Ginsburg, 85, initially went home after the accident, which occurred in her Supreme Court office. But she later reported experiencing some discomfort, and was admitted to George Washington University Hospital "for observation and treatment."
Ginsburg has survived a series of health scares. She broke two ribs in a fall in 2012, has had two prior bouts with cancer and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014.
I hope Ruth makes a full and complete recovery. She seems like a strong woman for being 85 years old, I'd hate to see president Trump end up with three supreme court judges. I'm thinking two is more than enough.
Unfortunately, Trump doesn't need the House to get a Supreme Court nominee through.
We need the 60 vote thing back, and to close the loophole that allows the Senate to just ignore a nominee instead of giving them a hearing. And I'm increasingly thinking about the argument many have made that it would be better if Supreme Court justices had 18-year terms. That would allow each president a couple of nominees, and IMO would serve the same purposes as giving them lifetime tenures. Then, too, maybe presidents would look at the best and most experienced candidates, not the ones likely to serve the longest possible terms. Things have become stupid. Neither political party should be able to pack the court.
I hope RBG is going to be okay, for her sake as well as the court's.
We need the 60 vote thing back, and to close the loophole that allows the Senate to just ignore a nominee instead of giving them a hearing. And I'm increasingly thinking about the argument many have made that it would be better if Supreme Court justices had 18-year terms
Both good points and I agree with both. But I favor term limits on pretty much everything.
I think there are excellent reasons that Supreme Court justices should be beyond the ability of individual presidents "firing" them, and beyond the whims of passing political waves. But that could be accomplished with lengthy fixed terms (along with an inability of presidents to remove them; the current standards for impeachment should stand). I don't think they should be limited to four years or six years or even ten. But 18 -- that could work.
Will it happen, well, that's another story. But the 60 vote thing and the "you have to give appointees a hearing" -- I think that's more easily accomplished, and it's what should happen, IMO.
Speaking of court changes, I heard rumblings from a bunch of Trump Republicans one night that Trump should just add more justices to the court.
Didn't republicans used to get upset about democrats trying that about 80 years ago? Something about trying to stack the court?
____________________________________________________ Economics puts parameters on people’s utopias. ~Peter Boettke "It's the voter's fault" is victim-blaming in its purest sense. ~Don The 'social contract' is to the politician what 'original sin' is to the priest. ~Don The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today. ~Don ____________________________________________________
But...she probably should have retired during Obama's presidency.
Tell me, what good would that have done, given McConnell's determination not to give Obama's nominees a hearing?
Asking for Merrill Garland.
She's a tough broad, takes good care of herself, and has a will of iron. I think they'll have to carry her out on a stretcher.
Clarence Thomas is 70. Should he retire now, while Trump is president and still has control of the Senate before Dems have a chance to flip it? The GOP could very well face a long drought after 2020, if Trump loses and/or the Senate flips.
Appointing Justices has always been the luck of the draw. But I think lifetime appointments is something that still works well. What I wish is that Justices--like stinkin' Senators--would have the decency to retire when they know they're no longer up to snuff. Maybe instead of term limits, we should just have a mandatory retirement age. How about 75? That could be applied to Congress, as well.
I do not favor that, nor do I think that everyone who reaches a certain age is no longer "up to snuff." If judges are truly no longer "up to snuff", we have mechanisms to remove them. But I am not going to assume everyone over 75 has dementia or is otherwise incapable of being a judge. That reeks, IMO.
All that will do is continue the current trend of favoring youth over qualifications when it comes to justices so as to get as much mileage out of them as possible, which I think is a lousy trend. I'd rather see the most experienced judges be up for it, not just "hey, he's 45, so he'll be on there forever, so let's choose him over than amazing 60 year old."
Well, I think Justice Kennedy had been phoning it in for quite awhile. It is--I think you will allow--a critically important office. As is being a Senator, Rep, or even President.
And the fact of the matter is--there's no way around this--aging matters. It impacts us in many different ways, physically and mentally. The FBI requires retirement at age 57. There are good reasons for that. It may be that a given 60 year old is more capable than a given 50 year old, but that's not how things generalize. The same is true for judges and Congresscritters, in my view. And it's not like there's a shortage of capable people. This isn't ageism, it's reality. And it's not the private sector, its the Federal Government. And fyi, many States do have mandatory retirement ages for their judges. Including yours.