/docs/adm/06adm-5att8.pdf) show even they can expect another decade of life on average - none of these justices are likely to die before their mid-80s.
Replacing judges potentially 20 years early simply because politics is unpredictable is undemocratic, and insane.
Ginsburg was 87 when she did...a full generation older than both of these women. What a ridiculous nonsensical article.
Progressives are focusing on the wrong problem here. It isn't the 64 and 70 year old on the SCOTUS, it is the 81 year old in the White House.
The problem isn't that Trump is leading, it is the liberals and progressives are too busy tearing down Biden...the only chance at winning.
The problem is that Democrats find a way to cannibalize themselves, create a circular firing squad, zero tolerance litmus tests...pick your slogan.
Trump is easily the most beatable candidate in the field...next to Biden, yet many on the left continue to knock Joe's wobbly legs out from underneath him.
Instead of focusing on an election which could allow them to replace the two oldest Justices (Alito and Thomas) and rebalancing the makeup of the court, they are unconcerned about Nov and somehow want to solidify a losing minority?
This is how a terribly inept and lackluster GOP keeps finding a way to punch above their weight. They stick together and they let the Democrats strategically shoot themselves.
Sadly RBG had terminal cancer. Justice Kagan is a healthy 64 yr old and Sotomayor may have a chronic disease but that can be managed even well into her 80s if monitored and controlled with medication. I just wouldn’t trust the senate to do the right thing. I would worry someone will balk at the close timeframe to the election.
They're not as bad health-wise as RBG was when he refused to step down, but they're still old enough that it would be normal for them retire. It has become normalized in politics for excessively old people to stick around even into their 80s, but in most jobs 65-70 is considered the appropriate time to retire.
Considering how lopsided SCOTUS is already with conservative justices, it would be prudent to do everything possible to safeguard the remaining liberal balance of the Court. To not do so would be putting the future of the country in the hands of fate because we can't know when the next time is that Dems will hold both the presidency and the Senate. Also sudden unpredictable deaths are always possible like what happened to Scalia.
"But the tragedy of the Social Democrats could not be fully explained by bad luck. They had had their chance to take over Germany in November of 1918 and to found a state based on what they had always preached: social democracy. But they lacked the decisiveness to do so. Now at the dawn of the third decade they were a tired, defeatist party, dominated by old, well-meaning but mostly mediocre men. Loyal to the Republic they were to the last, but in the end too confused, too timid to take the great risks which alone could have preserved it, as they had shown by their failure to act when Papen turned out a squad of soldiers to destroy constitutional government in Prussia." -The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer
I take small solace knowing that essentially 90% of the German judiciary was on some equivalent to the federalist society. That contributed to the collapse of weimer because the judges would execute the leftists, and give knee slaps to the violent conservatives. We aren't at that point of utter decay yet, but we are in a really bad spot with our judiciary. It's only 30% fedsoc, but the positioning of those members is deeply problematic and their power is much stronger compared to the weimer judiciary. So yeah small solace
Should have sided with the communists. Ah well. Live and learn.
>but in the end too confused, too timid to take the great risks This reminds me of Joe, thinking (or at least acting like) Graham and his other old GOP Senate colleagues are still acting in good faith.
The problem is that this is what happens when one party decides that democracy is optional and they also have an overwhelming stranglehold on the security services. Can't really have a republic when about a quarter of the population is actively hostile to what that would mean.
>old, well-meaning but mostly mediocre Feeling attacked
I’m not scared of Trump. I’m scared of the next guy who actually understands the shit Trump supports but doesn’t talk like a used car salesman from Queens.
wow. just wow.
Been saying this for 20 years. Democrats to a T. Absolute doormats.
This is absolutely the right and smart thing to do, and I’d bet a lot of my money they won’t do it. If they were to do it, though, it would have to be a CERTAINTY that Biden could replace them—none of this Garland bullshit.
I think there is a zero percent chance one Supreme Court nominee could be confirmed before November, much less two. The Republicans would throw everything and the kitchen sink to stop the nomination and Senate Democrats wouldn't fight back because they love bipartisanship and collegiality more than they love their country. And a chance to fill an empty Supreme Court seat motivates conservatives more than liberals - Republicans have spent the last *three generations* telling its voters control of the Supreme Court is the most important issue in American politics - so leaving that seat empty will boost conservative turnout more than liberal. Or do y'all not remember the last time Trump was running for President with an empty seat riding on the results?
She does not have to retire and see if Dems could fill it. She would do what Kennedy did; “I would retire only if you can fill the seat before the next court season” (conditional retirement).
It can't be filled. She and Kagan will wait.
