Should SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor retire?

[+DieChecker]

Saw this being brought up last couple days. The idea has merit, to avoid another Ruth Bader Ginsburg replacement.

https://www.newsweek.com/sonia-sotomayor-staying-supreme-court-poses-risk-1885312

Quote

However, with Sotomayor being one of three liberal justices on the nine-person Court, a recent push for her to retire has emerged amid the 2024 election in which former President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden will face off as both men each won a series of primary elections to become their party's presumptive presidential nominees.

There's a point to be made that the Senate very well could flip to Republican control. And it very well could be that Trump wins also.

That would lead directly to a 7 to 2 ratio of conservatives to liberals on the SCOTUS. Which could remain that way for decades. 

I argued for Ginsburg to retire when she first got cancer, but she didnt, and that probably resulted in the end of Row V Wade.

She should consider it, but not too long.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Won’t the Republicans do the same thing they did during Obama’s last year and say they can’t appoint new Justices during an election year?

[+and-then]

16 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Won’t the Republicans do the same thing they did during Obama’s last year and say they can’t appoint new Justices during an election year?

That power resides in our upper house - the Senate.  It is currently under Democrat control.  After the election, who knows?

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Won’t the Republicans do the same thing they did during Obama’s last year and say they can’t appoint new Justices during an election year?

AT is correct. You only need the President to nominate. And the Senate to confirm by majority vote.

It could happen over a weekend. But if the Presidency, or Senate, go to the Republicans, no liberal will sit in that seat.

But, looking at Sotomayor, she doesnt have cancer, or long term illness, that i know of. And, i think she could easily do four more years. 

But then they said much the same of King Charles, and they say he only has three years left...

 

[DarkHunter]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It could happen over a weekend. But if the Presidency, or Senate, go to the Republicans, no liberal will sit in that seat.

The Republicans are almost certainly taking the senate in the 2024 election.  All the Republicans up for senate elections are in rather safe states and the Democrats are definitely losing the West Virginia senate seat and going by polling and voting trends will probably lose the Ohio and Montana senate seat.  Arizona's senate seat is just a toss up at this point.  It is possible for Republicans to get the Nevada and possibly Michigan senate seats up for election but those elections will be really close.

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But, looking at Sotomayor, she doesnt have cancer, or long term illness, that i know of. And, i think she could easily do four more years. 

Sotomayor has type 1 diabetes which she has had since she was 7 years old.  How bad her diabetes actually is I don't know, heard rumors it is worse then she let's on, but given the fact that she has had it since she was a young child and is a woman statistically it isn't ideal for her.  It seems for women with type 1 diabetes approximately 55% will make it to 70 with less than 40% making it to 75.  The chances of Sotomayor developing increasingly worse medical conditions is going to be exponentially increasing due to the type 1 diabetes.

Sotomayor staying on the Supreme Court is a gamble, the odds of her surviving the next presidential term is about 50% while her surviving two more presidential terms is closer to 20%.  

[DayoOlabisi]

whenever people argue against term limits for supreme court justices, i like to point out that they do have term limits. we just don't know when those terms expire. therefore i think having determined term limits is not a bad thing. perhaps they could even have 30 year terms, but at least it would be more predictable for everyone. and we could have rules that if they retire early, the justice taking their place is a temporary justice to simply fill out the rest of their term (and then ineligible for a permanent spot on the bench). this would avoid justices coordinating to retire a couple years early to hand off another 30 year term to a their ideological choice.

while on the topic of judicial reforms that will never happen, i also would like to see an additional high court specifically to try politicians, government executives and other judges for rights infringement. currently, the government can try to infringe on individual rights and the only real consequence in districts where they have political support is that maybe a court might overturn their actions and allow the government to be sued because of their actions. this new court would be tasked with punishment of the individual found guilty of infringement. it would be a work around for the stated reasons for qualified immunity. appointments to this court could be made by a popular vote by states' governors collectively and approved by the supreme court (overruled by a 2/3 downvote). this strengthens state representation and the judicial branch in self-regulation and bypasses the political mess of congress and the ever-growing influence of the executive branch (the biggest offenders).

Edited April 2 by DayoOlabisi