Liberals to Justice Ginsburg: Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out

Credit: White House / Flickr.comCredit: White House / Flickr.comLast week Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed the principal dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., arguing that the Supreme Court's conservative majority was wrong to rule against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's so-called contraceptive mandate. With that vote, Ginsburg once again demonstrated her status as the leader of the Court's liberal wing.

So how have American liberals expressed their gratitude to Ginsburg? At The Hill, Alexander Bolton notes that many liberals are "beginning to question whether it's time for her to go." Here are a few examples:

"There's a real chance the Republicans are going to take the Senate," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. "If the Republicans take the Senate, then the ability of President Obama to get a nominee confirmed for the court is going to be much more limited."...

Elias Isquith, an assistant editor at the liberal website Salon, wrote that Ginsburg's Hobby Lobby dissent would be a fitting capstone to her career.

"The celebrations of her brilliance fail to recognize that the best thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg could do for the liberal movement right now is, arguably, to call an end to a sterling and trailblazing legal career and step down from the court," he wrote....

Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College, said Ginsberg should have retired last year to give Obama more leverage to appoint a new justice.

"Her window was last summer," he said. "If she were to resign now, there's very little chance Obama could get someone as progressive as she is through the Senate in the coming months."

For previous coverage of liberals urging Justice Ginsburg to get lost already, see here and here.

For her part, Ginsburg keeps saying she has no intention of retiring anytime soon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RishJoMo||

    Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.AnonToolz.tk

  • Xeones||

    Fuckin' aye, AnonBot. Fuckin' aye.

  • MasterDarque||

    ah with friends like these....

  • ||

    It's nice to see them admit that they don't actually care about Justice, or the Constitution, or Rule of Law and are only interested in packing the court with their TEAM players.

    Kind of refreshing to have them so openly admit to their fascism.

  • WTF||

    A tradition that dates back to FDR.

  • ||

    Well, at least they are sticking with tradition.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Is it really a wonder that they immediately assume every 5-4 decision that goes against them is just being the other justices are partisan.

  • Almanian!||

    Well, that's factually true - any 5-4 decision IS just The Enemy being partisan. Cause that's what they do.

    Duh.

    /progderp

  • ImanAzol||

    Exactly. In actuality, those decisions are the liberal justices being partisan and the conservative justices being right.

  • Tony||

    Calm down Susan. Jesus you people are emotional. How is it going against the law, constitution, or justice to suggest that a SC justice retire in order to prevent a total rightwing takeover of one branch of government for a generation? How is that fascism? I eagerly await an expansion of your thesis.

  • Nooge.||

    The notorious right-winger Roberts was the deciding vote on ACA passing Constitutional muster.

  • RG||

    So it's a "takeover" when the other team does it.......

  • ImanAzol||

    Because the notorious right wing actually cares about the Constitution.

    You know, that inconvenient thing 0 allegedly studied in college between bong hits and trashing his room for the cleaning lady.

  • ||

    There was no emotion in my post. The left is actively calling for her to resign for purely partisan politics as evidenced by: "there's very little chance Obama could get someone as progressive as she is through the Senate"

    And how very nice of you to prove my point that y'all have ripped the mask off by starting your post with a touch of misogyny.

  • Suicidy||

    And if course the goal for progressivekind is never to replace her with a competent jurist, but to score the biggest commie nutcase they can find that will blindly serve the cause at the expense of all else.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    I think the lefties are the ones who need to calm down. I don't hear anyone on the other side screaming at that kindly old lady to give up her occupation for someone else's political convenience.

  • GroundTruth||

    I have to give them that at least they are honest about having a clear view of the Constitution as a "living document" that serves their progressive outlook. I would suggest that both conservatives and libertarians be equally honest about their outlooks. Then we can argue about the fact that the liberal and conservative views are both off base, and that the Constitution as written is an extremely libertarian document.

  • Almanian!||

    "The celebrations of her brilliance fail to recognize that the best thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg could do for the liberal movement right now is, arguably, to call an end to a sterling and trailblazing legal career and step down from the court"

    fixed!

  • Nooge.||

    Win.

  • Sudden||

    well played

  • Almanian!||

    Has this fucking idiot actually ever produced an opinion that dealt with anything in the constitution at all? Cause she's struck me as "Stupidest Justice" and "All Opinions Are Feelz" since the day she was appointed to the court.

    Memory fails, but I think maybe there was ONE opinion that I thought she made a cogent argument and made some sense.

    But that may be overly generous.

    What a fucking maroon. She makes Obama looks like a Constitutional Scholar®, for fuck's sake.

  • waffles||

    So you would support her stepping aside to let Obama appoint a new one?

  • Almanian!||

    I did not say that. I don't give a fuck what she does. I simply noted she's an utter moron, and I'm not aware she's ever delivered a decision or brief or statement that had anything to do with the constitution.

    Next question!

  • Nooge.||

    So you would support her stepping aside to let Obama appoint a new one?

    Usually I wouldn't, but his demonstrated level of incompetence gives me hope that he couldn't even do that right. He could nominate someone so revolting that only the most committed retards of his party would go with it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cause she's struck me as "Stupidest Justice"

    Except for the Wise Latina the Kevin James impersonator and finger in the air, head up his ass Roberts

  • Faceless Commenter||

    And "Obamacare is free money!" Kagan.