GOP was able to ram Barrett through before RBG was cold in her grave, four months is plenty of time
Yeah but they also had the seats. The dems don't. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1162/vote_116_2_00224.htm
No, Republicans just said this week they won't confirm any of Biden's judges now in some sort of revenge against Trump's conviction.
They didn't even confirm Biden's US Atty choices at the beginning of the year no way they confirm any Supreme Court nominee.
Why Kagan though? She is 64 years old. She will easily survive another 4 years of Trump. Sotomayor is older and diabetic but also very unlikely to die in the next 4 years.
Because...the Senate picture is dicu post 2024. Do you know what is the seat the Dems can HOPE to flip? Ted Cruz in Texas Dems have more chancy senate seats in play in 2024. 2026: republican will have more seats that could be contested. But realistically...very few will flip.
This entire argument ignores the manchin/sinema reality of the senate..... here comes another "we can't elect a scotus during an election year."
Because it could be a very long time before Democrats control the presidency and Senate simultaneously again.
Why take the chance? Appoint some 18 year olds.
Why wouldn't they just run that play again? Of course they would...
Because Dems control the senate now but didn't when Garland was nominated. The real barrier would be Sinema and Manchin.
Kind of a big barrier though, right? And Fetterman doesn't seem like a guaranteed vote either
None of them would approve any actual liberal justices. Sinema would cash a fed soc check in a heartbeat
Fetterman’s disagreements on some niche issues in no way makes him unreliable on this
Which is exactly why Kagan and Sotomayer should stay put. You can't trust those cretins.
We're way too close to the election. If anyone retires, we're seeing Merrick Garland 2.
The republican had the Senate then? I agree Schumer will likely F it up somehow, still. Other than his banker donors and Israel, Schumer doesn't really give a shit.
THIS RIGHT HERE!
Democratic leaders keep saying that democracy is at stake, but they sure don't act like it. They're not even willing to pressure Sotomayor to retire to avoid a 7-2 SCOTUS.
It feels like Dem leadership is largely indifferent to Republican fascist aspirations because their big money donors realize that isn’t a threat to their financial interests.
What are they gonna do? Sotomayor has a lifetime appointment to a job people dream of. She has no family to retire to. No amount of pretty pleases are gonna make her give that job up.
Sotomayor claims to have cried over recent rulings from the conservative justices, yet she's not so upset that she'll give up power to ensure that the balance doesn't get even more lopsided. Seems to me it's not only the conservative side lacking people who actually give a damn about the country. After all if RBG had simply done the responsible thing and stepped down in 2014, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Well, I think saying what's wrong with you for not retiring when you're 80, like in rbgs case and doing it at 70 are fairly different scenarios. There's no reason to think she wouldn't survive another 4 years if trump wins or even 8 if a Republican replaced trump in 2028. Really it's not a stretch to think she has three to four presidential terms to time her retirement.
>even 8 if a Republican replaced trump in 2028 I still don't understand why people assume Republicans will *ever* let a Democrat win again post Project 2025, in 2032 or beyond. They are not interested in legitimate elections. We just take for granted that there will be free and fair elections going forward.
If we don't have elections a non Republican can win going forward, a seat or two on the conservative supreme court isn't going to matter.
If they are never going to let a Democrat win then that seat is pointless they'll just pack the court.
True. But that's leaving the future of SCOTUS up to chance. Dems have the presidency and the Senate right now. Who know when they will again. SCOTUS is already lopsided against them. so it would prudent for them to take every precaution in safeguarding the remaining liberal faction of the Court.
If it gets so bad that Dems can't nominate a SCOTUS judge for decades, we are already fucked.
It's pretty similar. The average human life expectancy for women is 80. Sure she's not past the age of dying any second. But it's an average. She's 10 years from death Go retire for God's sake.
At 70 she has 16 years left, on average. You need to reference an actuarial table. The “80” is average life expectancy for someone born today. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
The absolute power hungry ghouls in this thread are appalling.
What is it power does again? None of us are ever willing to easily give up power. She is no exception to that. Neither was RBG. And let’s say Trump wins and republicans take the senate, Thomas and Alito also won’t retire.
Washington did it.
Facts, but that was ever so long ago.
There’s a reason we named so much stuff after him. He was a generationally rare breed.
Thomas and Alito have both said they'll probably retire if Trump wins this year
It wasn't about power for RBG, she wanted her successor to be appointed by the first women president. Still not a good reason at all for getting us in this mess but if you want to critique her decision it was more about her ego than about holding on to political power.
Neither was Biden for that matter
RBG played a massive role in roe v wade being overturned. I used to really really like her, now I see her for the selfish narcissist she was. She picked a few more years of work over having a legacy. Screw her and all the geezer justices that won’t retire.
