The Supremes

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

I flipped on Fox News this morning for my 10 minutes of news since MSNBC and CNN were talking about the Chauvin Trial and they were going on and on about how moving the court to 13 is so wrong and the Dems are just trying to get power unlike the Republicans.  They even showed a clip of RBG saying 9 was a good number.  You know, the same RBG that said her seat should be filled after the last election so apparently they now care about her opinion but not then.  One guy said they won’t expand the court but this legislation is meant to scare the current court into doing what the Democrats want them to do. They were really spinning it to the rubes watching that the evil democrats will take control of the Supreme Court and turn it into a branch of government that is no longer non partisan and the country will fall into a progressive abyss.  Someone smarter than me should really do a study on how Fox News “spins” this stuff into driving fear into its watchers that the other side is evil and is coming to destroy your country/world/life.  

As far as the actual court, I would love to see some reform.  Maybe its adding 4 seats to be more representative of the country.  Maybe its finding a system that doesn’t rely on which President is in office and how many die/retire during his term.  Maybe we should force retirement on some as we don’t need a bunch of 80 plus year olds making the rules for this country the same way I don’t need my Grandfather making rules for this country.

[SydneyCarton 48051]

57 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I flipped on Fox News this morning for my 10 minutes of news since MSNBC and CNN were talking about the Chauvin Trial and they were going on and on about how moving the court to 13 is so wrong and the Dems are just trying to get power unlike the Republicans.  They even showed a clip of RBG saying 9 was a good number.  You know, the same RBG that said her seat should be filled after the last election so apparently they now care about her opinion but not then.  One guy said they won’t expand the court but this legislation is meant to scare the current court into doing what the Democrats want them to do. They were really spinning it to the rubes watching that the evil democrats will take control of the Supreme Court and turn it into a branch of government that is no longer non partisan and the country will fall into a progressive abyss.  Someone smarter than me should really do a study on how Fox News “spins” this stuff into driving fear into its watchers that the other side is evil and is coming to destroy your country/world/life.  

As far as the actual court, I would love to see some reform.  Maybe its adding 4 seats to be more representative of the country.  Maybe its finding a system that doesn’t rely on which President is in office and how many die/retire during his term.  Maybe we should force retirement on some as we don’t need a bunch of 80 plus year olds making the rules for this country the same way I don’t need my Grandfather making rules for this country.

TERM. LIMITS. 

[Js1 85258]

Judicial term limits + 13 seats (to match the # of appellate courts so each SCOTUS judge only oversees 1) 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Judicial term limits + 13 seats (to match the # of appellate courts so each SCOTUS judge only oversees 1) 

I agree with this but how do you stagger the term limits so one president on either side ends up with say 6 appointments and then the next president gets zero.  I would love to see the Supreme Court taken out of politics as far as I have to vote for a president one way or the other because of the Supreme Court appointments.  

[Js1 85258]

5 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I agree with this but how do you stagger the term limits so one president on either side ends up with say 6 appointments and then the next president gets zero.  I would love to see the Supreme Court taken out of politics as far as I have to vote for a president one way or the other because of the Supreme Court appointments.  

I really don't know.

Maybe group them into 3 classes (like the Senate) of 4 SCOTUS justices each, with the Chief Justice having the special privilege of retiring when they want to? 

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I flipped on Fox News this morning for my 10 minutes of news since MSNBC and CNN were talking about the Chauvin Trial and they were going on and on about how moving the court to 13 is so wrong and the Dems are just trying to get power unlike the Republicans.  They even showed a clip of RBG saying 9 was a good number.  You know, the same RBG that said her seat should be filled after the last election so apparently they now care about her opinion but not then.  One guy said they won’t expand the court but this legislation is meant to scare the current court into doing what the Democrats want them to do. They were really spinning it to the rubes watching that the evil democrats will take control of the Supreme Court and turn it into a branch of government that is no longer non partisan and the country will fall into a progressive abyss.  Someone smarter than me should really do a study on how Fox News “spins” this stuff into driving fear into its watchers that the other side is evil and is coming to destroy your country/world/life.  