    Not a very good lineup overall.

  • Suicidy||

    I'm imagining an 'X-Men versus vs. SCOTUS' limited series. If I ever produce and publish it, look for a fight in chapter 3 where Wolverine loses his shit and goes into a full on berserker rage after listening to Ginsburg bitch once too often.

  • waffles||

    I never thought I'd support Ginsburg, but hey, here we are.

  • mr simple||

    This was my first reaction, but then I realized that the "conservative" justices aren't perfect either and a republican appointee isn't guaranteed to be pro rights all around, even for a Paul presidency, which is still a low probability occurence. So I'm back to being indifferent.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If Paul wins, bet he nominates Brown. It would be fascinating to watch the Senate Democrats attack her. They've done it before but not in an era so steeped in identity politics. A black woman, the child of Alabama sharecroppers. Who happens to be the greatest possible evil in the world, a libertarian.

  • #||

    It would be amazing having her on SCOTUS.

  • ||

    They would drop all pretenses of not being the shitbag racist they are.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "They would drop all pretenses of not being the shitbag racist they are."

    They pretty much already did that with the way they went after Clarence Thomas.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    And Condi Rice.

  • RonnieNM||

    Who is this woman that I must know of?

  • steedamike||

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hai! So desu.

  • Spartacus||

    "The celebrations of her brilliance fail to recognize that the best thing Ruth Bader Ginsburg could do for the liberal movement right now is, arguably, to call an end to a sterling and trailblazing legal career and step down from the court," he wrote....

    And all this time I thought she was there to interpret the law to the best of her ability. I did not realize that justices were there to promote particular "movements". I'm gonna have to go back and reread my Constitution.

  • Almanian!||

    I'm gonna have to go back and reread my Constitution.

    Make sure you have the most-current version, cause - "living document". It's a moving target.

    So I'm told.

  • mr simple||

    You're probably reading that bad version that's like 100 years old, or something. You need the updated version that says congress can override the constitution and ignore rights whenever they have good intentions.

  • Spartacus||

    Oh, you're right. Turns out I have the King James version.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    It appears you don't have the latest version either - the one that says the President can unilaterally override Congress and rewrite laws as he sees fit.

  • Harvard||

    I'm guessing he dusts off Saul Alinsky for this. Tired old Bernadette the Bomber maybe, throw a bone to the cooches.

    See what I did there?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'll support anyone for the Court if they agree that alt-text is a penumbra right.

  • Almanian!||

    Penumbra and Emanations is the name of my next jazz fusion band.

  • Lord Humungus||

    +1 Free Jazz Odyssey

  • bdhr||

    OT: repost from last night since it seems no one saw it:

    I just noticed this:

    Auric Demonocles

    Why were you default blocked in fascr (the Firefox reasonable)? I just now realized that you haven't disappeared for weeks and weeks, your posts have just been hidden. Does the add-on just hate the diabetic?
    SugarFree

    Beats me. It might be a totality of the number of people who have blocked me or someone might have added me manually to the default block list.

    But you might not have missed much. I went on vacation and moved houses in that time period and haven't posted very often.

    There is no default blocklist, and if there was, Sug wouldn't be on it. There is also no auto-generated one based on (un)popularity.

    It was either error on Auric's part or a bug, though on the latest version (released Monday) I see Sug's posts fine.

  • ||

    ...Could you make a blacklist and add him in? Please?

  • SugarFree||

    Hey!

    Anyway, I didn't think I had been intentionally blocked or anything, but really, would anyone blame someone if they did block me. I'm basically Nikki with a schlong.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    At least nicole isn't scared of Twix.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I didn't realize there was the button to block without going into the add-on options. I probably hit that on accident at some point.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Also: what were you doing on something for more than a month ago?

  • Sticky Fingaz||

    The Lefty Machiavels are getting their panties in a bunch for nothing. If she retires any time before ~OCT 2015, Obama will just nominate someone. If that person gets rejected, then the media + the pro-left will go on with their "The American People don't have time for partisan games. Congress, do your work!" line of whining and so the second Obama nominee will get appointed.

    Really, RBG has plenty of time. It's no biggie.

    Also: next GOP justice has to be a woman, for political reasons.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Harriett Meyers, you're on deck.

  • The Tone Police||

    Yep. Sticky has it right.

  • The Tone Police||

    "Also: next GOP justice has to be a woman, for political reasons."

    JANICE ROGERS BROWN OR GTFO

  • Sticky Fingaz||

    I'm with Tone Loc on this one.

  • #||

    +Awesome

  • The Last American Hero||

    Janice.Rogers.Brown. Now.

  • Hugh Akston||

    This is why you should never get involved with a political movement. It doesn't matter how much you do for them or how much of your life you devote to them, eventually they will turn on you and eat you.

  • Almanian!||

    KONY2012

    lolwut?

  • Pulseguy||

    You exist for them.

    It is true of fundamentalist religious groups too.

  • mr simple||

    This. There is no truth but party line. If you don't just go along with party wishes you're a liability and need to be removed.