Exactly. If Sotomayor and/or Kagan die at an inconvenient time when there's a Republican President and the conservative-liberal balance gets even more lopsided, that will become their legacy and overshadow everything they've done in life too. If they do care at all about preserving their legacies, they should retire at an opportune time (like right now) rather than leaving the fate of SCOTUS to chance.
Duty to country and principles might do it. Just look at the situation RBG left us with. People like them only have their legacy to care about. They don’t want that to be their legacy.
At 80 that might work at 64 and 70 no. It's too speculative. Who knows who the president and Senate will be in ten years which is a realistic time frame for them to live?
That sort of makes the point, though. Why should we gamble on an uncertain future when we know that replacing them today would be relatively drama-free? Why run the risk?
They should have pushed when Biden got in. Now ...it might be late.
We are way too close to the election for any potential replacement now. That ship sailed a couple years ago, which made it even more of a stretch. Now, if Biden wins, then you have a more legitimate argument on your hands. I feel like 64 and 70 is still just a bit too young to push them out, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
just a reminder, it was about five weeks between RBG's death and Amy Coney Barret's appointment as her successor. there are 29 weeks until the composition of the Senate changes. at that pace, six new justices could be confirmed and appointed
Because we didn't work our entire lives to be on the supreme court. So of course we'd swap them out for an interchangeable justice. We arent ending our career prematurely. And it's all upside for us. It's kind of like saying why don't you give me all your money and just get it over with? Makes alot of sense until you're the one giving something up.
She’s not ending her career prematurely though as any university, think tank, really anyone would love to hire her if she left the bench. She would have no problem making money, and she would honestly make way more than she is being a justice. The problem I have with her making the decision based on what she wants is that the supreme court is bigger than her, it’s not just another job. The stability of the Supreme Court is by far more important than her living out her ideal Supreme Court tenure and retiring only once she’s on her deathbed. Plenty of people have sacrificed their wants for the good of others.
I’m pretty positive it would be the most drama ever.
The current situation is now part of her legacy tbh. She refused to retire. Overturning of Roe is on conservatives for sure. But her refusal to retire when Obama asked her didn't help at all.
*Lifetime appointments need to gooooooooo*
Breyer, Kennedy, and other justices have been successfully pressured into retiring. There’s no guarantee it would work on Sotomayor, but why not at least try?
She has no kids or grandkids?
Nope. Not married either. Same for Kagan.
She’s a feminist.
and they’ll all selfishly stay till their last breath anyway… its what all lifetime politicians do. They won’t think about the overall good of doing it but whats in it for themselves, just like RBG
Supreme Court justices are for sale. Pay her to retire.
I thought I read somewhere that Sotomayor has some pretty serious health issues (but I could be wrong).
She does have diabetes as far as I know.
Just like live-forever Ruth Baeder B…h when no amount of personal begging by Prez Obama could get the cancer affected only-I-can-do-it Ginsburg to retire. And just before she died, she knew the horrific consequences of her hubris, a Trump appointed arch conservative justice.
You're assuming that Senima and Manchin would vote to sit two justices right before an election. They're just Republicans in a blue suit. Hell I think both of them are independents now.
This is a silly point. They can do what Breyer did. Indicate intent to retire upon confirmation of a replacement. You can probably get one or both of them and if not, they just don't retire.
Sinema is an egomaniac but overwhelmingly votes with democrats, and if you think Manchin is just a Republican in a blue suit, compare him to whatever dumpster fire comes after him in West Virginia.
You don't have to assume anything. They can make their retirement conditional on confirming a replacement.
Manchin has already stated he would not sit a SCOTUS justice this close to a Presidential election. So the plea is foolish.
Yup and no Republican is going to vote on it. Even if they're on their way out there's the hope that eventually they can make a comeback. It's definitely not the same as RGB not retiring when the Democrats had a solid majority in 2012.
I wish RGB could see what her not retiring did
They’re not Republicans because they vote with Republicans sometimes.
>Democratic leaders keep saying that democracy is at stake, It is at stake. We have a SCOTUS Justice who literally hung an American flag upside down and another who has received over $4 million dollars in gifts from partisan political donors. Both Justices willfully lie about it. Sadly Democrats are more afraid of bad optics than they are losing Democracy. The Senate judicial committee should be investigating Alito and Thomas right now.
Don’t forget that Trumps justices all perjured in their confirmation hearings… Roe had 50 years of precedent of law and they would not support overturning it! Also people have dropped the investigation of Kavanaugh’s rape and the sudden resolve of debt. Coney-Barrett was in a weird cult and little experience as a courtroom judge or even as a lawyer. Her confirmation was a travesty like Gorsuch was stollen. Obama was denied his selection because he was in the final year of his presidency and Trump was in the last months of his and the Republicans railroaded her through in lightening speed when RBG died! Both Roberts and Alito served together to rip away voting rights when they were lawyers. Thomas was a sexual predator. They don’t deserve to be self governing! In my opinion we need to impeach Thomas and Alito!
