Froggy has a prediction posted at Blackfive that I had not considered this week. If this one comes to pass, liberal heads are likely to explode. While you are at Blackfive, click on "main" and scroll down to read a bit. As I wrote earlier this week, the milblogs are picking up where the mainstream media is failing.
Update: More SCOTUS retirement talk can be found at Confirm Them (here and here).
It's possible - the theory of the "last hurrah" has some merit to it. Traditionally, despite the "lifetime" appointment, Justices have chosen to retire rather than die on the bench at an advanced age. I believe we've had more of the latter since 1960 than before that year.
Not only is Mr. Justice Stevens of an age where retirement at any moment would be blamelessly expected, his age also tempts mortality's own actuarial charts.
I have heard for the last several years that Madame Justice Ginsburg is battling a form of cancer which is considered incurable.
I wish a long life and good health to both, and I hope they will soon step down, in order to enjoy it to the fullest.
õ¿õ
1. Posted by
Adjoran | July 1, 2006 1:29 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
2. Posted by
Dominick | July 1, 2006 5:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dominick:
Ginsburg's cancer is in remission as far as most people know. There are no reports that she is currently undergoing any sort of active treatment.
That said, I have been to Court arguments and she simply does not look like a well person. She "looks" old, frail, and feeble now, which had not been the case.
Stevens, even at 86, still appears to be in good health and able to conduct himself on the bench. I doubt his retirement is being affected by any health issues.
None of this, however, would stop them from retiring. Of course, I can't see Justice Ginsburg retiring under a Republican president, especially this one. There is simply no way that her replacement would not be more conservative than her (I mean even another Souter or Kennedy would shift the Court to the right in comparison to RBG).
Justice Stevens is, at least, a Republican (I doubt he's still in the party, but that's his origin) and so may have some sentimental or "honorable" feeling about his retirement. But he is a liberal jurist, and I don't think he's interested in seeing his retirement cause any significant shifts. I think he'll wait until next summer in hopes that the Republicans will lose seats in the Senate making it more likely that Bush would have to pick a more moderate nominee for the vacancy.
2. Posted by
Dominick | July 1, 2006 5:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
3. Posted by
USMC Pilot | July 1, 2006 9:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
USMC Pilot:
Most justices retire when they feel they have nothing left to contribute to the court. Since the liberal justices had nothing to contribute to begin with, it's doubtful they will ever retire.
3. Posted by
USMC Pilot | July 1, 2006 9:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
4. Posted by
ted | July 1, 2006 10:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ted:
adjoran, OK, I'll be honest, unlike you, I do not wish either Stevens and/or Ginsberg longer life or "continued" good health, that is, unless they immediately retire from the SCOTUS. Really, how can I?
4. Posted by
ted | July 1, 2006 10:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
5. Posted by
Justrand | July 1, 2006 10:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Justrand:
"Justice" Stevens has just authored a ruling that simultaneously SHACKLES (pun intended) our ability to incarcerate those who would destroy us, and slaps CHIEF Justice Roberts across the face (since Stevens' "ruling" overturns Roberts').
Long life to Stevens? As long as it is in retirement...and real soon!
GinsBUG too,
5. Posted by
Justrand | July 1, 2006 10:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
6. Posted by
jpm100 | July 1, 2006 4:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
jpm100:
This round of appointees is why the Left has been so rabid against Bush.
They don't care about the Office anywhere near as much as the Supreme Court. That's the prise. Clinton salted the federal court system 'liberally' with activist judges. With an activist supreme court, the left will get everything they want as fast as the ACLU can file briefs to them an excuse to make law.
Even after the Alito and Roberts appointments The court leans left enough. O'Conners was unreliably left. So her loss wasn't that great to the left. But if they lose Stephens, finally some sanity will be brought back to the courts.
6. Posted by
jpm100 | July 1, 2006 4:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The court has been wobbling for 50 years. With current tendancies to introduce international law into cases our country will not last. The Supreme Court is there to inturpret law through the lens of the constitution. As long as the court operates outside its mandate we the American people will suffer.
7. Posted by
ablur | July 1, 2006 9:56 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
9. Posted by
Lee | July 2, 2006 2:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lee:
"Justice" Stevens has just authored a ruling that simultaneously SHACKLES (pun intended) our ability to incarcerate those who would destroy us...
The ruling had nothing whatsoever with our ability to incarcerate terrorists. It only addressed the illegal rules Bush attempted to use in trying them the military tribunals.
Sorry to confuse you guys with facts.
9. Posted by
Lee | July 2, 2006 2:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Get Wizbang in your inbox by submitting your email address below.
Fresh Links
The Wizbang® Network
Credits
Section Editor: Maggie Whitton
Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert
Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port
Comments (10)
It's possible - the theory ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Adjoran | July 1, 2006 1:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's possible - the theory of the "last hurrah" has some merit to it. Traditionally, despite the "lifetime" appointment, Justices have chosen to retire rather than die on the bench at an advanced age. I believe we've had more of the latter since 1960 than before that year.
