Very important point Justice Ginsburg made.
That litigants are being denied their right to a decision.
Win or lose, they deserve to know where they stand so they can move on with their lives.
That’s point of having an odd number. The question is …why don’t we have 9 Justices?
Oh wait…
Obama
Like Thomas, or Alito?
Interesting!
A TSA official spoke about the lack of funding they have been receiving and thus are unable to hire more staff as needed! Its all the RepubliCANTs fault of course. Now Jurist Ginsburg raises the fact the SCOTUS are unable to fulfill their job due to a missing member on the bench (GoP sees this as “shrinking” government). Will there be more federal agencies coming forth stating their mission are at severe risk at fulfilling their missions to due to a poorly educated GoP members in Congress?
I was thinking more along the lines of Notorious RBG…
I would think a Justice in the mold of Sandra Day O’ Connor would be acceptable to most people.
I don’t remember which Republican said his goal was to shrink the government down to the size he could drown it in a bathtub, maybe Grover Norquist, but I’m not sure.
But the strategy is clear…obstruct, deny facts, traffic in rumors and outright lies and then, when chaos ensues, pound your chest and shout “I told you so”.
It continues to amaze me that people who depend on “the Government” for their very lives, vote for people who want to explode it!
Ten- year term limits for the Supreme Court. When the Founding Father’s first installed the Court, people did not live as long as they do now. There was a much larger turnover. Today, these justices can live through three generations of Americans. This would require an amendment to the Constitution but I think that every generation should have a shot at having a say in our country’s future.
10 years is too short, I’d say 25 as it allows for some consistency in the court that is absent from legislative and the executive.
You are talking about the average life expectancy in Revolutionary times. Many poor people died young and horribly, but the Founding Fathers were not of that ilk…
Well fed, rich land owned, lived about as long as we do today…
You know, Ruthie, I’ve got a great idea! Why don’t you retire and then we will have 7 judges. Then the voting will be the same as 9 judges - one to cast the deciding vote - 4 to 3. I hope this helps you out.
Still, that being said, judges, in general live in a fucking fantasy world.
Scalia’s vote was heavy but still counted as just one.
No Democrat will ever nominate a replacement that comes close to Scalia’s leanings and garbled sense of justice.
Considering who we’ve got and are going to have. We are stuck at a deadlock 8 until death does them part or until a conservative ages out. Considering how much the Repubs have to slant the court to win and to keep their bullshit alive, we are looking at the prospect of 100 year old conservative Justices. Oh yay!
If The Justices voted the Law, rather than their Politics, things would be just fine. I didn’t care for FDR trying to “Pack” the Court. But I do wonder sometimes if nine was the right number after all. If it wasn’t for the enduring Stupid-stition, I do wonder if 13 or even 15 might have been better. With one stipulation. 75 and Out.
Full Mandatory Retirement, and yes, this is one of the very Rare times I believe the Constitution ought to be amended to that effect.
And the fact is, when they (small government lovers) lose their Social Security check, or their Disability check, or no longer have access to Medicare or Medicaid…then and only then will all of these dumb asses realized what a wonder United Service they once had!
Better yet, let’s have the Republicans in Congress do their damned jobs and stop trying to invalidate this president.
The Constitution is pretty clear.