They always say that, but then act all scared to actually do anything
Funny to hear "democracy is at stake" when talking about the highest court in the land presided over by 9 unelected judges who serve for life. What a democratic system!
At least the majority of those justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators from low population states.
they're trying to be the stable hand at the wheel. The election is about convincing normal people to show up to vote.
Isn’t this the point of life time appointments. The judges don’t owe anything to anyone once they are appointed. Dem leadership can’t force them to do anything and they shouldn’t be able to.
Because they don't actually believe that. The two parties don't care who's in power because they will be able to milk the cow no matter which teet they suck. They are in collaboration. There is no rivalry. I'm still voting D down ballet, but only because I genuinely believe Trump is a threat for several reasons. And I'm not sure if the institution will allow him to reign as a king like he wants. But I don't know how we get out of this hole. The government has been captured by a single ruling power.
Can you imagine if Trump wins and gets 2 more Supreme Court pics?
yeah but tiktok tells me genocide joe tho
The country might fall into an right-wing authoritarian dictatorship, but at least I got to virtue signal for a few months to feel morally superior.
I know they’re pissed but do they really think Trump and his moving the embassy to Jerusalem wouldn’t ne far worse.
The ~5% of the country who identify as far-left & repeat the genocide Joe shit aren't really thinking about the consequences of their actions. Half of them are still pissed that Bernie wasn't selected (despite Biden giving them more policy wins than Bernie would have), and the other half are accelerationists who want a fascist to win so the "revolution" happens quicker.
Idk but I think a lot are the college kids who have become essentially single issue voters and also weren't really paying attention 8 years ago.
8 years ago they were in middle school.
A lot of them are, 100%. But there's a huge chunk of people 24-35 that also fit into the description I'm listing. People who were college kids in 2016 and become radicalized by Bernie Sanders losing.
Seriously. I hang out on the Crooked Media Discord and the far, far left there is willing to throw everything - The election, the nation, the world - Down the drain for Gaza. I don't know what pill they've taken, but it's definitely not blue or red. They're bonkers.
It is amazing to me that pretty much anyone at the campus protests will tell you with absolute certainty that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, via social media, to help get Trump elected, but then will completely deny that the sudden influx of claims of "Genocide Joe" all over social media could be anything other than completely organic and honest.....
It's ok, because the alt-left thinks that's a good idea. Then people will be forced to revolt against the new right-wing authoritarian. You can't make this shit up.
Accelerationism is just as dangerous an ideology as Qanon. They share a lot of the same characteristics and end goals, just with different ideologies taking power.
We can be mad all we want about people protest voting, and I understand some of the frustration, but at the same time (and I am leaving all my own personal opinions on Gaza at the door here), it angers me that Biden and his administration haven't really changed course on their Israel policy. It is their policy decisions on Israel that are causing this huge blowback, which may cause a key portion of the democratic electorate to tap out of the election. Let's not forget just how close this election may be and how important swing states like Michigan are. I want Biden to win btw, I'm doing everything I can to convince the people I know to vote for him, but by far the best way to mitigate that would've been to listen and change policy and earn those votes back. That's how a democracy works. We all know Trump is terrible, but many people (especially young people and Muslims, but it spreads across many other key demographics) are apalled by what is happening and are going to protest vote over Gaza in November, and I fear Trump may actually win if Biden doesn't do anything to meaningfully bring these people back in.
>I fear Trump may actually win if Biden doesn't do anything to meaningfully bring these people back in. There's genuinely nothing he can do at this point to bring those voters back. 3+ months ago the left wanted Biden to publicly call for a ceasefire and shit on Bibi. He did both. Now it's the US needs to completely abandon Israel and tell them to leave Gaza with no ceasefire from Hamas. It's the same thing with student loans. The left demands Biden get rid of student loan debt. He tries, it fails. So he still does a substantial amount, and it's crickets from the left. The same people calling him genocide joe demanded student loan forgiveness, and are the same who refuse to credit him for any positive actions they agree with. Trying to appease the Twitter left is never going to lead them to credit him and bring them back into the fold. It's why Biden needs to reject the nomination at the convention and let another candidate take over.
Handwaving away protesting genocide as virtue signaling is kind of gross. As if there’s no way people could feel legitimate empathy for a population being brutally decimated
Trust XI
“And he’s so OLD, like really old, amirite?” -young people
Supreme Court Justices Cannon and Kacsmaryk coming up next!
[удалено]
It’ll cement his legacy as the new GOP face to a degree that never Trumpers could not disavow or distance themselves from. Seating 5 conservative justices would be a huge win for their party that would go beyond a single generation.