  • JW||

    eventually they will turn on you and eat you.

    Well, rations are getting low again and you're looking positively delicious.

    What? No, don't edge away like that.

  • JW||

    Tags. How do they work?

  • Faceless Commenter||

    With "greater than" and "less than" signs. Just google "HTML tags" and you'll see. Rather cumbersome, with many forums supplying e-z formatting, but we libertarians don't just get things handed to us.

  • MasterDarque||

    They could always appoint Obama after his Presidency or maybe that fucking idiot Diane Feinstein.

  • Pulseguy||

    Isn't it time for a black woman lesbian on the Court? With a disabled child?

  • Pro Libertate||

    More Homo sapiens bias. Why a human at all? The Constitution doesn't require it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There ain't no rule that says a dog can't play Chief Justice.

  • mr simple||

    Justice Bud? I smell a movie series.

    As long as it isn't a rabbit. We all know those warmongering socialists are pro police state.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    "You want the ball? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE BALL!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    The real power would be in the clerks tasked with translating his barks, growls, and body English into opinions.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The democrats would never nominate a rabbit, given the anti-birth control stance of El-ahrairah worship.

  • Marshall Gill||

    There ain't no rule that says a dog can't play Chief Justice.

    Surely Roberts isn't as intelligent as a dog.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Who says it has to be carbon based life form at all?

    Get IBM to program the Deep Blue supercomputer with all the writings of James Madision - the father of the Constitiont - and swear it in as Chief Justice.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Madison and Constitution.

    Typos are a killer

  • Nooge.||

    black woman lesbian

    Cisnormative and therefore discriminatory. Needs moar trans.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The very fact that calling her a woman meant she wasn't trans makes you a bigot.

  • Nooge.||

    Oh, shit. I need to go check my privilege. :(

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have something even rarer: a black female libertarian. She even has a name and a huge amount of experience on the appellate level.

  • MasterDarque||

    I wouldn't mind seeing a black female on the court or maybe Asian.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I wouldn't mind either. But that's because that part of the person's identity is entirely irrelevant to how I would feel about the nominee.

  • steedamike||

    BOOM!

    But I think he's referencing the fact that it's harder for the left to label a right-leaning person a racist, when that person is a minority.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I wouldn't mind seeing more people who respected the constitution on the court, facade be damned.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'd prefer a benevolent superalien.

  • Suicidy||

    The Doctor would be an interesting choice. Who says justice's can't be from fiction?

  • Suicidy||

    One with big tits. Might as well get some sweater meat while we're at it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Didn't evil Ronny Raygun, the patron saint of conservatism, appoint her?

  • The Tone Police||

    No. Bill Clinton.

  • Tony||

    Given the way the court has been behaving lately, preventing another conservative from ascending would be the best thing for limiting judicial activism. Or does the Reason crowd define that the same way rightwingers do--any opinion that they don't like?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'd like to define "judicial activism" as any ruling which does not have as its basis a fair and consistent reading of the Constitution, if it's all the same to you.

    Ginsburg's decision-making process is more reliant on her personal politics and preferences, and a replacement along those lines is to be opposed.

  • Tony||

    And the conservatives don't behave that way? If that's what you think, then I can rightly question your judgment about what's fair and consistent.

  • Unusual Dave||

    So you would replace one activism with another... Got it.

    TEAM!!!

  • Tony||

    Nobody has a direct line to the Truth of the demigods of the Founding and a pristine apolitical perspective on constitutionality. If such a thing were possible, there would be no need for the supreme court in the first place. Every justice will come with an ideological perspective. Everyone who bitches about "activism" is being a dishonest hack, largely because it's usually conservatives whose ideological allies on the court are currently rewriting the laws of Congress at a breathtaking pace.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Wow, uh.

    "[P]reventing another conservative from ascending would be the best thing for limiting judicial activism."

    and

    "Everyone who bitches about 'activism' is being a dishonest hack"

    No further comments.

  • Tony||

    I don't think that term means anything. It's a buzzword invented by conservatives meant to convey that when the court disagrees with their ideological position, it's somehow extra unfair.

    I'm just saying, if you're actually concerned with the court casually rewriting laws, it's the conservatives you should be focused on. Somehow I suspect you guys will mostly fall on the dishonest hack side, though.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't think that term means anything.

    Yeah. I wouldn't expect you to understand, being distinction-challenged and all. Poor little retard. Can't comprehend the difference between rewriting law and invalidating it. It must be nice being so stupid that you don't even know you're stupid.

  • Tony||

    sarc you are not wise enough to be able to distinguish between an opinion you don't like and an opinion that is somehow invalid based on the rules you just made up.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like I said. Too stupid to understand the difference between invalidating a law and rewriting a law. So stupid. It's pathetic, really. Just pathetic.

  • Unusual Dave||

    If the term doesn't mean anything then why did you mention it RE: TFA?

    if you're actually concerned with the court casually rewriting laws

    The abuses of the court go way beyond that, but, yes, I was very concerned when Roberts rewrote the ACA to uphold it.

    Somehow, I doubt you were though.