As far as the actual court, I would love to see some reform.  Maybe its adding 4 seats to be more representative of the country.  Maybe its finding a system that doesn’t rely on which President is in office and how many die/retire during his term.  Maybe we should force retirement on some as we don’t need a bunch of 80 plus year olds making the rules for this country the same way I don’t need my Grandfather making rules for this country.

I liked RBG. And I loathe Trump and Trumptards. 

But why in the fuck didn't RBG retire when Obama could've appointed somebody to replace her?

That's pretty much on her. Fucking stupid decision imo. (for her not to have retired)

[Js1 85258]

Everyone in existence knows that.

Hindsight is 20/20 on RBG. 

Let's not make the same mistake with Breyer.  

[Captainant 27619]

1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

I liked RBG. And I loathe Trump and Trumptards. 

But why in the fuck didn't RBG retire when Obama could've appointed somebody to replace her?

That's pretty much on her. Fucking stupid decision imo. (for her not to have retired)

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

33 minutes ago, Captainant said:

She should have retired in 2009. Turtle couldn’t do anything then. 

[WhatTheBuck 28771]

Ideally RBG would’ve lived at least a few months longer. I think it’s hard to argue that she should’ve retired from a lifetime appointment 11 years before her death. 

[Satchel 6925]

The Court has been expanded several times since the establishment of the original six justices. What’s so radical about this idea?

[Michael Knight 12976]

4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

She should have retired in 2009. Turtle couldn’t do anything then. 

By that logic she should have retired in 1994

[Michael Knight 12976]

22 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The Court has been expanded several times since the establishment of the original six justices. What’s so radical about this idea?

Nothing

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

3 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

By that logic she should have retired in 1994

She wasn’t 117 years old in 1994.

[tx 3 putt 76859]

5 hours ago, Satchel said:

The Court has been expanded several times since the establishment of the original six justices. What’s so radical about this idea?

 

republicans didn't think of it first 

[Saint Austin 745]

7 hours ago, Satchel said:

The Court has been expanded several times since the establishment of the original six justices. What’s so radical about this idea?

Because it’s been more than 150 years??

[mchookem 16318]

one of the reasons i initially supported Pete was his supreme court plan. i'm too lazy to recount exact details now, but it included increasing the number of justices, term limits and a really logical way of rotating justices off the court so that every presidential term had the opportunity to appoint i think two new justices... something like that. it was very clever and seemed simple to implement and i liked it.

so, i'm down with it.

Edited April 16, 2021 by mchookem

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

There are several Supreme Court threads, this seemed like the most appropriate. I don't follow every single thing they do, but given how the right has been falling over itself to become more and more right, I was paying some attention. Here is a thread; sorry for the odd tweet mixed in about another case, it was hard to get things set up to be readable today. Stern though, "the Supreme Court condemned him to die behind bars." (defendant was 15) I get that teens can be killers, but no possibility of parole at 15?

 

 

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I should add, the Slate article towards the end that discusses the case is very very sad.

[Foosters 17820]

A horrific decision that yet again establishes our nation as the most barbaric when it comes to criminal justice. Same as it ever was.

[Js1 85258]

Very pro-life of them. 

[Poolflood 845]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I should add, the Slate article towards the end that discusses the case is very very sad.

So I should read past the first sentence that's just patently wrong?

Go read Sotomayor dissent.  It's better.  Wrong imo, but better.

 

[Gil Bang 25907]

 

[mchookem 16318]

he really has no principles at all, does he...happily contradicts himself without a blink.

[Biff Tannen 45661]

7 minutes ago, mchookem said:

he really has no principles at all, does he...happily contradicts himself without a blink.

This could apply to any and all republicans. Going to need you to be more specific.  