I would never gamble something like that on Sinema and Manchin doing the right thing, but even putting that aside, this is the very last thing the Democratic Senate candidates would want. There’s also a good argument to be made that it would destroy Biden’s chances at reelection.
Then wait until after November 5. The new senate doesn’t get sworn in until January. If Dems end up losing the senate, Sotomayor should resign early November and Dems can use their last few weeks in the majority to confirm her replacement by December.
That still depends on Sinema and Manchin doing the right thing - except now they can plausibly say “the people have spoken” and break with the Democrats.
Absolutely. My first thought was those two: Sinema and Manchin would find a way to insert themselves into the issue over SCOTUS in their final months in the senate. You know what’s better than demanding that liberal justices step down from the bench going out and getting people to vote for Biden and making them understand all the different issues at stake with another Trump presidency. To the poster I replied to I didn’t mean you personally more figure of speech
AFAIK Manchin nor Sinema have ever voted against a liberal justice appointment.
Machin has said he won't support confirming anyone close to the 2024 election though and I'd say we are getting close.
Well sure, but that’s why I said a gamble. Seems like it would be far different thing to be confirming two justices at once while Manchin and Sinema are both having million dollar corporate jobs shoveled at them. In fact, in that scenario, I basically have zero faith in Sinema. Plus, it would be awfully tempting to “compromise” by confirming one nominee but not the other.
Vox has been absolutely rotted lately, and it's disappointing to see this subreddit going along with their stupidity. Republicans would run on the Supreme Court and it would galvanize their base. Democrats would fall to infighting and vulnerable Dems across the country would be forced to run on issues they don't want. Right now the Democrats have plenty of great policy proposals to highlight and the Republicans have a senile old felon weighing them down. Making the election about the Supreme Court would hurt the Democrats. Does anyone know if Vox is funded by Qatar or something? This is so stupid and such an obviously bad idea that I refuse to believe an actual thinking left-leaning person even contemplated it. The Supreme Court drives Republican turnout. It creates discord among Democrats.
Sotomayor and Kagan are both staying until 80 as long as they live. The court is their entire lives. No way they are retiring before being old old.
the optics would also be strange, if they stepped down due to age while Biden (10+ years older) is running for pres
The choice is between dissents written by Kagen and Sotomayor and risking 7-2 or 8-1, vs dissents written by some other liberal justice. Like what are we even talking about… Oh and a reminder, because of the senate map, there is approximately a 0% chance the Dems will win the senate in 2024 and pretty unlikely they will win it anytime soon after that. So yeah, hopefully these two women don’t die in the next 10-15 years.
But then you get takes like this - [Disablity leaders push back against calls for Sonia Sotomayor's retirement (19thnews.org)](https://19thnews.org/2024/04/sonia-sotomayor-retirement-assumptions-diabetes-ableism/) "I trust that, like all disabled people, she knows best about her body. Bodily autonomy is not just about reproductive rights. It’s about allowing people, including disabled people, to choose how they want to live their lives,” she said" We're cooked for sure. The ADA itself is going to be overturned if the court goes 8-1.
Learned absolutely nothing from RBG
I just can’t believe Sotomayor is 70. She looked young to me when she was nominated. Can’t believe how time just crept up on me
70 year old t1 diabetic.
I bet she is on the best insulin cocktail Eli and Lily can make (not the 25 buck walmart insulin), so the T1 diabetes may not necessarily affect her life expectancy.
Why do people say type 1 as if it's defcon 1? It's an autoimmune disease that unlike type 2 is not a reflection of overall metabolic health and can be completely managed. It's like taking thyroid.
It's remarkable, really. Are they unwilling to learn? Do they just not give a shit? How much more of an A/B test does one need than Kennedy vs. Ginsburg. There is no long-term thinking, just little internecine squabbling and self-righteous scolding as the ship is sinking.
People have too much ego and *never* want to self-sacrifice. They have their pet issues and biases and can't get the fuck off them. "I'm old. I'm disabled. I cannot abide the notion that people think I should retire just because the stakes are big! That minimizes everything I am as a person!" Or "How dare you tell a woman to retire!" Fuck your vanity. And yeah, people are unwilling to learn. Ever notice how every single young generation that comes up hears from their elders "voting fucking matters" and they tell those old folks to fuck off, basking in their misplaced cynicism thinking it makes them wise? It's pathetic but that is the story of people at least in America. Too much ego, vanity, and definitely not enough willingness to learn without getting *fucked* by their own stupidity firsthand.
Yup, i’m a progressive liberal but goddamn! I understand these people get to the Apex of their profession and when faced with keeping their SCOTUS post or retiring early and letting someone younger take their place, they always make the effing selfish choice. Like WTF!?!?