    And the leftists don't behave that way? If that's what you think, then I can rightly question your judgment about what's fair and consistent.

    TFA was about the leftist treatment of their own, not about how somehow conservative justices are better. Pay attention.

  • Tony||

    It's not interesting to me that liberals are saying she should retire. That's being practical. Similarly, it wouldn't be a scandal to me if Republicans were working on ways to turn Scalia and his cohorts into immortal zombies, given the probability that they'll not get another appointment in their lifetimes.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I don't think that term means anything. It's a buzzword invented by conservatives meant to convey that when the court disagrees with their ideological position, it's somehow extra unfair.

    Wrong as ever, Tony w/o spaces. The term "judicial activism" was coined by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in 1947 and was used with regard to the Supreme Court of the time, specifically Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, and Wiley Rutledge (Rutledge's most famous disciple is John Paul Stevens). Seeing as how you are probably as ignorant of the history of the Supreme Court as you are of pretty much everything else, you would know those four names and their opposition to Justice Felix Frankfurter's philosophy of "judicial restraint" (handed to him by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) which places an emphasis on deference to precedent and to the legislature as the will of the electorate.

  • mplspolitics||

    5-4 for ACA = "LAW OF THE LAND!"

    5-4 for statutory language that the left now wants to ignore because the wrong people are being accommodated = "SLIPPERY SLOPE!"

    You have become a parody of what you claim to hate and have emulated the same type of moralism you used to be against.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you're a dishonest hack. Well, we already knew that.

  • ||

    Nobody has a direct line to the Truth of the demigods of the Founding

    What the fuck do you think the written word of the bill of rights is if not a direct line to the truth of the founding?

    It is not written in Hittite and filled with long lost linguistic colloquialisms you fucking idiot.

  • Tony||

    Well those of you with a particular tendency to declare yourselves all-seeing authorities on the document are also the ones who pretend that the words "well regulated militia" don't exist. I'll not take your word for it. If the words were plainly interpreted we wouldn't need a court, we could use a computer.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Dude seriously? Find me an example, from the late 18th century, where the word regulate/regulated/etc is used as it's used today. Just one.

    Also, do some research on the founder's view of standing armies. Specifically RE: the militia.

    The left's sophistry on the topic is quite amazing, and the only reason why it's not "plainly interpreted".

  • It's a wagon wheel!||

    "pretend that the words "well regulated militia" don't exist. "

    Nah, we just know what commas are for.

  • 21044||

    "we just know what commas are for"

    This!

  • ||

    Nicely done.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    the ones who pretend that the words "well regulated militia" don't exist

    And what does the word "well" mean, as understood by the people who drafted the Second Amendment? "Regulated"? "Militia"?

    Of course, you could always refer to the writings of people influential upon and contemporary to, the Second Amendment....

    Nah, that be too much like sense.

  • tarran||

    The militia of the United States is defined as all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 Tonykins.

    And it being a dependent clause has no impact on the entire stricture.

    I says that because all adult males being knowledgable on the usage of firearms and military stuff, the government cannot abridge the right to bear arms.

    The original gun control laws outlawed blacks from owning guns, were unconstitutional (yes, I know you think jim Crow was legally dandy, but we don't) and supported because lots of people had your attitude that majorities should be allowed to fuck over minorities (except when you find yourself in the minority in question, natch).

  • Tony||

    So really we should only allow able-bodied white males to own guns. Original intent, right?

  • Unusual Dave||

    Original intent, right?

    [citation needed]

  • tarran||

    Once again the point goes over your head. The law says they can't abridge the right of people to bear arms. Period.

  • Tony||

    Yeah there's a period there but there's also a whole clause before those words you guys and the NRA pretend don't exist.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about protecting yourself from hoodlums. That's what police are for.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Or here's the Pennsylvania constitution from 1790: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

    You know that "whole clause before those words you guys and the NRA pretend don't exist?" That would be referring to defence(sic) of the State.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about protecting yourself from hoodlums. That's what police are for.

    I guess this dude, should have just waited for the cops.

  • ||

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Hmm don't see a period in that one.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Not one in there either. Man, it must suck to be full of shit.

    Oh, and both of those (as recorded in the national archives) clearly show that not only do we have a right to keep and bear arms, we have a right to use those arms as a member of a militia.

  • sarcasmic||

    the ones who pretend that the words "well regulated militia" don't exist.

    Yeah. Because governments must declare their right to keep and bear arm. That just goes beyond stupid and into the realm of dishonesty.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Here, I'll give you a little help in your research.

    You can look at state constitutions, adopted around the same time that Madison penned the BoR, to gain better insight into the thinking of the time.

    For example the Vermont Constitution, adopted in 1777: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

    Pretty plain.

  • Tony||

    All of that militia and military language makes it pretty clear that the amendment has nothing to do with a right to amass an arsenal for whatever damn reason you please. They could have just said that if that's what they meant. It's clear that the context is in organized defense in lieu of standing armies--meaning it's obsolete now.

  • Unusual Dave||

    the amendment has nothing to do with a right to amass an arsenal for whatever damn reason you please

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"

    I don't know about you, but I might just need an arsenal for that.

