Deeply divided, held in low esteem by the public, and battered by harsh criticism from both left and right, the US Supreme Court returns to work on Monday amid speculation that its makeup and ideological balance could change, perhaps significantly, depending on who is elected president in November.
The nine justices have an average age of 67. Several have battled health problems, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will pass their 80th birthdays in the next four years. Though court-watchers tend to tiptoe around discussions of the longevity of justices, who have lifetime appointments, they say it would be no surprise if more than one were to retire in the next four years.
Comments
Unfortunately, this election looks like it will further polarize the Chambers in the Capitol, so we can expect even more acrimony, intransigence, and delay in the judicial nomination process.
Barring unexpected severe illness or death (I suppose not that unlikely in people over 75), Obama only gets 1 more appointment, replacing Ginsburg, thus again just keep the status quo. There is no way Scalia or Kennedy lets Obama pick their replacement. There will be no resignations on the conservative 5. Barring death or completely disabling illness, they are not letting Obama replace them.
I have to agree. Similarly, if Romney wins next month Breyer and Ginsberg will hold out as long as they possibly can. I have to also wonder, if Romney wins, will Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas then try to outlast Ginsberg and Breyer, in hopes of tipping the balance to 6-3 or better?
not sure if Ginsberg could make another 4 years, whether she wants to or not. That's why I see 1 nomination more or less a sure thing, regardless of who is president. The interesting thing would be, if (god forbid) Romney wins, do Scalia and Kennedy retire, ensuring replacement by a Republican president. Thomas, on the other hand is still only 64, and potentially has 2 more decades of not asking questions on the court.
Hard to predict that far in the future, but there is potential that the 2016 president could truly reshape the court, with potentially 3 nominations from both sides of the court. Given the movement towards younger nominees, a president H. Clinton could leave a 1-2 decade stamp.
You start to see these stories about the Supreme Court and balance of power in the senate when Democrats are unsure their candidate can win. They are replacing their weak candidates, Obama and Warren, with 'the court' and 'balance of power'. Only the college kids buy it however. Those of us old enough to have seen it before know that basing your vote on such issues essentially means you wasted your vote. Democrats pushing stories about the Supreme Court and balance of power suggests Democrats are a lot more concerned about Obama pulling this out than they are letting on. Given that the polls the past two weeks were waited for Democrats by 8-13 points, and you have to think Obama is in more trouble than they are letting on. Now they aren't telling you to vote for Obama, they are telling you to vote against the court. Good luck with that.
Well, we'll see for sure in 5 weeks. However, seems puzzling that all of the polls, including the Fox news poll would weighted to about the same degree. If the polls turn out to be wrong, this would be historically unprecedented, at least since 1948, when polling was in its relative infancy. Conservatives bring up Reagan-Carter for how the polls can be wrong, but in that case, every poll showed Reagan winning by several percent. Then size of his victory was somewhat a surprise according to the polls, but they never showed Reagan behind, as some have said.
we do not want to change our constitution, keep the court conservative.