[honolulu horn 6158]

I work on these cases regularly. I've worked on several resentencing cases since Miller v Alabama reversed mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). From Roper to Graham to Miller (all SCOTUS cases) we saw an encouraging and humane trend away from putting juveniles on death row to not allowing mandatory JLWOP sentences. This ruling flies in the face of that 16 year trend. It's disgusting. 

To be clear, though, it's not like Kavanaugh and SCOTUS made it possible for juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole today. That's been on the books for decades. They just made it easier. They lowered the threshold needed to impose that sentence. Reprehensible and totally out of step with the rest of the civilized world. Of course, when you have states like North Carolina prosecuting 6-year-olds for picking flowers and not appearing in court, well...that's the United States for you. 

https://journalnow.com/north-carolina-sends-6-year-olds-to-court-why-some-say-its-time-for-change/article_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html  

[DigglerontheHoof 21168]

6 hours ago, honolulu horn said:

I work on these cases regularly. I've worked on several resentencing cases since Miller v Alabama reversed mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). From Roper to Graham to Miller (all SCOTUS cases) we saw an encouraging and humane trend away from putting juveniles on death row to not allowing mandatory JLWOP sentences. This ruling flies in the face of that 16 year trend. It's disgusting. 

To be clear, though, it's not like Kavanaugh and SCOTUS made it possible for juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole today. That's been on the books for decades. They just made it easier. They lowered the threshold needed to impose that sentence. Reprehensible and totally out of step with the rest of the civilized world. Of course, when you have states like North Carolina prosecuting 6-year-olds for picking flowers and not appearing in court, well...that's the United States for you. 

https://journalnow.com/north-carolina-sends-6-year-olds-to-court-why-some-say-its-time-for-change/article_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html  

The DA in this 6 year old's county needs to be beaten like a rented mule, then pissed on.  What a cunt. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 hours ago, honolulu horn said:

I work on these cases regularly. I've worked on several resentencing cases since Miller v Alabama reversed mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP). From Roper to Graham to Miller (all SCOTUS cases) we saw an encouraging and humane trend away from putting juveniles on death row to not allowing mandatory JLWOP sentences. This ruling flies in the face of that 16 year trend. It's disgusting. 

To be clear, though, it's not like Kavanaugh and SCOTUS made it possible for juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole today. That's been on the books for decades. They just made it easier. They lowered the threshold needed to impose that sentence. Reprehensible and totally out of step with the rest of the civilized world. Of course, when you have states like North Carolina prosecuting 6-year-olds for picking flowers and not appearing in court, well...that's the United States for you. 

https://journalnow.com/north-carolina-sends-6-year-olds-to-court-why-some-say-its-time-for-change/article_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html  

That was my takeaway from a Jill Public perspective--that it's not like a judge had to pronounce that sentence, but that it removed some of the requirements (is that the correct term) that insured measured and cultivated reasoning prior to announcing that sentence. Given that our knowledge of mental health/development etc progresses onward due to advances in study/technology of the human brain/anatomy it appeared to my uninformed eyes as permitting a 'well, it just feeeeeels like he's incorrigible.' Which is something I thought, perhaps naively and erroneously that judges would avoid.

I don't think the comparisons to Kavanaugh's own youth are out of line, either. Youthful indiscretions (if that is what he would call his behavior) occur on a spectrum, and no one would argue that Jones committed a horrific crime by stabbing and killing his grandfather. A child raised in violence and poverty who has only known violence and reacts with violence is placed in a facility where he receives some modicum of care and attention and learns better behaviors. If I understood (correctly?) his case was somewhat using the Eighth Amendment in their arguments? IMO how is it not cruel for a child of wealth and privilege and all that brings with it and as far as I can tell has only been rewarded for it, to rule in such a way that says never mind that, your efforts to grow and change out of horrific conditions are for naught and life without parole forever and ever amen is your destiny?