    Obsolete, shmobsolete, pass an amendment.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Also, back in the day, arms included cannons. Just sayin'.

  • Mock-star||

    And warships. You know those things that could -and did- bring whole cities to their knees?

  • Brian||

    It's clear that the context is in organized defense in lieu of standing armies--meaning it's obsolete now.

    Oh, so when right-thinking people declare a law obsolete, we can skip the whole process of, you know, amending the constitution, and just act like it's not there?

    So much for false accusations of "going against the law, constitution, or justice".

    BTW, you do know that declaring a law obsolete is a very different thing from declaring it to say something it doesn't say. An individual right to bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia is still an individual right to bear arms. Declaring it obsolete doesn't magically transform it into something else.

    I mean, I know the whole constitutional amendment process is kind of frustrating. How about we go ahead and skip it by overturning Roe v. Wade? Which constitutional amendment must be made to allow regulating abortion, along with practically every other procedure and drug thats regulated in this country?

    Oh, we couldn't do that. That would be "judicial activism." Now, let's all start pretending the second amendment says something it doesn't, because we don't like it.

  • Tony||

    I could go either way and it wouldn't bother me too much. A sympathetic court could overturn Heller and wisely decide that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to gun regulations (as it never did pre-Heller), or we could amend the constitution. Never said I was against repealing the stupid thing.

    (Though Laurence Tribe did argue against it because it would open the door to messing with the rest of the BoR, and that's somewhat convincing.)

  • ||

    What were these magical gun regulations you keep referencing?

    Are you talking about local regulations that kept blacks and women from owning and carrying guns? No you couldn't possibly be suggesting that pre-Heller those were constitutional because then you'd be a racist and a misogynist.

  • Brian||

    I could go either way and it wouldn't bother me too much. A sympathetic court could overturn Heller and wisely decide that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to gun regulations (as it never did pre-Heller), or we could amend the constitution. Never said I was against repealing the stupid thing.

    Oh, right. And, I would love it if the supreme court would just interpret the constitution to match my subjective preferences regardless of what it actually says, or have congress amend the constitution to my liking. However, in regards to the first: that's not how rule of law works, and in regards to the second, good luck finding a compelling argument for that. At this point, you're one of the few second amendment opponents who actually go on record. Practically all socialist democrats explicitly deny any attempt to "take away the guns" or repeal the second amendment. You'll need all the luck you can get.

    BTW, the Heller ruling:
    1. If the second amendment doesn't apply to guns, what does it apply to? All arms but guns?
    2. No one cares what the supreme court did pre-Heller, i.e., Heller didn't overturn a previous ruling. This implies that Heller is in fact completely consistent with previous supreme courts. Or, please inform me of what ruling Heller overturned.

  • GregMax||

    If they amended the 1st to eliminate the protection of freedom to practice my religion . . . I'd still HAVE the right to practice my religion. The bill of rights is there to protect our rights from government infringement.

    Let them "amend" the 2nd. I'd still have a right to keep and bear arms because I SAY I do. (the question is whether I have the balls to back up my statement ;)

  • MJGreen||

    What laws has the SC been rewriting? Roberts rewrote PPACA to change a penalty fee to a tax, but that's all that jumps immediately to mind.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Nobody has a direct line to the Truth of the demigods of the Founding

    If only they had written some explanation of what the Constitution was supposed to mean. They could have called them the National Pamphlet or something similar.

  • Suicidy||

    I was told that you were supposed to be busy comparing dick pics of teen boys today.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The progressives cited want a Ginsburg replacement in the Ginsburg mold, for explicitly partisan reasons. I'm sure that the conservatives you'd like to discuss are very mean and scary, but that's not the topic at hand. Address that topic, or shut the hell up.

  • Tony||

    They're being practical and smart. Liberals understand that losing one liberal justice to the Republicans means for all we know the entire New Deal gets thrown out.

  • Unusual Dave||

    And how was the New Deal held up in the first place again?

  • Tony||

    I am not the only one here who cares about policy and the practical means to achieve and maintain it. I'm just not arrogant enough to claim that when the court sides with me it is also siding with Eternal Truth, like you guys.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm just not arrogant enough to claim that when the court sides with me it is also siding with Eternal Truth, like you guys.

    Yeah. You just put your fingers in your ears and yell "Settled law! La la la la I won! I can't hear you! I won and you lost! La la la settled law! Losers! La la la I can't hear you!"

  • Unusual Dave||

    Your argument assumes the founders of the country intended an arbitrary constitution. Yet somehow assumes that in FDR's day, that intention was lost.

    I mean, if laws aren't supposed to be invalidated by the courts, why even have a constitution?

    LOL @ "Eternal Truth", weak sauce.

  • sarcasmic||

    I mean, if laws aren't supposed to be invalidated by the courts, why even have a constitution?

    If the left had their way, we'd be living in a dictatorship with no checks or balances and one party rule. Though in practice we're not too far from that.

  • ||

    the entire New Deal gets thrown out.

    "THE IMPORT EXPORT BANK MUST BE PROTECTED FOR JUSTICE!!!"

