Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
If you were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would you retire now, just in case Obama loses the election?
At 79 years of age, the odds are that RBG has few productive years left on the Bench. When she retires or dies, the President will nominate a replacement. If Obama is still President, that means we'll get a carbon-copy of Ginsburg. But if Romney replaces her, we'll get a younger version of Sam Alito.
Knowing this, should Ginsburg take that risk, or should she retire now?
"Why do you assume she has only a few years left and not the older men? There are three men who are just about as old as she is."
Libraryanna, of the justices that were born in the 1930s, only Ginsburg (who is the oldest) and Breyer have anything to gain ideologically by quitting now. Scalia and Kennedy don't face the same dilemma, because they are conservatives (in Kennedy's case, only in comparison to Ginsburg).
Breyer is five-plus years younger. I only left him out because he can make it through a whole other term on the bench and still be younger than Ginsburg is now. So my naming Ginsburg has nothing to do with gender or sexism, sorry.
Whatever4, I have heard of the Thurmond Rule, but I have no reason to believe that Obama and the Democrats would abide by it. Don't forget Carter appointed Justice Breyer to the Court of Appeals in his last two months in office.
He has no compunction about recess appointments, so why wouldn't he try to make his own nomination in a last-gasp effort to establish a legacy? He may not be successful, but I wouldn't put it past him to try.
6 Answers
- LibraryannaLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
The process takes too long and the cons would delay it and refuse any replacement.
Why do you assume she has only a few years left and not the older men? There are three men who are just about as old as she is.
- Whatever4Lv 79 years ago
You've never heard of the “Thurmond Rule,” which is an informal rule that says presidents don't get to make life-time appointments in the last 6 months of a campaign or a lame-duck presidency. There is no way that a candidate for Supreme Court would get Senate confirmation before inauguration. None at all.
He could do a recess appointment, but that could polarize the electorate even more.
ADDED: The Democrats in the Senate don't have enough votes to advance the debate. The nomination would never make it to a vote.
- STEVEN FLv 79 years ago
We will now who won the election on Nov 7, 2012 (the day after the election). The new Senate takes office Jan 2, 2013. and President Obama's term ends at noon on January 20, 2013. She can resign AFTER the election and he would get to appoint a replacement that would face the same Senate for confirmation as they would today.
- Poohcat1Lv 79 years ago
If I were her, I would do what I want to do for myself. If she is a political hack...which I don't think she is, then of course I would retire. Our SCOTUS is supposed to be non partisan...
She may have liberal views on many things, but she also has a duty to our Constitution.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
Supreme Court Justices tend to lose their political ambitions once they are appointed. She will do what she wants, without really considering the political overtones.
- dobberxLv 79 years ago
IF she's even considering that, I think there'd be plenty of time after November 6th for her to do so if Obama loses.
L