Every child raised in such conditions does not behave this way, one might say (of either person illustrated above), but if our society is going to go down this road, then why are those of such mindset so willing to forgive those with power and wealth the pass when they commit crimes--could I not argue that they had every advantage NOT to? We hand them the promise of their future and the other the punishment (Go forth and sin no more vs we're locking you up for our own good) A friend of mine has a son who got into a scrape and the principal looked the other way; no police called. They have standing in the community and 'he's a good kid,' and yet one of my children had a team mate (same age as the other boy) get arrested for the same offense, picture in the paper and all that. You'll never guess that one was white and one was Hispanic would you? When the same friend was going on about youth crime in our community, I tactfully pointed out the differences and that if I did not know her and that her son's pic was in the paper, would I be justified in assuming he was a "thug, who would never amount to anything?" You'd think she would have stopped speaking to me, but to her credit, and we've been friends for a number of years, got it. She really got it. Mostly because it hit right in her own home. The story has a better ending than start--both boys are in college now and are doing well. And she no longer views all youth offenders in the same light and it shows.

Maybe the whole ruling ends up changing nothing, that judges weigh the situation accordingly based on the verdict and circumstances, but given the systemic issues surrounding specific demographics, a cradle to grave life without hope gives birth to a weary fatalistic existence.

That cruelty only expands when one considers the circumstances surrounding reproductive choices for women becoming more and more limited. Cruelty upon cruelty upon cruelty.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot see it. Death Eaters.

 

[honolulu horn 6158]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Every child raised in such conditions does not behave this way, one might say (of either person illustrated above), but if our society is going to go down this road, then why are those of such mindset so willing to forgive those with power and wealth the pass when they commit crimes--could I not argue that they had every advantage NOT to? 

 

Totally agree. So many of the people I work with have limited choices and low likelihood of success right out of the womb. In my opinion, people that deserve the harshest punishments are those who are privileged and had more chances to avoid such behavior and circumstances. 

[Brisketexan 105041]

13 hours ago, Js1 said:

Very pro-life of them. 

We literally have fucking Judge Smails on the court....

 

[wildcat09 29338]

I for one would like to congratulate the Catholics in the majority for being able to set aside their religious convictions in favor of what really matters, ensuring that the American state is as ruthless and cruel against people that aren't like them as it possibly can be.  

[TwiceHorn 31433]

I don't like any decision that makes it easier to sentence people in a draconian fashion.  So, I hate this decision.

From a purely legal standpoint, Miller held that LWOP can't be mandatory for juveniles.  Montgomery held that the ruling of Miller is retroactive.  Neither opinion pretended to impose any further limitation on the sentencing of juveniles to LWOP, other than it must not be mandatory.  Even the prior decision in Graham, by Kagan, left mandatory LWOP in place for murder.

So, a missed opportunity to make it harder yet to give juveniles LWOP by imposing a constraint on the judicial discretion ordered by Miller.  That sucks.

But it's not the bastard decision that some are making it out to be.

In fact, I think it's probably still quite possible to argue that a juvenile sentence of LWOP without a finding of incorrigibility is an abuse of discretion and reversible.  It's just not a nationwide requirement.

 

[Brisketexan 105041]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't like any decision that makes it easier to sentence people in a draconian fashion.  So, I hate this decision.

From a purely legal standpoint, Miller held that LWOP can't be mandatory for juveniles.  Montgomery held that the ruling of Miller is retroactive.  Neither opinion pretended to impose any further limitation on the sentencing of juveniles to LWOP, other than it must not be mandatory.  Even the prior decision in Graham, by Kagan, left mandatory LWOP in place for murder.

So, a missed opportunity to make it harder yet to give juveniles LWOP by imposing a constraint on the judicial discretion ordered by Miller.  That sucks.

But it's not the bastard decision that some are making it out to be.