    -Tony

  • ||

    I do like how you think preserving the toxic tattered remains of the New Deal is more important then reestablishing the Bill of Rights and how support for the Bill of Rights is somehow partisan right wing when it was drafted at a time when there was no definable left or right wing.

  • Tony||

    Does any of you have an appreciation for what begging the question means?

    You're for the Bill of Rights and I'm for tyranny. I get it. You're so righteous and special.

  • WTF||

    You're for the Bill of Rights and I'm for tyranny. I get it.

    I think this must be the most honest thing 'Tony' has ever said.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think this must be the most honest thing 'Tony' has ever said.

    Yep. He must be drinking early. En vino veritas and all that.

  • Unusual Dave||

    So I point out the assumptions that your argument makes, and you respond with a vague comment about how we are begging the question? LOL.

  • sarcasmic||

    So I point out the assumptions that your argument makes, and you respond with a vague comment about how we are begging the question? LOL.

    He's all projection, all the time. When he gets emotional he accuses us of being emotional. He says only dishonest hacks scream activism as he screams activism. Now he accuses us of begging the question as he begs the question.

    He'd be funny if he wasn't so stupid.

  • Unusual Dave||

    He's all projection, all the time.

    Yeah, I know, but it's fun (at least today) to point it out.

  • Tony||

    I think I support the Bill of Rights. But I'm not going to say my interpretation is the one true correct one. I understand that I have to win politically and in courts and that angels are not going to descend and simply proclaim me right.

  • sarcasmic||

    What is there to interpret? The language is pretty damn clear to any honest person. Oh. That's why you have a difficult time interpreting it. You're dishonest. Well, we already knew that.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, why have a supreme court at all? Let's just make sarc god-emperor for life. There's nothing to interpret, there is just sarc and his infinite wisdom.

  • Unusual Dave||

    There's nothing to interpret

    Actually, as in the HL case, which, I am told, was decided in an activist way, there are reams and reams of laws that the congress has constructed. Similarities to Byzantium not withstanding, that might, you know, require a court.

    Also, RE: the constitution, we have sophists such as yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the power of the other branches by throwing out legislation that doesn't conform to the Constitution. It was set up like that precisely because the founders knew that legislators will write legislation that goes beyond the scope of their limited powers, because that's what people do.
    You are the one who would get rid of the Supreme Court and just give deference to the legislature, because you have zero respect for any limitations on government.
    Then you go and say you support the Bill of Rights? What a fucking joke. There isn't anything that you wouldn't support government doing. Nothing at all. Well you wouldn't support the government respecting the rights of the people, but the way the government does that is by not violating those rights. Since you don't understand the difference between doing something and not doing something, you wouldn't comprehend what that means anyway. Fucking retard.

  • Tony||

    It wasn't exactly set up to strike laws, though judicial review (not in the constitution) eventually became one of its functions. Do you even know what you're talking about?

    You can't support the Bill of Rights and be an anarchist. Sorry.

  • Suicidy||

    By interpret, he means 'get his way'.

  • ||

    Considering you have no compunction against lining your political enemies against a wall and killing them, yeah I'd say you're for tyranny.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Does any of you have an appreciation for what begging the question means?

    You should, considering it defines your entire methodology.

  • Suicidy||

    You fucking finally figured it out! Good for you.

  • Idle Hands||

    The conservatives can be just as bad, anyone who uses judicial activism should be disbarred regardless of whether they were appointed by team blue or red.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If you invalidate a law, it's not activism. If you make a new law, it's activism.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's their job to invalidate law.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's what I just said?

  • sarcasmic||

    I was clarifying. Unfortunately they are more likely to defer than do their job. Then when they do their job, dishonest hacks like Tony scream "Judicial activism!"

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm trying to recall to mind any instance of judicial activism by the conservative side of the Supreme Court since Obama has been in office. I can't think of any.

    They've certainly blocked some laws that were unconstitutional, but that's not activism, that's what they're there for. Judicial activism means they'll create new law out of whole cloth, create rights that previously did not exist, etc.

    Just because a court decision does not go your way does not mean it's judicial activism.

    p.s. I am not opposed to judicial activism, sometimes it's necessary. But I just haven't seen any of it from the SCOTUS in a very long time.

  • Tony||

    Um, Heller?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You mean that time they threw out a law?

  • sarcasmic||

    He's too stupid to understand the difference between throwing out a law and rewriting a law. It's all the same to his distinction-challenged brain.

  • Tony||

    They invented a previously nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air (kind of like Roe). That was possibly the height of conservative judicial activism recently, but by no means the only example.

    I don't see why throwing out laws is the opposite of activism. Activism could mean not being deferential enough to legislatures.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, that's because you're retarded. Hell, you can't even read to the 2nd item in a list.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't see why throwing out laws is the opposite of activism.

    That's because you're stupid.

    Activism could mean not being deferential enough to legislatures.

    You are a doublethink ninja, I'll give you that.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    They invented a previously nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air (kind of like Roe).


    A right that is clearly and expressively protected in the Bill of Rights, unlike Roe. Putting your head in the sand does not make things go away, Tony.