At least these two...I can sorta understand. They are not THAT old or have had heath scares. Freaking Ginsburg was a beatch. The selfishness...and lack of judgement.
I would argue that T1 diabetes is in itself a perpetual health scare.
Clarence Thomas is 75. Alito is 74.
Yeah, but barring a timely demise they'll obviously wait until there's a Republican president to select their replacements whereas now Dems have the Senate and the presidency so now is the time for Sotomayor and Kagan to step aside to safeguard the already lopsided balance of the Court.
Wow. I did not expect the identity politics there to get that stupid.
The left is so fucking allergic to winning in favor of the virtue signal, omfg.
LOL that'll teach 'em
The problem here isn’t the justices. It’s the Democrats. A party that can only win the Senate on rare occasions is not viable. The question shouldn’t be how to pressure Sotomayor to retire today. It should be how to change the party platform to be competitive. Planning for 15 years of not holding the Senate is nonsense party strategy.
This. Joe won 25 states, Trump won 30, Obama won 28 & 26, Bush won 30 & 31. Clinton won 31 & 32. The Democrats are competitive in fewer and fewer states each cycle. Joe could win this fall with 22 states (losing AZ, GA and NV and keeping the blue wall states) And it is becoming harder and harder for them to compete in the Senate. Last time Democrats had 50+ senate seats was 2012 (not counting the two independents who might as well be Democrats) And they were only above 50 for 2008, 2010 and 2012. Since 1994 the GOP has won 50 or more in 10 elections.
Maybe because, since 94, Dems have mostly won on social issues but neoliberal policies. 1994 was the last time Texas had a democratic governor.
That is because the Democrats have become the party of the college elites while still hanging on to smaller and smaller portions of minority voters.
[удалено]
The senate is a croc of shit. Wyoming with 600,000 people gets 2 senators and California with 40,000,000 also gets 2 senators. With all these Midwest states getting 2 senators with such low populations and being MAGA land, it doesn’t seem likely.
It’s not a given that small states will always vote Republican. They didn’t always do that in the past. Democratic policies today are extraordinarily popular in big cities. They need to appeal to rural voters more. This is a fairly recent problem. Clinton’s Democrats were competitive in many small states that are thought to be red bastions today.
Clinton was able to win red bastion states because there were still legacy democrats in many of those states. The entire political structure of each party is completely different now compared to the 90s. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was anti tariff and free trade during the 90s, and has pretty much 180d from that position. Not just that, I don’t even know what policies the DNC can come up with to win rural voters and appease them without absolutely throwing one part of the democratic coalition under the bus
>Not just that, I don’t even know what policies the DNC can come up with to win rural voters and appease them without absolutely throwing one part of the democratic coalition under the bus From a purely strategic perspective, the question is *who* they could even throw over to build a better coalition.
I'd start with the whitest and most privileged group, the progressives. Not good for the working class image and concentrated in blue cities.
You can't toss them over precisely because they're more interested, privileged and energetic. Many may not vote but they run a lot of the infrastructure of any party or activist group.
You're right, can't argue the point. I suppose Dems could try to get progressives to tolerate some of the working class' more "deplorable" views, make compromises on things like the 2nd in order to win. Try to promote a more pragmatic mindset.
I don't think it's primarily about policy. I think it's primarily about how Democrats look and act. Billl Clinton won in rural communities, and Carter before him, mostly on vibes. Rural voters tend to feel talked down to by Democrats, with Hillary and Kerry being particularly awful at this. They don't feel like Democrats care about their way of life. The most obvious policy problem I can point out is that Democrats are for spending big on a strong social safety net that doesn't really service the rural community in practice. So rural voters feel like they pay lots of tax and don't get lots of value. I have never talked to a rural person who thought the federal government was doing good things for their community. In terms of issue positions, the one that would bring the most returns in rural communities is immigration. The conversation in Washington today is overwhelmingly about border security, but rural voters are troubled by the cultural effects of all sorts of immigration. When Democrats speak on immigration, they need to do a better job explaining why the immigrants that will arrive under their policy will strengthen America and improve the lives of Americans already here. Specifically, I think moving to skills-based immigration would sell much more effectively in rural communities than current policy.
It will be difficult to change minds now, but I think the Democrats position on guns is incredibly counter-productive. I suspect they could win Alaska if they were more pro-gun.
Think Alaska had a dem senator until a few years back
They can't "appeal to rural voters" without throwing lots of other groups under the bus though. It isn't like no one has thought of it.
The democrats could honestly STFU about guns and likely do much better. Gun control isn’t something they are going to be able to enact, and running on it hurts them much more than it helps.
