Straight Dope Message Board

[pool]

Another thing to think about, it seems in most of this thread, everyone assumes that Ginsburg will stay in office right up until the moment she dies. Now granted, she does strike me as a workhorse that is dedicated to her job, but I was surprised to learn that Scalia was only the third Supreme Court Justice to ever die in office. 151

[HurricaneDitka]

If she resigns while President Trump is still in office, I doubt the left will ever forgive her. 152

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

If she resigns while President Trump is still in office, I doubt the left will ever forgive her.

As a loyal member of "the left," I hope she stays as long as she can. If she feels she has to resign for health or other personal reasons, I would certainly not think I had to "forgive her." 153

[pjacks]

I've already not forgiven her for refusing to retire back when Obama held the White House & Democrats held the Senate. 154

[SlackerInc]

I agree with pjacks. So at this point she better have the opposite of a DNR order, and every legal avenue should be taken, while she is hooked up to the machines and Trump is still in office, to insist that she “might get better” so we have to wait. 155

[Hermitian]

Originally Posted by pool

Another thing to think about, it seems in most of this thread, everyone assumes that Ginsburg will stay in office right up until the moment she dies. Now granted, she does strike me as a workhorse that is dedicated to her job, but I was surprised to learn that Scalia was only the third Supreme Court Justice to ever die in office.

I am pretty sure that even if she dies in office, her aides will still wheel her in and wiggle her arm and head every once in a while to confirm that she is alive. 156

[bump]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

I am pretty sure that even if she dies in office, her aides will still wheel her in and wiggle her arm and head every once in a while to confirm that she is alive.

"Weekend at Ruthie's" I guess 157

[Sherrerd]

Today RBG filmed an interview in connection with the National Book Festival. I watched some of it; she's clearly in great mental shape and I don't see much difference in her physical demeanor, either.

When asked how she was feeling, Ginsburg quipped, "Well first, this audience can see that I am alive!"

The festival crowd cheered.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/75629...-s-october-ter 158

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Today RBG filmed an interview in connection with the National Book Festival. I watched some of it; she's clearly in great mental shape and I don't see much difference in her physical demeanor, either.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/31/75629...-s-october-ter

Yes, but...

She's 85.

Admittedly my views on this are colored by the fact that I've become my 85-year-old father's caretaker.

And here's the thing. He too is a federal judge (district court), on inactive status. He is in no way competent to be a judge anymore.

He's exactly the same age as Justice Ginsberg (and, in fact, was in her class at Columbia Law, and knows her slightly). And I know there's no way he should be on the bench.

I really, really worry about the competence of anyone at that age. I worry about Bernie Sanders getting elected.

I know, there are exceptions, and RBG is probably one of them. But still... 159

[AK84]

Trial Court is significantly more difficult that Supreme Court for a judge. 160

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser

Yes, but...

She's 85.

Admittedly my views on this are colored by the fact that I've become my 85-year-old father's caretaker.

And here's the thing. He too is a federal judge (district court), on inactive status. He is in no way competent to be a judge anymore.

He's exactly the same age as Justice Ginsberg (and, in fact, was in her class at Columbia Law, and knows her slightly). And I know there's no way he should be on the bench.

I really, really worry about the competence of anyone at that age. I worry about Bernie Sanders getting elected.

I know, there are exceptions, and RBG is probably one of them. But still...

I agree with you about both cases but the weird politics of the SCOTUS require that we try to hang on. I really like the proposal to make terms 18 years long and have one be up every two years. This would also stop making presidents feel like they need to put really young people on the Court when someone more seasoned would be better. 161

[Dinsdale]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

...I really like the proposal to make terms 18 years long and have one be up every two years. This would also stop making presidents feel like they need to put really young people on the Court when someone more seasoned would be better.

Boy, that really does sound like a good idea to me. 162

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Let's not pretend that there was an actual rule here.

So he wouldn't be breaking a rule then … Nice 163

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by AK84

Trial Court is significantly more difficult that Supreme Court for a judge.

Lawyers and judges have told me that. It seems believable. District courts run all year - there's no term, like the Supreme Court. There's a lot more nuts and bolts and little stuff. Motions, conferences, telephone calls, etc, not to mention ongoing trials.

Nonetheless, I have concerns about 85-year-olds in incredibly important positions. 164

[Shodan]

Bumping this. Justice Ginsberg missed arguments today due to what was described as a stomach bug. So, not a serious ailment, to the extent that anything can be described as "not serious" for an 85 year old.

Regards,
Shodan 165

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Bumping this. Justice Ginsberg missed arguments today due to what was described as a stomach bug. So, not a serious ailment, to the extent that anything can be described as "not serious" for an 85 year old.