  • Tony||

    See this is what I'm talking about. If something wasn't recognized for 200 years then it wasn't "clearly and expressively" protected. You're just saying that because you want to end the conversation with "I'm right because I say so." Like conservatives and their judicial activism bullshit.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    If something wasn't recognized for 200 years then it wasn't "clearly and expressively" protected.


    You were the one who mentioned Heller a an example of a non-existent right conjured from thin air. I pointed out that you are absolutely wrong. Now you complain about rights not enumerated in the Constitution not existing. Make up your mind or go back to your embroidery and let the MEN talk here, sweetheart.

  • WTF||

    The individual right to keep and bear arms was clearly and expressly protected without any infringement for 150 years, when it began to be gradually eroded by dishonest shits like you. Stupid AND dishonest, what a combination of vile you are, "Tony".

  • Tony||

    No it wasn't. There were gun regulations everywhere even at the time of the founding. Open carry would be considered bizarre to citizens of the old west.

  • WTF||

    Open carry would be considered bizarre to citizens of the old west.

    Wow. Just. Fucking. Wow.

    Why don't you leave the computer alone for a while and just go back to screaming at the wall?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    No it wasn't. There were gun regulations everywhere even at the time of the founding.


    Yes, many counties required every able man to have one rifle for defense. That kind of regulation.

    But people were not as enlightened as they are now in, say, Chicago.

  • Tony||

    And many towns had people check their guns before entering. You couldn't even go into town while armed! That's some oppressive shit.

  • WTF||

    And many towns had people check their guns before entering.

    Only a few, and only in territories, which at the time were not given the full constitutional protections available in the actual United States. Which is of course a different debate, you lying little shit.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Little Bill is just the kind of sheriff you want to run your town.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Open carry would be considered bizarre to citizens of the old west.

    So you have now moved the goalposts from an individual right to keep and bear to open carry?

  • WTF||

    And he just makes shit up as well. Don't expect an honest debate from the stupid little liar.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Don't expect an honest debate from the stupid little liar.

    Oh, I'm not, but occasionally it's fun to play.

  • Brian||

    See this is what I'm talking about. If something wasn't recognized for 200 years then it wasn't "clearly and expressively" protected.

    Uh, I'm pretty sure the second amendment was recognized for a long time. Just because there wasn't a supreme court ruling doesn't imply that the right didn't exist.

    If we somehow went 200 years without the supreme court ruling on a right to free speech, would we declare that right "unrecognized"? Despite the fact that the nation consisted of millions of people engaging in free speech and gun ownership every day over those 200 years?

  • Unusual Dave||

    If we somehow went 200 years without the supreme court ruling on a right to free speech, would we declare that right "unrecognized"?

    Apparently the bootlickers need their authority figures to reaffirm what they are allowed to do every so often.

  • sarcasmic||

    You wouldn't call the penaltax ruling an instance of judicial activism?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That one certainly was, but it wasn't by the "conservative side". Though he drops that distinction in the PS.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Good point, but I'm not sure what to call it -- in fact, I'm not sure it even rises to judicial activism. "Utter cluelessness" is more like it.

  • ||

    Or does the Reason crowd define that the same way rightwingers do

    You are the TEAM hack here tony.

    The concern troll from a hack concern troll is noted.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Given the way the court has been behaving lately,


    And how has it been behaving lately? Because quite a bit of decisions made lately have translated into less individual freedom, not more. Or what exactly do you want?

    preventing another conservative from ascending would be the best thing for limiting judicial activism.


    At least "judicial activism" of the kind you don't like. Wouldn't that be so?

    Or does the Reason crowd define that the same way rightwingers do--any opinion that they don't like?


    You mean exactly as left-wingers define it as well?

  • Tony||

    Please don't expect me to respond to empty slogans like "individual freedom." That's not what they've been doing from my perspective (unless you, like them, are tending to think the only "individuals" worthy of having expanded freedoms are corporations).

    What I want is for conservatives to stop declaring that opinions they like are constitutionally sacred and that opinions they don't like are less valid. They're all equally valid; they all have the same effect on and force of law.

  • Unusual Dave||

    What I want is for conservatives to stop declaring that...

    So logically, you come to a libertarian site to talk about it. Logically.

    No need to thank me, just trying to help out where I can.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Please don't expect me to respond to empty slogans like "individual freedom."


    I stopped expecting that a long time ago, Tony. Not even your amusing assurance that you're a "libertarian" would be enough for that. The few comments that you unwittingly let out while high on adrenaline reveal the fact you're no friend of liberty, just another mediocre nobody who wants to believe in "a higher purpose" to give yourself a purpose.

    What I want is for conservatives to stop declaring that opinions they like are constitutionally sacred


    And you think nobody here knows that Conservatives pay lip service to the Constitution? You're a fool.

  • Tony||

    Oh I think libertarians are even worse when it comes to self-righteous declarations about how only their opinions are valid in the eyes of the founders/god substitute.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Oh I think libertarians are even worse when it comes to self-righteous declarations


    You mean like "don't steal"???

    Fucker.

  • Tony||

    Wrapped up in those two simple words is the claim--completely unjustifiable by any but the most stupid anarchist fringe bullshit--that taxation is theft. Am I not correct? See how it's not as simple as you want it to be? That you are imposing all sorts of assumptions into what you claim are simple truths?