Even though I am pro-gun control, I don't have a problem with just dropping the issue. It is not a good hill to die on right now. But I don't know if it will move the needle unless dems are actively cheerleading gun violence the way the MAGAs are. Otherwise they will just accuse the dems of being secret gun controllers.
Post Sandy Hook, Colorado passed a raft of minor gun laws. A seat that had been held by democrats for a long time was lost in a recall election. This term a few more passed, I have no clue what’s going to happen in November, but it could cost another seat or two.
yeah the gun issue is tough as iron in right wing voters. if they didnt change their minds after Sandy hook nothing will move them. The gun laws being made by dems dont so jack shit anyway. It's window dressing. I would not be sad if they just stopped talking about it. Something like universal healthcare or a new round of stimulus checks would do more to stop gun violence than the performative laws the dems have to move heaven and earth to get passed.
Exactly. Beyond that, it isn’t just conservatives who own guns. I hunt with mostly liberals and yep, we all own guns. It’s just not our whole identity. Hell, I take a week every year and my coworkers just know it’s a fall guys trip. They don’t need to know that I’m doing long hard hikes with a rifle, trying to put an elk in my freezer.
I think, just as guns have become an identity marker for some on the other side, fighting guns has also become an identity marker.
It has, but I know quite a few democrats who own guns, we just don’t make it our whole identity
I dislike this take. It comes off as thinking non urban voters are only interested in banning abortion and deporting homosexuals. The raving right is not big enough to elect the mass of politicians the gop consistently fields. The people in the center who still feel abandoned by democrat policies could be persuaded to vote for democrats if there were policies that actually worked for them. They have actual experience living through these policies and seeing how they pan out. This was absolutely clear in 2016 and the Democrats were like "uh, whatever". Plenty of rural voters are facing the same income inequality as urban voters and could easily vote together if these issues were taken seriously. Social equality politics is important, but it is too often used as a screen for the fact that the Democrats aren't actually interested in balancing the inequality in this country. Social policy around race and sexuality in no way prevents us from taking care of everyone. But that is the image that is easily built by the on-the-ground realities. The issue, as always, is that you can't protect minorities, fund rural communities AND give rich people whatever nonsense thing they are demanding this year.
lol first time finding out how the senate works?
It’s more like a 30% chance, not a 0% chance. But otherwise I agree.
Dems actually have a pretty good chance in 2024. They faced equally bad odds in 2020 and 2022 and still came out on top because Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot with garbage candidates despite Senate maps generally being titled in their favor. Your main point is still correct, though. Dems shouldn't be beating the farm on holding the Senate for another two years and both Sotomayor and Kagan should step down for younger liberal justices ASAP.
But something something how dare anyone tell these strong women what to do #girlpower
we’re done with history, it’s time for herstory (in Gilead)
The best senate maps for Dems are on 6 year cycles. 2022, 2028. If Biden wins in November its unlikely a Dem wins in 2028 since parties usually switch after an incumbent leaves (Bush Senior is the most recent example). So, 2034, or 2040 become the next good chance.
Democrats just can’t get the senate back unless they can make in-roads into the middle of America. Losing Ohio and Iowa as battleground states has been disastrous
Democrats are really bad at doing what’s necessary. Trump would kill his VP to win, Biden wouldn’t ask someone to retire.
Kagan is healthy as a horse, sotomayor i can understand for next term.
She’s not as healthy as a horse, she’s an obese 64 year old. I don’t doubt she gets the best of treatment but obesity increases your risk for countless illnesses.
Yup. No more of this...BS. Next they will claim Ginsburg was also healthy.
Would sinema or manchin go along with this? If not then we’re sol.
This is such a stupid argument made by people who think they’re being really smart. Manchin and Sinema have explicitly said they won’t support Dem judicial appointments going forward that lack bipartisan support. Republicans will NEVER support this stupid “install younger liberals” plan. So, there is ZERO ability to replace any retiring justices between now and the election. That means, these discriminatory, ageist arguments that are so popular among young, supposedly anti-discrimination progressives, all lead to a dead end. Yes, Boomers suck. Yes, everybody’s too old and everybody should retire and make room. And yes, if they die with a Republican in office, they’ll be replaced by conservatives. That’s all true. But you still literally can’t replace them, so they’re our only option, “too old” or not. If they WERE to retire today, we’d have 2 vacancies waiting for whoever wins the presidency in November. Look at the polls and explain to me why I’d want THAT. Attacking “Democrats” for not forcing justices to retire seems to be the only point of this exercise. If you’re an angry progressive, this whole argument seems designed to convince you that older Democrats are your real problem, not MAGA Republicans. Since the 2016 primary, that’s been an appealing argument to some. But given the argued-for “solution” is 100% not possible, the whole debate seems pointless. Time spent convincing people to vote for Biden is far more constructive than convincing them to be mad at Elana Kagan for selfishly existing.