In fact, I think it's probably still quite possible to argue that a juvenile sentence of LWOP without a finding of incorrigibility is an abuse of discretion and reversible.  It's just not a nationwide requirement.

 

Let's be honest.....affirming ANY law from Mississippi is probably facially erroneous.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Let's be honest.....affirming ANY law from Mississippi is probably facially erroneous.

Lol yeah.

You know, you'd kind of like to think that state legislatures, acting in view of Miller, would take LWOP off the table for juveniles altogether, or put a sort of death penalty process on it that requires special findings of one type or another, aggravation, mitigation, "incorrigibility," etc. etc.

But, who am I kidding.

Although, "second look" provisions to revisit sentences are gaining traction as a CJ reform and bills for it are pending in a lot of states, including Texas I believe.  This would reassess a sentence after 10 years.

Edited April 23, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11362]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lol yeah.

You know, you'd kind of like to think that state legislatures, acting in view of Miller, would take LWOP off the table for juveniles altogether, or put a sort of death penalty process on it that requires special findings of one type or another, aggravation, mitigation, "incorrigibility," etc. etc.

But, who am I kidding.

i think we should take life without parole completely off the table. 

that doesn't mean we have to let monsters out. but it shouldn't be a thing. people can actually change. not sure a 60 year old who shot someone during an armed robbery should die in prison. i have a lot more to say on the matter, but i don't feel like typing it out at the moment.

[SubliminalHorn 6779]

Pack the court

[honolulu horn 6158]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lol yeah.

You know, you'd kind of like to think that state legislatures, acting in view of Miller, would take LWOP off the table for juveniles altogether, or put a sort of death penalty process on it that requires special findings of one type or another, aggravation, mitigation, "incorrigibility," etc. etc.

But, who am I kidding.

Although, "second look" provisions to revisit sentences are gaining traction as a CJ reform and bills for it are pending in a lot of states, including Texas I believe.  This would reassess a sentence after 10 years.

Agree with your analyses on this issue, so thanks. As an expert who is often asked to weigh in on these issues, I believe in most cases it will be easy for an expert to find most accused juveniles as redeemable with time (in other words, NOT finding them "permanently incorrigible"). But that doesn't mean that DAs won't push for JLWOP and that juries won't buy it.

It's bizarre to me that capital cases include all of the special findings you list (including defense-centric mitigation reports that literally do nothing but paint a good picture of the accused), but that absolutely nothing similar is afforded to LWOP cases. I know a few attorneys that are taking up that mantle in an organized way, and I think it's high time to get more mandated mitigation included for cases that are looking at harsh sentencing options. Maybe "second look" provisions are a good backup to that plan. 

[TwiceHorn 31433]

17 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

Agree with your analyses on this issue, so thanks. As an expert who is often asked to weigh in on these issues, I believe in most cases it will be easy for an expert to find most accused juveniles as redeemable with time (in other words, NOT finding them "permanently incorrigible"). But that doesn't mean that DAs won't push for JLWOP and that juries won't buy it.

It's bizarre to me that capital cases include all of the special findings you list (including defense-centric mitigation reports that literally do nothing but paint a good picture of the accused), but that absolutely nothing similar is afforded to LWOP cases. I know a few attorneys that are taking up that mantle in an organized way, and I think it's high time to get more mandated mitigation included for cases that are looking at harsh sentencing options. Maybe "second look" provisions are a good backup to that plan. 

Props to you for working in that no doubt immensely stressful field.

I assume, without knowing, that 99.9% of serious sentences for juveniles, to include life or LWOP, are assessed in adult court when a juvenile is tried as an adult.  I am fairly certain that would be the case in Texas, but I'm not familiar with the juvenile systems elsewhere.

You'd think that all defense attorneys would attempt the sort of "capital defense" tactics mentioned, but even in capital cases, there are tons of ineffective assistance cases where the question is should they have done more mitigation, or any at all, so I guess there are a lot of shitty attorneys out there handling these things.  I do know that it's fairly common to work up mitigation type evidence in just about any federal case to try to invoke a downward departure from the guidelines sentence, or, failing that, a lower range sentence.