Not only is Mr. Justice Stevens of an age where retirement at any moment would be blamelessly expected, his age also tempts mortality's own actuarial charts.
I have heard for the last several years that Madame Justice Ginsburg is battling a form of cancer which is considered incurable.
I wish a long life and good health to both, and I hope they will soon step down, in order to enjoy it to the fullest.
õ¿õ
1. Posted by Adjoran | July 1, 2006 1:29 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 01:29
2. Posted by Dominick | July 1, 2006 5:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ginsburg's cancer is in remission as far as most people know. There are no reports that she is currently undergoing any sort of active treatment.
That said, I have been to Court arguments and she simply does not look like a well person. She "looks" old, frail, and feeble now, which had not been the case.
Stevens, even at 86, still appears to be in good health and able to conduct himself on the bench. I doubt his retirement is being affected by any health issues.
None of this, however, would stop them from retiring. Of course, I can't see Justice Ginsburg retiring under a Republican president, especially this one. There is simply no way that her replacement would not be more conservative than her (I mean even another Souter or Kennedy would shift the Court to the right in comparison to RBG).
Justice Stevens is, at least, a Republican (I doubt he's still in the party, but that's his origin) and so may have some sentimental or "honorable" feeling about his retirement. But he is a liberal jurist, and I don't think he's interested in seeing his retirement cause any significant shifts. I think he'll wait until next summer in hopes that the Republicans will lose seats in the Senate making it more likely that Bush would have to pick a more moderate nominee for the vacancy.
2. Posted by Dominick | July 1, 2006 5:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 05:19
3. Posted by USMC Pilot | July 1, 2006 9:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Most justices retire when they feel they have nothing left to contribute to the court. Since the liberal justices had nothing to contribute to begin with, it's doubtful they will ever retire.
3. Posted by USMC Pilot | July 1, 2006 9:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 09:39
4. Posted by ted | July 1, 2006 10:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
adjoran, OK, I'll be honest, unlike you, I do not wish either Stevens and/or Ginsberg longer life or "continued" good health, that is, unless they immediately retire from the SCOTUS. Really, how can I?
4. Posted by ted | July 1, 2006 10:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 10:45
5. Posted by Justrand | July 1, 2006 10:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Justice" Stevens has just authored a ruling that simultaneously SHACKLES (pun intended) our ability to incarcerate those who would destroy us, and slaps CHIEF Justice Roberts across the face (since Stevens' "ruling" overturns Roberts').
Long life to Stevens? As long as it is in retirement...and real soon!
GinsBUG too,
5. Posted by Justrand | July 1, 2006 10:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 10:56
6. Posted by jpm100 | July 1, 2006 4:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This round of appointees is why the Left has been so rabid against Bush.
They don't care about the Office anywhere near as much as the Supreme Court. That's the prise. Clinton salted the federal court system 'liberally' with activist judges. With an activist supreme court, the left will get everything they want as fast as the ACLU can file briefs to them an excuse to make law.
Even after the Alito and Roberts appointments The court leans left enough. O'Conners was unreliably left. So her loss wasn't that great to the left. But if they lose Stephens, finally some sanity will be brought back to the courts.
6. Posted by jpm100 | July 1, 2006 4:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 16:30
7. Posted by ablur | July 1, 2006 9:56 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The court has been wobbling for 50 years. With current tendancies to introduce international law into cases our country will not last. The Supreme Court is there to inturpret law through the lens of the constitution. As long as the court operates outside its mandate we the American people will suffer.
7. Posted by ablur | July 1, 2006 9:56 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 21:56
8. Posted by OregonMuse | July 1, 2006 11:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My counter-prediction: no liberal SCOTUS justice will willingly retire with Bush still in office and able to pick the successor.
In fact, I'll go farther: Bush will not get any more chances to pick a Supreme Court justice.
8. Posted by OregonMuse | July 1, 2006 11:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2006 23:39
9. Posted by Lee | July 2, 2006 2:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Justice" Stevens has just authored a ruling that simultaneously SHACKLES (pun intended) our ability to incarcerate those who would destroy us...
The ruling had nothing whatsoever with our ability to incarcerate terrorists. It only addressed the illegal rules Bush attempted to use in trying them the military tribunals.
Sorry to confuse you guys with facts.
9. Posted by Lee | July 2, 2006 2:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 2, 2006 14:01
10. Posted by P. Bunyan | July 3, 2006 11:07 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Pullleeeeeezzzzzzeee God, please let this be true. That is my prayer today.
Remember last summer, O'Connor's retirment first came out in rumors in the blogosphere, so I'ma gonna pray this little rumor turns out to be true.
10. Posted by P. Bunyan | July 3, 2006 11:07 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 3, 2006 11:07