Should Breyer retire?

Yes

Although I’m of the of the “rotating panel of judges” school. Seems to be a reasonable way to combat lifetime tenure.

drummerboy said:

Yes.
Yesterday.
Go away. 
Now.

 Why so nasty? He's been a reliable liberal Justice. I agree it would be helpful for him to retire soon, but there's no reason to be so insulting.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

Yes.
Yesterday.
Go away. 
Now.

 Why so nasty? He's been a reliable liberal Justice. I agree it would be helpful for him to retire soon, but there's no reason to be so insulting.

frankly, he's an a$$. His recent remarks on the court are revoltingly naive. Especially considering McConnell's recent remarks about never approving a Biden justice if he regains control of the Senate.

If he doesn't retire, the odds of the court going to 7-2 are huge.

Some legacy.

Although many disagree with me, I am a term limit fanatic so I'll settle for retirement.

well, as a rule, term limits are bad for legislative offices, but for lifetime judicial appointments they're a good idea.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Why so nasty? He's been a reliable liberal Justice. I agree it would be helpful for him to retire soon, but there's no reason to be so insulting.

Fair point. I was agreeing from the “helpful to retire soon” perspective. (I’m getting a little “quote happy.”)

Breyer retire or face DB's ire, for he wants to hire a voice to conspire with Kagan and 'Mayor before you expire.

drummerboy said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

Yes.
Yesterday.
Go away. 
Now.

 Why so nasty? He's been a reliable liberal Justice. I agree it would be helpful for him to retire soon, but there's no reason to be so insulting.

frankly, he's an a$$. 

Some legacy.

 As are you, consistently !

drummerboy said:

well, as a rule, term limits are bad for legislative offices, but for lifetime judicial appointments they're a good idea.

 I know you feel reticent about legislative term limits but some limit could be good. I won't go into my desire for Kennedy to beat Markey, let's shelve that for a moment, but in general, when someone, say Menendez, has been in the Senate for a fair stretch, it is difficult to find a strong challenger from the incumbent's party. And difficult to raise money for an effective race. 

No one wants to believe they are not at the top of their game but expected retirement in many fields was at one time standard. The gold watch moment.

Let's imagine we are discussing Mitch McConnell. I'll bet the words, "here's your watch, what's your hurry", come to mind

comments like this from the Dem leadership worry me to no end. he's either trolling or clueless.

I favor an increase in the number of Judges. 9 is not a magic number

If you have term limits the Judges facing forced retirement will be looking for jobs which could affect their decisions. That is why they were given life tenure in the first place.

STANV said:

I favor an increase in the number of Judges. 9 is not a magic number

If you have term limits the Judges facing forced retirement will be looking for jobs which could affect their decisions. That is why they were given life tenure in the first place.

 so, you give them a nice pension. problem solved.

STANV said:

I favor an increase in the number of Judges. 9 is not a magic number

If you have term limits the Judges facing forced retirement will be looking for jobs which could affect their decisions. That is why they were given life tenure in the first place.

 We have term limits for Presidents and after the last adventure we worried constantly about his future dealings being tied to his decisions. 

the problem with term limits has to do with the loss of institutional knowledge. That's not an issue for judges or for the President. It is an issue for legislators. If you don't allow legislatures to have members with the deep knowledge required to run complex governments, legislative power switches over to lobbyists, corporations, other special interests, etc.

I mean, this is already a problem, but limits would make it exponentially worse.

drummerboy said:

the problem with term limits has to do with the loss of institutional knowledge. That's not an issue for judges or for the President. It is an issue for legislators. If you don't allow legislatures to have members with the deep knowledge required to run complex governments, legislative power switches over to lobbyists, corporations, other special interests, etc.

I mean, this is already a problem, but limits would make it exponentially worse.

 not to mention that we have elections for legislators.  If citizens have had enough of their representative, that person can be voted out.  SCOTUS justices?  We're stuck with them.

For institutional knowledge, would a fairly long limit (10? 15? 20 years? 3 Senate terms?) help?