You'd also think that even if a minor is tried in adult court, that the judge wouldn't treat them quite just like any other offender just because some procedure permits them to be tried as one. I'd be very anxious as a judge to gather all kinds of evidence about the juvenile defendants' background, upbringing, mental health status and prognosis, etc.and try to find any rational reason to mitigate their sentences. But apparently I'm not like a lot of those judges.

It's fucked up.  I don't like it. I'd prefer this decision have come out differently.  I don't find it legally at odds with Miller or Graham. Philosophically, sure.  Legally, no.

 

[Chewbacca 7765]

She had a 2 year window when Obama controlled everything. Obama even asked her to retire. She declined. I think she liked being the Notorious RBG a little too much.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

Some pretty good insight on the case here.   https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2021/04/a-few-first-thoughts-on-jones-and-juve-lwop.html

Of note.  I didn't consciously seize on this language, but Professor Berman seems to agree that the issue of proportionality of LWOP sentences is not off the table for individual defendants, including Jones, the defendant in this one.  

Quote

Against that backdrop, I found interesting this statement by the Court toward the end of its Jones opinon: "Moreover, this case does not properly present — and thus we do not consider — any as-applied Eighth Amendment claim of disproportionality regarding Jones’s sentence." This sentence suggests that Brett Jones — as well as every other juvenile sentenced to LWOP in a discretionary scheme — still can and certainly should argue that the particular facts of his case make LWOP unconstitutional as applied.

That is, defendants still have room to argue that a LWOP sentence imposed without some pretty specific findings is constitutionally suspect.

[elfenix 34221]

29 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

On 4/15/2021 at 10:10 AM, Captainant said:

She had a 2 year window when Obama controlled everything. Obama even asked her to retire. She declined. I think she liked being the Notorious RBG a little too much.

the dems couldn't break a filibuster for much of those two years.  as of january 2009, there were 57 democrats and 2 independents that caucused with the dems who had apparently won seats.  except ted had a seizure during obama's innaugural lunch and never returned to vote, so 1 vote down there.  franken wasn't seated until july 9, 2009, so 1 vote down there.  arlen specter switched parties in april of 2009, so plus 1 vote.  ted finally died, letting paul kirk fill his seat on september 24, 2009.  in the special election to fill that seat, scott brown won, and was seated february 4, 2010.

so democrats, with 2 independents, controlled everything for all of 4 months and 10 days. 

i wonder how things might be different if votes were required to sustain filibusters rather than break them?

[Chewbacca 7765]

the dems couldn't break a filibuster for much of those two years.  as of january 2009, there were 57 democrats and 2 independents that caucused with the dems who had apparently won seats.  except ted had a seizure during obama's innaugural lunch and never returned to vote, so 1 vote down there.  franken wasn't seated until july 9, 2009, so 1 vote down there.  arlen specter switched parties in april of 2009, so plus 1 vote.  ted finally died, letting paul kirk fill his seat on september 24, 2009.  in the special election to fill that seat, scott brown won, and was seated february 4, 2010.
so democrats, with 2 independents, controlled everything for all of 4 months and 10 days. 
i wonder how things might be different if votes were required to sustain filibusters rather than break them?

They could have gotten someone through. She chose poorly.

[RPM 26315]

To be fair to RBG, nobody in their right fucking mind thought Trump would win the nomination, much less the election. She expected Hillary to name her replacement.

[Chewbacca 7765]

To be fair to RBG, nobody in their right fucking mind thought Trump would win the nomination, much less the election. She expected Hillary to name her replacement.

She was the worst candidate in my lifetime. Literally the only person Trump could have beaten.

