quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Her fidelity has/was and is appreciated by many.
Obviously,she stayed on hoping for an Obama win....well he got it,now she needs to have her needs seen to.
Obama must put a short list together,he really should sit down with Ginsburg and assure her that the balance of the court will be protected and that it is time now to rest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyRedRoseToo

she's done her best and given her all during her tenure, time to take care of herself, write a few books maybe, just time to relax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Ruth doesn't look so good.
I'm no Doctor but she looks about ready to step down.
I wouldn't be shocked if the announcement doesn't come soon.

quote:

Supreme Court jurisprudence
Ginsburg characterizes her performance on the Court as a cautious approach to adjudication, and argued in a speech shortly before her nomination to the Court that "[m]easured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable."[22] Ginsburg has urged that the Court allow for dialogue with elected branches, while others argue that would inevitably lead to politicizing the Court.

quote:

Although Ginsburg has consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the Court's opinion striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart 530 U.S. 914 (2000) she has criticized the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.[citation needed] She discussed her views on abortion rights and sexual equality in a 2009 New York Times interview, in which she said regarding abortion that "[t]he basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."[23] One statement she made during the interview ("Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.")[23] was criticized by conservative commentator Michael Gerson as reflecting an "attitude . . . that abortion is economically important to a 'woman of means' and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables."[24]
Ginsburg has also been an advocate for using foreign law and norms to shape U.S. law in judicial opinions,[25] in contrast to the textualist views of her colleagues Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. Despite their fundamental differences, Ginsburg considers Scalia her closest colleague on the Court, and they often dine and attend the opera together.[26]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I found the bolded statement to be amusing. While my amusement has nothing to do with Justice Ginsburg, the argument by others that the Court could become politicized seems so ironic, as, it already is politicized. Take the ruling on Obamacare as an example. From the get-go, the questioned votes weren't about how the 4 Justices considered liberal were going to vote. Those votes were already in the can. It was all about those 2 or 3 possible "swing" votes. Every President nominates Justices that hold the same political leanings they espouse. While there is no direct "back scratching" going on, it's always assumed the Justice is going to toe the line of the party that nominated him/her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I found the bolded statement to be amusing. While my amusement has nothing to do with Justice Ginsburg, the argument by others that the Court could become politicized seems so ironic, as, it already is politicized. Take the ruling on Obamacare as an example. From the get-go, the questioned votes weren't about how the 4 Justices considered liberal were going to vote. Those votes were already in the can. It was all about those 2 or 3 possible "swing" votes. Every President nominates Justices that hold the same political leanings they espouse. While there is no direct "back scratching" going on, it's always assumed the Justice is going to toe the line of the party that nominated him/her.

The point you should have gotten from the ACA ruling was that 3 justices with a long track record of supporting an expnsive reading of government power including the commerce clause went against their established position for wholly political reasons.
The fact that 4 justices' votes were never seriously in doubt was because the law was so obviously constitutional based on long and entirely uncontroversial precedent.
Roberts reversed himself to save his Court. He knew another completely political ruling in a high profile case so soon after CU and Bush v Gore would end the Court's credibility and allow Obama to expand the bench and put at least 2 liberals on the bench which would have rendered Roberts, who has well known delusions about his place in history, irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Her fidelity has/was and is appreciated by many.
Obviously,she stayed on hoping for an Obama win....well he got it,now she needs to have her needs seen to.
Obama must put a short list together,he really should sit down with Ginsburg and assure her that the balance of the court will be protected and that it is time now to rest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I found the bolded statement to be amusing. While my amusement has nothing to do with Justice Ginsburg, the argument by others that the Court could become politicized seems so ironic, as, it already is politicized. Take the ruling on Obamacare as an example. From the get-go, the questioned votes weren't about how the 4 Justices considered liberal were going to vote. Those votes were already in the can. It was all about those 2 or 3 possible "swing" votes. Every President nominates Justices that hold the same political leanings they espouse. While there is no direct "back scratching" going on, it's always assumed the Justice is going to toe the line of the party that nominated him/her.

The point you should have gotten from the ACA ruling was that 3 justices with a long track record of supporting an expnsive reading of government power including the commerce clause went against their established position for wholly political reasons.
The fact that 4 justices' votes were never seriously in doubt was because the law was so obviously constitutional based on long and entirely uncontroversial precedent.
Roberts reversed himself to save his Court. He knew another completely political ruling in a high profile case so soon after CU and Bush v Gore would end the Court's credibility and allow Obama to expand the bench and put at least 2 liberals on the bench which would have rendered Roberts, who has well known delusions about his place in history, irrelevant.

