WaPo-SCOTUS Election Update: Dont bet on Notorious RBG retiring if Clinton wins

[JRP1994]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/dont-bet-on-ruth-bader-ginsburg-retiring-if-clinton-becomes-president/2016/08/20/262f3b68-661d-11e6-8b27-bb8ba39497a2_story.html?postshare=3331471746927244&tid=ss_tw

"When conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is in the majority, he either writes the opinion of the court or decides who will. But if not, the prerogative falls to the senior justice on the prevailing side.

If the majority in a case is composed of only the five liberals, that would mean Ginsburg would either write the opinion or decide who gets the job.

As she pointed out in a public appearance this summer, that’s an opportunity that never before has been available to her. It would seem to be one she would not lightly give up by retiring."

[Illiniwek]

She'd at least sit in the big boss seat for a couple of years. I doubt she would risk staying on past 2020. I hope she cares enough about us in the future to retire by then.

[MaxQue]

And, let's be honest, given her age, she has a significant chance of leaving the Supreme Court the same way as Scalia during the next term.

[politicallefty]

Generally, Justices like to retire one at a time at the end of a term. Scalia's successor will probably be in place by February at the latest. If Hillary wins and gets the Senate, I would like to see her replace both Ginsburg and Breyer with younger (and at least equally liberal) replacements. Justice Ginsburg is one of the greats, but I don't want to risk her to a Republican Senate, let alone a Republican President. Despite appreciating him seeing the light on the death penalty, I hope Justice Breyer retires very soon. He's problematic on several issues. I'm worried he could get worse if he becomes the median Justice.

As much I'd love to see a President Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate replace Justice Kennedy, I don't think he'll make it that easy on us. A lot of people think Justice Kennedy is waiting for a Republican President to retire. I don't entirely agree. I think Justice Kennedy wants to retire with a split between the Presidency and the Senate (although he'd probably prefer a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, though almost certainly not Trump).

[Trapsy]

lol what a silly article.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm sure she will do the right thing and allow Hillary to replace her with someone who will preserve her legacy, rather than getting hung up on such petty honors.

[politicallefty]

lol what a silly article.

Great point. Remember the article not too long ago about Justice Thomas wanting to retire? I can't even think of the appropriate reaction if that were to actually happen if Hillary Clinton was President.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I hope none of them retire/die while Hillary is in office (if).

[Ljube]

I hope none of them retire/die while Hillary is in office (if).

[ShadowRocket]

I'll be very surprised if she, and Breyer for that matter, haven't, or are about to, retire by the spring of 2019.  I think they're both smart enough not to take any chances beyond then.   

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Of course Ginsburg isn't going to retire.  Neither is Kennedy, or Breyer, or any of these folks.

These folks are all preoccupied about their "legacy"; how they'll be regarded in history.  A certain amount of that historical evaluation involves the number of landmark decisions they are the author of.  To a lesser degree, they are judged by the quality and quantity of all of their opinions, even if it is not the authorship of a landmark decision, because an opinion which does not concur fully with the reasoning of the majority opinion may well keep certain aspects of that opinion from being binding on similar cases, or may even limit the precedential value of a decision. 

Then, there is the role seniority plays.  If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he/she assigns the opinion to be written, and his/her means of doing this is part of how Chief Justices are evaluated.  (Warren Burger was gigged by historians by often reserving his vote in conference on tough decision, then voting with the majority after everyone else voted in order to control the assignment.)  But if the Chief Justice is in the minority, the Senior Justice in the majority assigns the case, and, if it's a case of historical magnitude (like Obergefell), that Senior Justice gets to assign the opinion, and gets to assign it to him/herself if he/she wants to.  Think of what that means for Anthony Kennedy and his place in history.  Think of what that would mean for Steven Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Kennedy is building a legacy as a Giant of the Court, and while I don't particularly care for him, he's become a Justice of Historical Proportions and is only adding to it.  Breyer has a chance to be the new William Brennan.  And so on. 

William O. Douglas was severely incapacitated by a stroke and was told that he would not recover, but he fought resigning to the bitter end.  While his old antagonist, Gerald Ford (who once suggested impeaching Douglas at Nixon's behest) was to appoint his successor, Douglas voiced the belief that a Democratic President would do no better than Ford would in appointing Justices.  Hugo Black and John Harlan held on to the bitter end.  It's nothing new; Joseph McKenna held on despite being debilitated by a stroke and by senility.  The SCOTUS is sort of an anonymous branch at one level, but not when it comes to the reading and writing of opinions, and these folks all have Trumpian egos; you can bet on that.