She’s almost 86. But she’s still active. She knows the job. The Repubs could come up with no, possibly, valid reason for not approving her.
Why not have the first female Justice to the Supreme Court brought back out of retirement?
Why not have the first female Justice to the Supreme Court brought back out of retirement?Brilliant! Were you a political strategist in a previous life? Not sure why but the thought puts a big fat grin on my face, though it doesn't seem I was a great fan of her's - but I do think she's an honorable person which is more than I say for the dearly departed and some of his cronies still standing. So it would be a step up for sure. And would be some fun political theater, for sure.
Why not have the first female Justice to the Supreme Court brought back out of retirement?Brilliant! Were you a political strategist in a previous life? Not sure why but the thought puts a big fat grin on my face, though it doesn't seem I was a great fan of her's - but I do think she's an honorable person which is more than I say for the dearly departed and some of his cronies still standing. So it would be a step up for sure. And would be some fun political theater, for sure. No, some other smart guys thought of it before me. She was appointed by some guy named Ronald Raygun (sp?). She, nonetheless was not a partisan ideologue. She has referred to herself as the First Lady of the Supreme Court (because she, literally, was).
She’s almost 86. But she’s still active. She knows the job. The Repubs could come up with no, possibly, valid reason for not approving her. Why not have the first female Justice to the Supreme Court brought back out of retirement?Love Sandra Day and she left a lasting legacy but 86? Unfortunately her days are numbered. The Court needs a younger Justice, possibly a moderate who will consider all sides of an appeals case and who will rule based on the Constitution and not on a political mandate. Sure, as a liberal I'd like to see a young, liberal Justice, but that's not likely to happen without a conservative backlash from the "advise and consent" boys. Besides, aren't all of the Justices supposed to become apolitical after donning the robes? At least that was the original intent. Cap't Jack
Her age is actually an asset (to getting approved) in the current circumstances, as the Repubs would still be able, if they win the Presidency, to appoint her replacement, relatively soon. I don't know of any rule that says a retired Justice cannot be nominated. I would, of course, like you, prefer to have a young progressively inclined Justice, but better Sandra Day than nobody, IMO. BTW, I was hoping that you would confirm or correct a statement I made in another thread (pardon the all caps): THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR LEAVING A SUPREME COURT SEAT UNFILLED IN AN ELECTION YEAR SINCE THE CIVIL WAR!She’s almost 86. But she’s still active. She knows the job. The Repubs could come up with no, possibly, valid reason for not approving her. Why not have the first female Justice to the Supreme Court brought back out of retirement?Love Sandra Day and she left a lasting legacy but 86? Unfortunately her days are numbered. The Court needs a younger Justice, possibly a moderate who will consider all sides of an appeals case and who will rule based on the Constitution and not on a political mandate. Sure, as a liberal I'd like to see a young, liberal Justice, but that's not likely to happen without a conservative backlash from the "advise and consent" boys. Besides, aren't all of the Justices supposed to become apolitical after donning the robes? At least that was the original intent. Cap't Jack