Re this Boston Globe article some have criticized her for not stepping down so Obama can appoint a successor. The rationale here is that she is among the most physically delicate of the Justices and if she does not make the move now, while Obama has a chance to pick another non-conservative justice there is significant risk she may be replaced when a less progressive president is in power.
Is she being selfish for not stepping down?
Depends on perspective. If you want her successor to be more conservative, then you’d be happy by her choice not to step down for the aforementioned reason… if you want someone more similar to her, then you’d be more inclined to be worried about who the successor would be.
I don’t think it’s “selfish” either way… it just depends on who you want the successor to be and the projection of one’s worries onto someone presumably blameworthy for the direct outcome as a scapegoat.
Personally I think this country should become a bit more conservative, so I would like to see a more conservative justice replace her.
Selfish to keep a position which is a lifetime appointment?
Yep, I think it is selfish. I don’t claim to know how she really feels, but if she believes that should should be replaced by someone with similar legal views and values, then now would be the time. The alternative is if Obama is replaced with a Republican President, then a conservative justice could help overturn decisions she has championed for decades. IMHO, going out at the top of your game with a solid succession plan is better than hanging on to the very end and risking a legacy being overturned.
Of course, the Dems might sweep and she can have her cake and eat it too.
Edited to add: just because it’s a lifetime position, doesn’t mean one should die in the chair. 
Selfish? Who knows? Unwise is she cares about her political views? Yes.
I mean, if she wants a clear shot at keeping the court filled with someone similar to her for the next…potentially 30 years, she should step down and Obama would pick someone close.
It is a reality, I think, that a Republican could win the presidency in 2016.
Then again, perhaps she enjoys it too much and is willing to even die in her position, just like Rehnquist, who ended up dying purely coincidentally when a conservative was there to replace him.
It’s selfish by the dictionary definition, but she’s not under any obligation to step down. She worked hard to get where she is, so of course she’s more interested in what she wants to do than in a hypothetical replacement. She could also change her mind in a couple of years since Obama will be president until January 2017. It’s possible she could wind up regretting it if Republicans take control of the Senate since that might force Obama to nominate a justice more conservative than Ginsburg, but he’s not going to appoint a conservative.
When Obama took office some people speculated that she might step down to spend more time with her husband, but her husband died three years ago. So she’s got no immediate reason to leave.
I don’t think so. I think it depends on her perspective, and from her perspective I don’t think there’s any question that she thinks an Obama appointed Justice would be better for the country then a hypothetical Rubio appointed one.
The same goes the other way. It would be selfish of Thomas to step down this year because he wanted to go tour around in his RV, since there’s little doubt that in his mind an Obama appointee would be bad for the country. I’d certainly be happy if that happened, but that wouldn’t make it less selfish.
Maybe she thinks stepping down prematurely would be a kind of overt ideologically-motivated calculation that justices are supposed to be above.
That would make her unusual.
Agreed, as long as she’s capable of doing her job properly it’s not selfish of her remain in office. Whether the position be a truly be a lifetime appointment is another issue; personally I wouldn’t object to a mandatory retirement age for federal judges of 75 or so (like in Canada), but there’s very little likelihood of that happening.
Agree.
Related question…If Bader Ginsberg stepped down tomorrow could Obama get a similar appointee through in his remaining time? Seems like the Republicans would throw everything they have at stopping him from getting a nominee confirmed. What happens if they delay until his term ends? Does his successor get to nominate thier pick?
Yes. That’s how we got Warren Burger as chief justice.
Yes. The process doesn’t take that long and the Republicans wouldn’t be able to muster that much of an argument against confirmation since the appointment wouldn’t change the balance of the court. If Obama gets an opportunity to replace one of the conservative justices it’ll be a different equation.
If the Republicans in the Senate can slow down a confirmation to replace a conservative justice, they have the ability to slow down a confirmation. Why wouldn’t they use it to slow down the confirmation of a liberal justice? It’s not like a sense of fairness or propriety seem to be big motivations.
We’ve already seen two Obama nominees get confirmed. They’ve huffed and puffed about both nominees but haven’t taken it farther than that because the political cost would be high and not that much would be accomplished.
I’m sorry, perhaps this is due to a lack of imagination, but I just can’t imagine Congress keeping a Supreme Court slot unfilled for over a year. Roberts would be apoplectic, even if it was a conservative being replaced.
Yes, but then again I’m biased, as I happen to think life time appointments are beyond fucking stupid.