The law was not obviously constitutional, Ken. The ACA, as argued, wasn't a tax. The ACA wasn't Constitutional as a mandate. It was only Constitutional under the taxing authority (which I still disagree with, as the ACA isn't under the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, thus, they have no authority to tax for that it).

And, regardless of who made political votes, the truth of the matter is that the SCOTUS is quite political. And, that is a sad, sad, truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I found the bolded statement to be amusing. While my amusement has nothing to do with Justice Ginsburg, the argument by others that the Court could become politicized seems so ironic, as, it already is politicized. Take the ruling on Obamacare as an example. From the get-go, the questioned votes weren't about how the 4 Justices considered liberal were going to vote. Those votes were already in the can. It was all about those 2 or 3 possible "swing" votes. Every President nominates Justices that hold the same political leanings they espouse. While there is no direct "back scratching" going on, it's always assumed the Justice is going to toe the line of the party that nominated him/her.

The point you should have gotten from the ACA ruling was that 3 justices with a long track record of supporting an expnsive reading of government power including the commerce clause went against their established position for wholly political reasons.
The fact that 4 justices' votes were never seriously in doubt was because the law was so obviously constitutional based on long and entirely uncontroversial precedent.
Roberts reversed himself to save his Court. He knew another completely political ruling in a high profile case so soon after CU and Bush v Gore would end the Court's credibility and allow Obama to expand the bench and put at least 2 liberals on the bench which would have rendered Roberts, who has well known delusions about his place in history, irrelevant.

The law was not obviously constitutional, Ken. The ACA, as argued, wasn't a tax. The ACA wasn't Constitutional as a mandate. It was only Constitutional under the taxing authority (which I still disagree with, as the ACA isn't under the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, thus, they have no authority to tax for that it).

And, regardless of who made political votes, the truth of the matter is that the SCOTUS is quite political. And, that is a sad, sad, truth.

It was completely and unquestionably constitutional both under the commerce clause and under the taxing authority. Scalia in particular had written previous rulings that supported an extremely broad reading of the commerce clause.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Alito was the sole dissenting justice who didn't have a long record on the other side of their vote.

And actually the SCOTUS has not often been as blatantly political as it has been in the last 15 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
There was actually a small but significant trend in limiting the power of the Commerce Clause since United States v. Lopez in 1995. The ACA decision on the Commerce Clause arguments was another step in that direction. The Gonazalez case you linked to has been explained as falling into the Court's "dope is different" jurisprudence (that's my con law professor's phrase...I wish I could claim it). As far as the taxing authority, that part of the decision was correct, at least under years of precedent.

quote:

I would argue that people have been attacking the Court for being too political since John Marshall was Chief Justice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I found the bolded statement to be amusing. While my amusement has nothing to do with Justice Ginsburg, the argument by others that the Court could become politicized seems so ironic, as, it already is politicized. Take the ruling on Obamacare as an example. From the get-go, the questioned votes weren't about how the 4 Justices considered liberal were going to vote. Those votes were already in the can. It was all about those 2 or 3 possible "swing" votes. Every President nominates Justices that hold the same political leanings they espouse. While there is no direct "back scratching" going on, it's always assumed the Justice is going to toe the line of the party that nominated him/her.

The point you should have gotten from the ACA ruling was that 3 justices with a long track record of supporting an expnsive reading of government power including the commerce clause went against their established position for wholly political reasons.
The fact that 4 justices' votes were never seriously in doubt was because the law was so obviously constitutional based on long and entirely uncontroversial precedent.
Roberts reversed himself to save his Court. He knew another completely political ruling in a high profile case so soon after CU and Bush v Gore would end the Court's credibility and allow Obama to expand the bench and put at least 2 liberals on the bench which would have rendered Roberts, who has well known delusions about his place in history, irrelevant.

The law was not obviously constitutional, Ken. The ACA, as argued, wasn't a tax. The ACA wasn't Constitutional as a mandate. It was only Constitutional under the taxing authority (which I still disagree with, as the ACA isn't under the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, thus, they have no authority to tax for that it).

And, regardless of who made political votes, the truth of the matter is that the SCOTUS is quite political. And, that is a sad, sad, truth.