Sonia Sotomayor's retirement is a political IQ test (www.natesilver.net)

submitted 2 years ago by cyd@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Sotomayor isn't even the oldest person on the court.

Thomas, 75 6/23/1948
Alito, 74 4/1/1950
Sotomayor, 69 6/25/1954
Roberts, 69 1/27/1955
Kagan, 63 4/28/1960
Kavanaugh, 59 2/12/1965
Gorsuch, 56 8/29/1967
Jackson, 53 9/14/1970
Barrett, 52 1/28/1972

Here's the thing though... Thomas and Alito aren't going willfully under a Democratic President, just will not happen.

That would throw the court from 6-3 Conservative back to 5-4 Liberal.

But even if that did happen, the next two oldest are Sotomayor and Roberts, one Liberal and one fairly reliable swing vote.

So we can't just maintain a Democratic president through Thomas an Alito, which is likely to be at least the next two Presidential terms (24-28, 28-32), but beyond that to possibly '36 or even '40.

[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

She does have Type 1 Diabetes though, which unfortunately means an average mortality of 10 years earlier than someone without it. Of course, that's just an average.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Yeah, but someone with her level of health care and ethnic background? She's got a good 11 years left before it's a problem.

So we need to make sure the 2032 election goes to a Democrat and the Senate that year too. ;) Roberts will be on the block around then as well.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

We can argue actuarial tables all day, but the point is that replacing Sotomayor with a younger liberal justice has zero downside. It's as close to a free lunch as one can get in politics.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Avoiding political wrangling is why they are lifetime appointments, for better or worse.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Oh, agreed, zero downside, but there's no point calling for it at this time. Let's focus more on re-electing Biden.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

They old enough maybe we get lucky and they have a stroke or something else. 74 not young.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I mean, they do have the best health care you can get. Look at someone like Sandra Day O'Connor, lived to 93. Fortunately she stepped down in 2006 when she was 76.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

This makes some sense.

But the court is not going to save us from Trump.

VOTE!!!!!!

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

While experience is clearly an important job qualification for a judge, at some point their experience is from a different era. At the beginning of her training the world was a very different place, but she now applies her experience from that era to cases today. I don't mean to say her experience is entirely irrelevant, just that the old have to give way to the young if progress is to be made. These guys should have age limits if not term limits. At the very least there should be a known point in time that they need to be replaced so that political games cannot be played with their appointments.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

If you replace one judge every year, that will give the judge nearly a decade of service. If somebody karks it, the other guy gets to stay another year.

Once you hit your 9 years… (or 10,) you’re done. Retirement it is. (Or maybe you get to teach at a law school or something.)

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

If somebody karks it, the other guy gets to stay another year.

Clarence Thomas serial killer origin story right there 😁

[-] docAvid@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago

So, do you not think the principle of ensuring a justice doesn't have to worry about their next gig is valuable, or do you think youthfulness is just more important?

I think the court should be expanded, quite a lot. There is nothing magical or constitutional about the number nine. Congress could easily expand it to twenty, or fifty, or more while limiting justices by terms or age would require a constitutional amendment. Nothing says every justice has to sit on every case. A larger court would be significantly less prone to extremes, reducing the importance of individual nominations.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That would be putting words in my mouth.

Firstly, I think that having been a justice, which is a very distinguished post , they would never have to worry about future employment, it would probably find them. I also think that a job for life means you don't worry about scrutiny. You can do what you want almost without consequence because you don't need to worry about what comes next. If no one can fire you, and you don't need to worry about people being happy with your performance, you can be free so act however you want. In your own interest. In the interest of some benefactor, or should you choose to, in the interest of the people.

Second, I did not say youthfulness it's important. There is a vast gulf between youthful and aged. I don't want a 20 year old justice and more than a 70 year old one.

Lastly, expanding it would be great. No arguments here.

[-] Paragone@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

it is learning, not youth, that makes a person be not-living-in-the-past,

& there isn't any substitute for getting old-enough to understand systems-of-systems thinking, as some "grandmothers & grandfathers", as the Indigenous people call 'em, can.

Age isn't, of itself, sufficient to judge whether someone's competent to do the work they currently are doing.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yes I agree with that, but age is a strong indicator.

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024

49 points (90.2% liked)

politics

31388 readers

2396 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News