Regards,
Shodan

Wipe your chin, will ya? Your drool is shorting out my keyboard. 166

[dalej42]

Yeah, I’m much younger than Ginsberg, but I’ve had awful stomach bugs where I was running to the bathroom non stop. A day or two with Gatorade and bland food and I was fine. 167

[Hermitian]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Wipe your chin, will ya? Your drool is shorting out my keyboard.

I am not sure if there is any other thread on the SDMB that causes such terror when it is bumped. 168

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

I am not sure if there is any other thread on the SDMB that causes such terror when it is bumped.

I think it is the recognition that there is a real risk that Ginsberg will die or retire* while Trump is still President and the GOP controls the Senate. A 5-4 court is bad enough. A 6-3 court is something they don't even want to think about.

Regards,
Shodan

*OK, probably not retire. The only way she will leave the Court is feet-first. But she's 85, has had multiple bouts with cancer, and 85 year olds don't bounce back from even minor illness the way a younger person does.

I don't wish her any ill, but the title of this thread is a real question. 169

[QuickSilver]

So you bumped this thread to wish Justice Ginsberg a full and speedy recovery?

Shodan, such a mensch! 170

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser

Lawyers and judges have told me that. It seems believable. District courts run all year - there's no term, like the Supreme Court. There's a lot more nuts and bolts and little stuff. Motions, conferences, telephone calls, etc, not to mention ongoing trials.

Nonetheless, I have concerns about 85-year-olds in incredibly important positions.

I’ve got concerns about a 54-year old, a 52-year old, a 71-year old, a 69-year old, and a 64-year old in equally important positions. 171

[CarnalK]

I bet that's a great joke, totally worth clicking blind links for. 172

[Miller]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

I bet that's a great joke, totally worth clicking blind links for.

You know you can hover your mouse over links, and your browser will tell you where they go, right?

In this case, they're links to the wikipedia entries for the conservative justices on the court. 173

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

I bet that's a great joke, totally worth clicking blind links for.

Is hovering over a link to see the URL before clicking through a prohibited practice in your world? 174

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Miller

You know you can hover your mouse over links, and your browser will tell you where they go, right?

In this case, they're links to the wikipedia entries for the conservative justices on the court.

Gotta take issue with your sloppy use of the word “conservatives” there. 175

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Is hovering over a link to see the URL before clicking through a prohibited practice in your world?

Yes, in my world phones don't have cursors to hover over things. Where are you from? 176

[Inner Stickler]

On my phone's browser, a long press opens up a context menu that lets me see the full link, copy it, share it, etc without actually going to wherever the link leads. 177

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Yes, in my world phones don't have cursors to hover over things. Where are you from?

So long press the link. Your failure to learn how to use a device is not someone else's problem. 178

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

On my phone's browser, a long press opens up a context menu that lets me see the full link, copy it, share it, etc without actually going to wherever the link leads.

On my phone too. You know what else my fucking phone does? It allows me to type out the actual names of the random people I want to list while making my brilliant jab at Shodan. 179

[Inner Stickler]

I'm starting to think this isn't about the links. 180

[CarnalK]

Correct. It's about an extremely lame joke being done in a ponderous manner. 181

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Correct. It's about an extremely lame joke being done in a ponderous manner.

Mr. CarnalK... SNL writers are on hold for you on line 5. 182

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Correct. It's about an extremely lame joke being done in a ponderous manner.

thank god you're dragging it out then 183

[Personal]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

On my phone's browser, a long press opens up a context menu that lets me see the full link, copy it, share it, etc without actually going to wherever the link leads.

What browser? I can copy and share using chrome but the long press doesn't actually show me the link. That's a good idea actually. Feel like an idiot for not having thought of it before and seeking it out.

/Derail 184

[Inner Stickler]

I use firefox focus mostly on my phone but the version of google chrome that I have also displays the link, though in chrome, I have to tap the link in the context menu to see the full url which is ugh. 185

[Personal]

Thank you for the tip 186

[Projammer]

Seeing the news about Ginsburg missing arguments reminded me of a question I wanted to pose here.

How long would she have to hold out on her deathbed before confirmation could be forced to the next administration assuming the left could get four republicans to vote with them?

Obama nominated Merrick Garland on March 6 so that sets a baseline of about 8 months. 187

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Correct. It's about an extremely lame joke being done in a ponderous manner.

Gotta take issue with your sloppy use of the word “joke,” there. 188

[Miller]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

On my phone too. You know what else my fucking phone does? It allows me to type out the actual names of the random people I want to list while making my brilliant jab at Shodan.