This is correct. Winning happens at elections. Democrats, specifically liberal ones, seem 100% allergic to this logic. Trump 2016 is proof, and the way they are attacking Biden and refusing to vote for him proves this out again. There is a level of naivety that I can't fathom amongst these voters.
Amen, they are the other side of Trump's coin, just as necessary for him to win
I wish Democrats could at least run on policies that acknowledge the GOP's pure and unabated descent into fascism. They should run on packing the court and impeaching every conservative justice, whether immediately possible or not. Sometime in the next 50 years it'll likely be doable. But Boomer Democrats still crave "normalcy" and want to act like it still exists.
Boomer Democrats seem to all be living in 1998.
The only reason to make this argument is that democrats don’t have enough national support to get a more progressive court seated. Basically saying there’s not enough of us to vote this reality, so we need court justices to be magnanimous.
I don't trust Manchin and Sinema to help replace them so this is a non-starter.
If trump gets reelected, it is all but a guarantee Alito and Thomas will step down. That means the former president, literally the worst possible person to appoint supreme court justices, will have appointed 5 out of the 9. More than half the court will preserve his legacy of intolerance and hate. At best, they use the advantage to press a conservative agenda. With a solid 6-3 majority, say goodbye to Brown v. Board.
That’s not how this works. And it’s not going to happen.
This is a stupid post.
I'm not gonna lie, I got clickbaited to this thread thinking that the headline was a call to resign in protest, not "resign to get a strapping young whippersnapper to hold the seat for their longer lifetime"
Y'all love posting the hottest political takes ever.
And if even one senator dies before they are appointed? The moment Republicans have say so over Supreme Court justices appointments, no Democrat President will appoint one. Republicans have ruined the Supreme Court.
At present the oldest members of the supreme court are Alito (74) and Thomas (75), and Roberts (69) is tied with Sotomayor (69). Furthermore, [life expectancy tables](https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/publications/docs/adm/06adm-5att8.pdf) show even they can expect another decade of life on average - none of these justices are likely to die before their mid-80s. Replacing judges potentially 20 years early simply because politics is unpredictable is undemocratic, and insane.
Ginsburg was 87 when she did...a full generation older than both of these women. What a ridiculous nonsensical article. Progressives are focusing on the wrong problem here. It isn't the 64 and 70 year old on the SCOTUS, it is the 81 year old in the White House. The problem isn't that Trump is leading, it is the liberals and progressives are too busy tearing down Biden...the only chance at winning. The problem is that Democrats find a way to cannibalize themselves, create a circular firing squad, zero tolerance litmus tests...pick your slogan. Trump is easily the most beatable candidate in the field...next to Biden, yet many on the left continue to knock Joe's wobbly legs out from underneath him. Instead of focusing on an election which could allow them to replace the two oldest Justices (Alito and Thomas) and rebalancing the makeup of the court, they are unconcerned about Nov and somehow want to solidify a losing minority? This is how a terribly inept and lackluster GOP keeps finding a way to punch above their weight. They stick together and they let the Democrats strategically shoot themselves.
Neither has a terminal illness so their life expectancies must be in the 90s. There are great drugs for diabetes these days. Way too early to retire.
Too late now. They should have at the beginning of bidens term.
You think the GOP will let Biden appoint a SC justice this close to the election, you are foolish and dumb.
The GOP doesn’t control the senate right now, unlike the last two times a justice died.
Very bizarre senate rules can allow a random lawmaker to block certain proceedings. Remember Tuberville’s block of all military noms?
100% !!! Don't make the same mistake as RBG.
Sadly RBG had terminal cancer. Justice Kagan is a healthy 64 yr old and Sotomayor may have a chronic disease but that can be managed even well into her 80s if monitored and controlled with medication. I just wouldn’t trust the senate to do the right thing. I would worry someone will balk at the close timeframe to the election.
They're not as bad health-wise as RBG was when he refused to step down, but they're still old enough that it would be normal for them retire. It has become normalized in politics for excessively old people to stick around even into their 80s, but in most jobs 65-70 is considered the appropriate time to retire. Considering how lopsided SCOTUS is already with conservative justices, it would be prudent to do everything possible to safeguard the remaining liberal balance of the Court. To not do so would be putting the future of the country in the hands of fate because we can't know when the next time is that Dems will hold both the presidency and the Senate. Also sudden unpredictable deaths are always possible like what happened to Scalia.
I don’t see either of them stepping down now and chaotic issues in Congress will for sure keep them planted firmly as possible.
Bad look when the President they are hoping wins in November is literally a decade plus older than either of them, no?