The US Supreme Court

Factual Questions
1

I’m confused about something, so I’m turning to the teaming millions for help.

Admission: I’m pro-choice, I’m pro personal choice, and yet for nasty enough crimes I’m also pro-death penalty.
One man’s paradox is …

The Background:
One of the prime reasons I had for voting for Mr. Gore is the “fact” that the next sitting president will be appointing one or more Supreme Court Justices. I may not be perfectly pleased with Mr. Gores choice, but I’m completely petrified of what Mr. Bush’s choice might be.

This was a prime consideration because anything else either candidate can do to screw things up can be changed/fixed/made worse by the next president. This one sort of sticks with us a while.

The Question:
How exactly is this a “fact”? Are the justices required to give several years notice that they are leaving the bench? Are they not allowed to change their mind and not retire if they choose? If you are this justice, don’t you think you’d time your retirement so that a president who’s views you felt close to was in office when you left???

Thank for for any illumination you can offer.

-Doug

2

Supreme Court justices serve for life unless they are impeached.
They can quit anytime they want. Usually when a justice gets so old or infirm that he or she can’t perform his/her duties properly, another justice or justices tells that justice that it’s time to resign.

Justices sometimes do try to time their retirements so that someone of a similar ideological bent can replace them, but that can’t always work out, as exemplifed by the cases of Justices Brennan and Marshall.

3

It ain’t. U.S. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. They may serve until they are carried off the bench feet-first, if they choose.

Nope. I’m sure a reasonable amount of notice is expected, in light of the importance of the position, but they can and have left on very short notice, if circumstances dictate.

I don’t know. I don’t know what the protocol is for yelling “Kidding!” once you’ve officially announced your intention to retire.

Some of them try to do just that, refusing to leave if someone who they politically dislike is in office. But that’s a four-year commitment to hang on, and possiblly an eight-year commitment, so I think you’d have to feel pretty strongly about it to want to do that.

The prediction is that two justices are likely to retire in this coming presidential term. Others may be considering it, but only two are actively being speculated about. But they certainly don’t have to, and neither has announced his intention to as of yet, as far as I know.

BTW, the U.S. Supreme Court justices are:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, age 74
Justice John Paul Stevens, age 78
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, age 68
Justice Antonin Scalia, age 62
Justice Anthony Kennedy, age 62
Justice David Souter, age 59
Justice Clarence Thomas, age 50
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 65
Justice Stephen Breyer, age 60

Of these, Rehnquist and Stevens are the two being predicted to retire.

4

Jodi,

Thank you, it’s very reassuring to know it isn’t a “sure thing” that Mr. Bush will be appointing two Supreme court justices (assuming he continues on track to be sworn in this January).

I’ll take very likely over a sure thing any day.

-Doug

5

This sort of begs the question: Have any SC justices retired earlier than they might have otherwise so that an outgoing president they prefer can name their replacement?

E.g., with a Democratic president in office, and a Republican president-elect, have any liberal justices decided that, since they don’t want to stick around for 4 (or more) years they should quickly retire immediately?

I assume that this carries some risk. Say lame-duck president nominates somebody, but the Senate doesn’t confirm him. This cycle could be repeated (or stalled in the Senate) until after the inauguration, at which the point is moot. In fact, depending on the allegiance of the Senate, I can see them refusing to confirm a nominee produced by such clearly political tomfoolery.

I’ve gotta admit: I voted for Bush partially because I fear the kind of justices that Gore might nominate. :wink:

6

One of the big reasons I voted for Bush was the hope that he could stick a few more conservatives on the bench. One rumor I’ve heard is that Ruth Ginsburg is in poor health, and might have to be replaced by the next administration.

7

I’ve also heard that Rehnquist is planning on sticking around if Gore is elected, because he doesn’t want Al naming his successor.

8

The above scenario described how John Marshall became Chief Justice. However, nobody thought that being on the Supreme Court was particularly important at the time.

LBJ tried to use the same approach with Abe Fortas replacing Earl Warren, but Fortas’ financial improprieities scotched the whole deal and Nixon ended up naming the new Chief Justice.

I believe Hayes tried to sneak in an appointment before he left, but the Senate rejected it. However, another Republican took over. Supreme Court justices were pretty much indistinguishable in the late 1800s except for John Harlan.

9

Justice Ginsburg has been diagnosed with colon cancer. She had surgery for it more than a year ago. I haven’t heard anything about it since then.

10

And of course we’re now in the unique situation that the Supreme Court has a say in determining the next President.