[mchookem 16318]

[elfenix 34221]

3 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

5 hours ago, elfenix said:

the dems couldn't break a filibuster for much of those two years.  as of january 2009, there were 57 democrats and 2 independents that caucused with the dems who had apparently won seats.  except ted had a seizure during obama's innaugural lunch and never returned to vote, so 1 vote down there.  franken wasn't seated until july 9, 2009, so 1 vote down there.  arlen specter switched parties in april of 2009, so plus 1 vote.  ted finally died, letting paul kirk fill his seat on september 24, 2009.  in the special election to fill that seat, scott brown won, and was seated february 4, 2010.
so democrats, with 2 independents, controlled everything for all of 4 months and 10 days. 
i wonder how things might be different if votes were required to sustain filibusters rather than break them?

They could have gotten someone through. She chose poorly.

maybe.  but it sure as shit wasn't 2 years.

[956 Worldwide 34695]

On 4/15/2021 at 6:38 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Ideally RBG would’ve lived at least a few months longer. I think it’s hard to argue that she should’ve retired from a lifetime appointment 11 years before her death. 

RBG was 87 when she died. She was over a decade into “retirement age” when Obama became president. She stayed on for a couple reasons, first she really liked being “The Notorious RBG” and second she really hoped to be replaced by the first woman president.  And that’s not to say something bad about her. She was a person and she was concerned over her legacy and status like us all, but that’s not OK for the American people.  
 

We need age limits, not term limits. 70 is fine, it gets you five years past “retirement age” and allows you to read some political tea leaves and try to pick a good time—not cling on hoping for the “ideal” time.  No one outside of a few artist types creates there best work in their 70s and a judge’s robes are not smocks. We do not need octogenarians deciding on the great issues for future generations, regardless of how brilliant and principled they are. 

[WhatTheBuck 28771]

24 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

RBG was 87 when she died. She was over a decade into “retirement age” when Obama became president. She stayed on for a couple reasons, first she really liked being “The Notorious RBG” and second she really hoped to be replaced by the first woman president.  And that’s not to say something bad about her. She was a person and she was concerned over her legacy and status like us all, but that’s not OK for the American people.

We need age limits, not term limits. 70 is fine, it gets you five years past “retirement age” and allows you to read some political tea leaves and try to pick a good time—not cling on hoping for the “ideal” time.  No one outside of a few artist types creates there best work in their 70s and a judge’s robes are not smocks. We do not need octogenarians deciding on the great issues for future generations, regardless of how brilliant and principled they are. 

Did she make any mistakes in jurisprudence during the last 11 years of her life? She always seemed pretty sharp to me right up to the end. I think you’re just arguing backwards from an outcome you don’t like. I don’t like it either but I would’ve rather seen her live a little longer than retire before her time just for the sake of expediency when she was still performing at a high level. With age comes wisdom and that should be something we value in a judge.

Bill Maher had a good bit on ageism tonight.

 

[956 Worldwide 34695]

It’s not ageist to note that people slow down mentally and physically and the fact that we note “she seemed sharp” is proof of that. Anyone who’s ever dealt with an aging family member knows that even with the type of wisdom that sometimes comes with age, you lose steps elsewhere.  Even with the smartest, kindest, and most principled people. And RBG and other supremes have whip sharp clerks to ensure their opinions demonstrate acuity.  We have plenty of careers that have mandatory retirement at a certain age and that’s NOT a bad thing or ageist. 
 

For me POTUS is different because people do vote and can judge their capability openly every four years. But we do have to grapple what it means to have appointed SCOTUS justices taking lifetime to mean the absolute literal, RBG was an octogenarian with pancreatic cancer and a SCOTUS justice to her last breath. And she’s a justice I liked, too. So yeah, I’m looking backward and I think the rest of us should too because I don’t think that’s a scenario we should try and repeat. 

[tx 3 putt 76859]

RBG should have retired when it was guaranteed a dem would name her replacement. The same with Beyer today