Ruth Ginsburg is 79-years-old and has a medical history that includes at least two cancers. Although her earlier colon cancer diagnosis was in 2000 which probably indicates that she is cured of that disorder, her pancreatic cancer in 2009 may still recur. More importantly, in my opinion, is her demonstrated history of developing cancers which places her at high risk for further malignant growths. I do not know if she received any radiotherapy or chemotherapy for her previous malignancies but, if so, that, too, would increase her chances of developing subsequent malignant tumors.
Thinking as a liberal (and please play along even if you’re to the right, even GWB right), is it a wise strategy for her to stay on the SCOTUS? If she resigns now, Obama has ample time to replace her with someone of similar ilk. On the other hand, if she remains on the Court and needs to resign for health (or other) reasons any time after the early Fall, there is a good chance that it would be Mitt who chooses her successor. That would mean there is a possibility of a four to (God forbid) eight year interval in which she’d be replaced by someone far to the right (of her) if she “got sick” or died (developments which I’d estimate may have a likelihood as high as 50 percent).
Why not resign now, and thereby permit Obama to replace her with someone who has a thirty or forty year future ahead of him/her? e.g. another Sotomayor or even (the amazing) Elena Kagen?
I see zero chance of a SCOTUS nominee getting confirmed before the election, and if Romney wins, there’s no way Obama could get a nominee confirmed before leaving office…though it would likely provide some interesting political theater if he attempted a lame duck nomination.
If Ginsburg wanted to do it, she should have stepped down a year ago. It’s too late now.
Huh, now you’ve got me curious if the Senate Republicans would block (or at least try to block) any Obama appointee while hoping for a Romney victory come November.
Anyway, I remember similar questions being raised about Sandra Day O’Connor, who underwent treatment for breast cancer during her tenure:
There is possibly an election to lose. A SCOTUS vacancy before the election could blow up in Obama’s face. If he nominates a liberal, he’s just energized the opposition. If he doesn’t, he’s just pissed off his base.
There’s more than enough time to nominate and confirm a replacement if the Senate is so inclined, but I agree it’s unlikely to happen at this point. For the record, though, Sotomayor was nominated May 26 of 2009 and confirmed on August 6, and Kagan was nominated May 9, 2010 and confirmed August 5.
The idea is if those appointments had occured in an election year, they might not have been so quick. It is one thing to stretch out an appointment process for 8 months when it ordinarily takes three. It’s entirely another to try and stretch it out for three years or more.
I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but let’s say that Obama loses in November and Ginsburg immediately resigns. In late November, Obama nominates George Soros to the Supreme Court and the Republicans stall. When Romney is inaugurated on January 20th, can he withdraw Soros’ nomination, or must Republicans get 51/60 votes to dispense with Soros?
IOW, can Soros demand a resolution of his nomination as he was legally submitted to the Senate by the POTUS?
I understand that. I was responding to comments that there is not enough time to complete the nomination and confirmation process in any event. There is. If the Senate were determined not to complete that process, there’s no such thing as “enough time.” After all it’s not uncommon these days for nominees to remain unconfirmed for years and years, although that’s partly because they are to less prominent positions than the Supreme Court.
The President is free to withdraw his nomination at any time until the actual vote, as far as I know, and Presidents have withdrawn nominations before when they didn’t think they’d be confirmed. This happened most recently with the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Unlike Robert’s Rules of Order, I believe that the Senate parliamentary rules say that at the end of a session, any unfinished business is not carried over to the next session. In this scenerio, I would expect Obama to use a recess appointment.