It also lets you just type, "That's a lame joke," instead of whinging about blind links whose destination you already know. 189

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Projammer

Seeing the news about Ginsburg missing arguments reminded me of a question I wanted to pose here.

How long would she have to hold out on her deathbed before confirmation could be forced to the next administration assuming the left could get four republicans to vote with them?

Obama nominated Merrick Garland on March 6 so that sets a baseline of about 8 months.

I don't think that's the right baseline. Normally confirmation processes run for a few months, but in a rush, I suspect the Republicans could get it done in a few weeks, so ... she's got to hold out until, I don't know, sometime around New Year's Day 2021. 190

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I don't think that's the right baseline. Normally confirmation processes run for a few months, but in a rush, I suspect the Republicans could get it done in a few weeks, so ... she's got to hold out until, I don't know, sometime around New Year's Day 2021.

Technically, I wonder what prevents Trump from nominating a replacement if Ginsburg dies, and Senate Republicans from confirming the nominee that very day or next day. There seems to be no rule written in law that a confirmation must take a certain amount of time. So maybe even until January 19, 2021. 191

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Technically, I wonder what prevents Trump from nominating a replacement if Ginsburg dies, and Senate Republicans from confirming the nominee that very day or next day. There seems to be no rule written in law that a confirmation must take a certain amount of time. So maybe even until January 19, 2021.

Maybe. I suspect there are some rules about procedures that have to take place (for example, I seem to recall that 30 hours of floor debate time must be allotted). I suppose if they're feeling ruthless enough they might be able to nuclear-option those rules away on the morning of the 20th and hold a quick vote at 11:45 AM. 192

[Projammer]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I don't think that's the right baseline. Normally confirmation processes run for a few months, but in a rush, I suspect the Republicans could get it done in a few weeks, so ... she's got to hold out until, I don't know, sometime around New Year's Day 2021.

I understand that that would likely be the case. My hypothetical assumed that there would be enough republicans voting with the left to block a nomination until the after the next POTUS takes office. My question was how long they would be able to keep the seat open if Ginsburg does pass before the end of the current term. If it happens tonight would they be able to stall for a year? 193

[CarnalK]

If they refuse to hold confirmation hearings, why wouldn't they be able to leave the seat open indefinitely? Functionally, that causes a bunch of problems but I can't think of any possible legal roadblock. 194

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Miller

It also lets you just type, "That's a lame joke," instead of whinging about blind links whose destination you already know.

Was that really worth the pixels, dude? Day old news. 195

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by Projammer

I understand that that would likely be the case. My hypothetical assumed that there would be enough republicans voting with the left to block a nomination until the after the next POTUS takes office. My question was how long they would be able to keep the seat open if Ginsburg does pass before the end of the current term. If it happens tonight would they be able to stall for a year?

Sure, I see no reason they couldn't stall indefinitely, a reverse Garland. 196

[Projammer]

How would that be a reverse Garland? Wasn't that pretty much exactly what Garland was? Stalling until there was a new administration in the hopes it would be Republican? 197

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Maybe. I suspect there are some rules about procedures that have to take place (for example, I seem to recall that 30 hours of floor debate time must be allotted). I suppose if they're feeling ruthless enough they might be able to nuclear-option those rules away on the morning of the 20th and hold a quick vote at 11:45 AM.

There there's precedent for rapid nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices.

John McLean was nominated to the court on March 6, 1829 by President Andrew Jackson. He was confirmed by the Senate and received his commission the next day.

Any rules in the modern day that would slow a confirmation hearing could be done away with by a determined majority. 198

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Projammer

Seeing the news about Ginsburg missing arguments reminded me of a question I wanted to pose here.

How long would she have to hold out on her deathbed before confirmation could be forced to the next administration assuming the left could get four republicans to vote with them?

Obama nominated Merrick Garland on March 6 so that sets a baseline of about 8 months.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but Justices serve on the Court until they die, resign, or are impeached and removed (Samuel Chase is the only Justice to be impeached, and he was not removed).

So assuming Ginsberg is on her deathbed and unable to speak or communicate, she is still technically a Justice. To remove her, she would have to be impeached by the House (currently controlled by the Dems, so not likely even if she is in a persistent vegetative state) and removed by the Senate (currently controlled by the GOP, but they can't remove her until she is impeached).

Thus Ginsberg needs to keep breathing until either Trump is out of office, or until the GOP loses control of the Senate.

If Ginsberg is no longer a Justice for whatever reason, the Dems will stall until the 2020 elections and hope for the best. The GOP will try to get another Justice confirmed while they have the chance.

Ginsberg has to hang on until the Dems regain control of the White House, the Senate, or both.

Regards,
Shodan 199

[HurricaneDitka]

Hospitalized 200