Breyer has been a good guy over the years but now he is gambling with the future of American democracy.

He should have announced his retirement on the 100th day of Biden's Administration.

mjc said:

For institutional knowledge, would a fairly long limit (10? 15? 20 years? 3 Senate terms?) help?

 That would be my solution. It also solves the issue of a later career that would be problematic. Cory Booker turned 50, so let's say a 20 year term limit would have him exiting at 70. Sounds reasonable.

Morganna said:

mjc said:

For institutional knowledge, would a fairly long limit (10? 15? 20 years? 3 Senate terms?) help?

 That would be my solution. It also solves the issue of a later career that would be problematic. Cory Booker turned 50, so let's say a 20 year term limit would have him exiting at 70. Sounds reasonable.

 yeah, but exactly what problem are you trying to solve at that point?

drummerboy said:

 yeah, but exactly what problem are you trying to solve at that point?

 If they left at an age that was close to typical retirement, their votes would not be influenced by future career plans. STANV brought that consideration up when referring to term limits on Judges so I threw it in there as a consideration.

The limit  would allow fundraising for other candidates from the party who would have to compete, probably be younger, and come with fresh ideas. We just keep voting the same people in not because we think they are doing a great job but because we support the party and rarely can anyone fundraise enough to challenge them. It does happen probably more in the House than the Senate, and when a young fresh face emerges and wins you get the energy, that I believe you like in a person such as AOC. But how often does it happen in Senate races.

Morganna said:

  We just keep voting the same people in not because we think they are doing a great job but because we support the party and rarely can anyone fundraise enough to challenge them. 

To the extent that that is true it is the fault of the voters. Voters should be free to re-elect someone they like and dump someone they don't. 

The same guy was mayor of the nearby town of Union for 50 years. What stopped the voters from picking someone else?

STANV said:

To the extent that that is true it is the fault of the voters. Voters should be free to re-elect someone they like and dump someone they don't. 

The same guy was mayor of the nearby town of Union for 50 years. What stopped the voters from picking someone else?

 I'm under the impression that it is extremely expensive to run a campaign against an incumbent. I'm a Booker fan, but there were many in the state who had gripes against him. Menendez doesn't seem to win any popularity contests but the only challenger, Lisa McCormick didn't fair well, not that she won me over. Hard to imagine in all of NJ politics Menendez could not have been nudged aside.

What stops voters from picking someone else is often simply that there is no challenger. And if someone considered challenging how much does it cost to run a campaign throughout the state to challenge a Senator?

PS if you challenge Menendez, I'll donate.

It costs a ton of money to run a statewide campaign in a state like NJ.

The current Governor and former Gov. Corzine are very wealthy.

Nevertheless it would not be impossible to challenge Menendez. It would just take the right person and muscular fund raising.

OTOH we were talking about term limits in general. AOC defeated a strong incumbent although she was an outsider and unknown. The newly elected Mayor of Buffalo defeated a very powerful long-term incumbent. She is a grass roots community activist from a very humble background. 

The solution here is campaign finance reform, not term limits.

Members of Congress spend half their time fundraising.

We'll need a new Supreme Court for that though.

STANV said:

It costs a ton of money to run a statewide campaign in a state like NJ.

The current Governor and former Gov. Corzine are very wealthy.

Nevertheless it would not be impossible to challenge Menendez. It would just take the right person and muscular fund raising.

OTOH we were talking about term limits in general. AOC defeated a strong incumbent although she was an outsider and unknown. The newly elected Mayor of Buffalo defeated a very powerful long-term incumbent. She is a grass roots community activist from a very humble background. 

drummerboy said:

 

 Sen. Whitehouse is doing a good job of tearing into the SCOTUS decision allowing dark money. He's live on the Senate floor.

Today Breyer said he was undecided about retiring. I guess that's progress.

exactly. He could give a crap about the "integrity of the court".

whatever respect I had for him at the start of this thread has been diminished by half.