I seem to recall she was a justice until about 6 weeks ago.
Her swearing in ceremony was in 1993.
The game is power and all politicians are playing it. Some are more successful than others. Seriously, if you want the stakes lowered then power has to checked and in our system the legislative branch has been spineless with keeping their power. They in essence punt the difficult issues to the courts and allow the executive branch far too much power via regulatory bodies.
Yes, and we should expect Lame-Duck Donald to attempt to do exactly that.
With the Senate configuration changing, most likely in Democrats’ favor, by the two special elections (or at least by the Arizona one), and with a Democratic majority likely to have been elected Nov 3, Trump may not find such an effort to be clear sailing.
.
.
.
Bad comparison: members of the House have to run for re-election every two years. Members of SCOTUS do not.
Of course that’s true now; the effect of larger numbers on the Court, I believe, would be more along the lines of less pressure on Justices to rule according to the wishes of the party that appointed them. Each individual Justice would be of less earth-shaking importance.
Of course the ideal is that Justices are fully insulated from the pressure of party imperatives. But in practice it appears that they do, sometimes, feel an influence.
This is something that I agree with entirely.
But, you know who is actually in charge of that legislative branch, who has been spineless and feckless? Who has had control over congress for most of the last decade? Who currently obstructs any legislation that would put in place checks on the executive?
If you want the legislative branch to regain status as an effective part of government and a check on executive power, then you should support the party that wishes to govern, rather than the party that wants to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of government.