# How Much Longer Does Ginsburg Have? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 7, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368 "2019-01-07T19:17:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/221 "2019-11-25T23:21:27Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > … the entire reason why Merrick Garland is not a SCOTUS Justice is because the GOP is quite aware that SCOTUS is part of its political arm… The reason Merrick Garland is not a SCOTUS Justice is that the Senate is a political body with power over the confirmation process. There is a significant difference. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/222 "2019-11-26T00:55:15Z")
If anyone has politicized the Supreme Court it’s the Democrats. Democratic appointees have voted in lockstep with each other and with the Democratic Party’s preferred policies far more than have the Republican appointees. [Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices-column/2028450001/) > [@](#): > > There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once. > > That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel. In the 2014-15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power —the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year-long vacancy — the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39. Not really surprising, since the Republicans tend to appoint judges who promise to be strict constitutionalists, while the Democrats have appointed judges based on other qualities such as picking someone for a ‘Latina’ perspective, and always picking people who pass litmus tests for specific Democrat policies. When you choose strict constitutionalists, then you advocate for things that aren’t constitutional as Republicans sometimes do, you shouldn’t be surprised when the judges disagree with you, even if they are on the same political side. But if you choose judges based on their positions on specific issues of the day rather than adherence to the constitution, they are much more likely to vote your way and to vote together. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/223 "2019-11-26T01:32:36Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If anyone has politicized the Supreme Court it’s the Democrats. Democratic appointees have voted in lockstep with each other and with the Democratic Party’s preferred policies far more than have the Republican appointees. > > [Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices-column/2028450001/) > > Not really surprising, since the Republicans tend to appoint judges who promise to be strict constitutionalists, while the Democrats have appointed judges based on other qualities such as picking someone for a ‘Latina’ perspective, and always picking people who pass litmus tests for specific Democrat policies. > > When you choose strict constitutionalists, then you advocate for things that aren’t constitutional as Republicans sometimes do, you shouldn’t be surprised when the judges disagree with you, even if they are on the same political side. But if you choose judges based on their positions on specific issues of the day rather than adherence to the constitution, they are much more likely to vote your way and to vote together. It’s not the fault of Democrats that Republicans are bad at picking judges. And it’s a joke that the Republican judges are “strict constitutionalists”. That’s a convenient fiction, but they still just find ways to rationalize voting for their preferred outcome. We see it again and again. And we’ll continue to see it as long as SCOTUS is just another political branch. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/224 "2019-11-26T04:19:45Z")
How about this for a solution. Expand SCOTUS to 18 seats, provisioned as 6 left, 6 right, and 6 moderate/independent. Each case is then heard by a random selection of 9 that isn’t determined until the case is submitted for certification. That way no one can count on the current balance to work for or against them. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/225 "2019-11-26T04:29:39Z")
> [@Projammer](#): > > How about this for a solution. Expand SCOTUS to 18 seats, provisioned as 6 left, 6 right, and 6 moderate/independent. > > Each case is then heard by a random selection of 9 that isn’t determined until the case is submitted for certification. > > That way no one can count on the current balance to work for or against them. This is true, but if we agree to this we’re agreeing that occasionally cases will be argued by a fully ideologically stacked court. I don’t find that acceptable, I don’t think anybody who thinks about it for long would find it acceptable. I would favor packing out the court to mitigate Mitch McConnell’s treachery, and then term-limit justices to something like 18 years, and make it a law that the Senate must confirm in the same year that a Justice is nominated. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/226 "2019-11-27T04:17:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > SCOTUS is already just another political arm. This is a shame, but pretending it’s still an independent, non political branch of the government is just putting our heads in the sand and handing it over to the bad guys (who already own it). Like when they overturned Obamacare Or Roe v. Wade? The court is more conservative now but it is not a political arm. Ruth Bader Ginsburg would agree that SCOTUS is not a partisan institution. > [@](#): > > Reforming it with terms or age limits would be best, but since that would probably require the near impossibility of a constitutional amendment, we should try to win the politics of the court when we have a chance. What we need to do is start winning more elections. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/227 "2019-11-27T04:19:09Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > What Mitch McConnell and the GOP have done is certainly damaging to the Court as an institution. Don’t for a moment pretend that the GOP care about institutions. > > The Democrats need to either a) impeach Kavanaugh and Thomas, or b) pack the Court. Impeaching sitting justices for no good reason is probably going to lose you elections and even more seats on the court. Packing the court will probably do the same. You should look up what happened when FDR tried to pack the court. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/228 "2019-11-27T04:20:32Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > A law can be passed establishing a non-partisan commission\* to send, say, two nomination possibilities to the president for each vacancy. > > Would this violate anything in the US Constitution? > > Not that I can see. > > Could the President be punished for nominating someone else? Not in the short run. But in two decades or so, the tradition would be ingrained to the point where ignoring the commission would be politically damaging. > > As for term limits, I’m not sure what problem that would solve. You would just have the same sort of political appointees we have now switching off. > > * * * > > - Rules for who gets on the commission are beyond this post. It could include people from NGO’s like the American Bar Association, American Management Association, and AFL/CIO. No President would ever pick either of those names even if that was the person they would have nominated in the first place. The branches of government jealously guard their prerogatives. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/229 "2019-11-27T04:23:01Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > Quit it with this. SCOTUS is so clearly, obviously not an independent institution but rather an extension of the Republican Party that maintaining that it’s this apolitical body is downright insulting and grade-A gaslighting. Seriously, the entire reason why Merrick Garland is not a SCOTUS Justice is because the GOP is quite aware that SCOTUS is part of its political arm. > > So cut it out. The Republicans used to say something similar when the court was mostly liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/230 "2019-11-27T04:32:02Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This is true, but if we agree to this we’re agreeing that occasionally cases will be argued by a fully ideologically stacked court. I don’t find that acceptable, I don’t think anybody who thinks about it for long would find it acceptable. > > I would favor packing out the court to mitigate Mitch McConnell’s treachery, and then term-limit justices to something like 18 years, and make it a law that the Senate must confirm in the same year that a Justice is nominated. If you get enough justices on the supreme court every president will get a nomination every year or two and each nomination will stop being such a political bloodsport. This would make the chief justice a lot more powerful but it would also make the confirmation process a lot easier. Some people have suggested 27 justices. [https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/](https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/) ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/231 "2019-11-27T07:00:44Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You should look up what happened when FDR tried to pack the court. You’re right, the Court began to uphold Roosevelt’s agenda. High school teachers like to say that Court-packing was a bridge too far for Roosevelt to cross, but the bottom line is that it was successful in cowing the SCOTUS of Roosevelt’s day. The credible threat of Court-packing could also be used to subdue Roberts et al and prevent them from doing anything stupid. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/232 "2019-11-27T12:54:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The status quo won’t end well. It could, but it would take several things to line up correctly, the most important and obvious being that RBG lives until noon of 1/20/21 and that a Democrat wins the POTUS race next year. Next up would be for the senate to flip blue next year or in 2022 at the latest. Once those are all in place both RBG and Breyer should retire upon confirmation of their replacements. After that would be hoping for a vacancy due to a conservative justice leaving the court, presumably Thomas. Also on the list is hoping that Roberts continues to care more about the good of the country as a whole rather than the good of the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/233 "2019-11-27T12:54:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Like when they overturned Obamacare > > Or Roe v. Wade? > > The court is more conservative now but it is not a political arm. > > Ruth Bader Ginsburg would agree that SCOTUS is not a partisan institution. > > What we need to do is start winning more elections. The Republican courtB(or at least one of the GOP justices) may well have recognized that overturning either of those probably would be giving the Democrats their greatest election issue in decades. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/234 "2019-11-27T16:49:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Republican courtB(or at least one of the GOP justices) may well have recognized that overturning either of those probably would be giving the Democrats their greatest election issue in decades. So Roberts upheld Obamacare in 2012 because he thought that it would tip the election to the Democrats even more? If he’s going to follow the winds of populism then he’s not a very good partisan. No doubt the court is more conservative than it has been in a long time. So was the court partisan when it was mostly liberal? Just focus on winning more elections. That’s how power is allocated in a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/235 "2019-11-27T16:55:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Republican courtB(or at least one of the GOP justices) may well have recognized that overturning either of those probably would be giving the Democrats their greatest election issue in decades. I think there are a couple things the SCOTUS has that Congress does not- they can’t just do stuff because they want to- cases have to filter all the way up to them through the legal system before they can rule on them. This means that the law, both statutory and precedent has to be ambiguous enough about the case to require a decision. Second, they publish their rationale(s) for and against any given decision. This means that in general, the SCOTUS is more constrained in a lot of ways than the other branches of government. So they’re not able to just overturn a court decision willy-nilly; a case has to make it to them that couldn’t be decided in the lower courts, which usually means there’s a particularly sticky legal issue involved, and when they do make a decision, they have to (or customarily do) publish their reasoning in the decision, as well as a dissent telling why the disagreeing justices disagreed. To me, this would be to powerfully confounding factors against the SCOTUS being a political body- it’s not like the President or McConnell can demand they overturn something and actually realistically expect compliance. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2020, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/236 "2020-07-14T23:18:15Z")
RBG is in the hospital with some kind of infection. > **[Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized for possible infection | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized/index.html)** > > Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been taken to the hospital and treated for a possible infection, according to a court spokeswoman. I wish her a speedy and full recovery. The future of our country and possibly humanity as a whole depends on her survival for the next several months. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2020, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/237 "2020-07-14T23:39:41Z")
We have to keep her on her feet until Trump is gone. If we have to do a Weekend at Bernie’s then so be it. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2020, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/238 "2020-07-14T23:42:19Z")
Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito are at the age where Covid could very well knock them out, if they contract it. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2020, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/239 "2020-07-14T23:53:31Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > We have to keep her on her feet until Trump is gone. If we have to do a Weekend at Bernie’s then so be it. If the Democrats take the Senate, that will make 1/3/2021 rather than 1/20/2021 the date to circle on the calendar. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2020, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368/240 "2020-07-15T00:32:36Z")
We’re in the clear; this past February 13 was the deadline. Or is that just for when it benefits Republicans? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-does-ginsburg-have/827368.md?page=13)