  • WTF||

    Theft that 'Tony' agrees with is just dandy.

    Jump up your own ass, you fascist little fucker.

  • ||

    Taxation for the "privilege" of trying to support my family IS fucking theft.

    We can squabble over whether or not gas and sales taxes are theft or user fees another day.

  • Unusual Dave||

    Taxation for the "privilege" of trying to support my family IS fucking theft.

    Unless, of course, like Tony, one doesn't believe that one owns oneself.

  • Brian||

    That's going into the Tony chatbot:

    http://www.chatbot4u.com/en/chatbots/tony-4.html

    Still, my favorite is:
    Brian: What do you think about birth control?
    Tony:All women need free maternity coverage and birth control. What if they get hit by a bus?

  • Suicidy||

    Opinions conservatives like will tend to be more valid because comservatives actually believe in the constitution, as opposed to viewing it as an impediment to progressive state power.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The whole point of lifetime tenure is to at least somewhat isolate the justices from politics. As can be seen from the Court's history, that doesn't entirely work, but it does seem to reduce the ties of the justices to the parties themselves, even if the justices still hold "correct" views. And sometimes even the views change--Earl Warren is a good example of that.

    I'm no Ginsburg fan, but it's totally her right to stay on the bench, and she's within her rights to ignore all of the partisan whining about it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If Bammy had half a brain, he'd nominate HRC to SCOTUS. The asshat Senate republicans would support her out of collegiality and Bammy would clear the deck for his preferred successor - Fauxcohauntus.

  • Pro Libertate||

    There was a rumor than Bill Clinton would be appointed to the SCOTUS if Gore won.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Though his impeachment and subsequent disbarment ended such speculation pretty quickly, along with the election of Bush.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I wish Sandra Day O'Connor had stayed on the Bench.
    Ginsburg not retiring is the biggest disservice to us progressives.

    And, I think it is too too late. She should had retired last year.

  • Tony||

    She's rolling the dice but I suspect Republicans wouldn't go out of their way to block her replacement by a Dem president. Now if Scalia were to croak under a Dem, I think we can expect all-out constitutional crisis.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Why do you say that?

    If Scalia were to die today, the Republicans would probably stonewall and we'd have eight judges.

  • Tony||

    Agreed. I do think the safest option is for Ginsburg to retire. But I don't know that even a GOP-majority senate would throw out the tradition of giving the pres who he wants if he were just replacing one liberal with another. But they are of course not to be underestimated. They are giving every indication that they know they won't win the presidency in 2016.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Is that why Bork and Myers are on the Supreme Court? Because the Senate just gives the President what he wants?

  • Tony||

    Except in extreme cases. That's been the tradition. Obama is never going to nominate a lefty Bork.

  • WTF||

    Because Bork was extreme compared to Sotomayor and Elena "the government can force you to eat broccoli" Kagan.

  • #||

    It is rather funny in Tony's bubble eyes. Is is self evident that Kagan isnt a "leftie" Bork?

  • #||

    It's also been a long time since a SCOTUS judge has been nominated by a pres where the senate was controlled by ther other party. Bush I was the last time, and he gave us Souter and that was before all SCOTUS picks were politicized,

    If Obama got to nominate someone with a GOP senate, this would be new territory in the moderan era.

  • ||

    Politics ruins everything it touches.

  • Jon Lester||

    Wait a minute, how are they helped if RBG vacates, if there will still be five "conservative" judges sitting?

  • Jon Lester||

    I guess it's a tacit admission that the next president probably won't be a Democrat, if they want someone younger in place to prevent a 6-3 stack.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One of the things I'd love about a Paul presidency is his appointments to the courts.

  • sarcasmic||

    Supreme Court justice Napolitano!

  • briannnnn||

    What are these people talking about? The Republicans have no spine, and will vote unanimously, with your usual suspects (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruise, Mike Lee) being the only dissenters. When's the last time the Republicans stopped a judicial nomination? LBJ Maybe? Even softball superstar Elena Kagan got 63 votes in the Senate and she has the legal mind of a squirrel.

  • Raven Nation||

    Pfft, why bother with the US Constitution? There are better models out there:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....model.html

  • Marktaylor||

    The constitution is a living document, problem is, the progs never got the votes to ammend it.

  • WTF||

    Why bother with votes when they can simply 'interpret' it?

  • #||

    The early 20th century progressives still realized the need to amend the constitution if they didnt like it. Starting with FDR, no need to ever do that anymore.

  • Tony||

    It's practically impossible to amend. A constitution like that would seem to require a powerful and flexible legislature. Contrary to what libertarians believe, all that is necessary and proper for government to do with changing times wasn't figured out in the 18th century.

  • Unusual Dave||

    It's practically impossible to amend.

    Dude, to anyone that has a rudimentary understanding of the intent of those who framed it, that was the intent.

    A constitution like that would seem to require a powerful and flexible legislature.

    Yet somehow there have been 17 since the BoR.

    all that is necessary and proper for government to do with changing times wasn't figured out in the 18th century.

    Right, which is, uh, why the amendment process exists, you know.

    Um...

  • Tony||

    It wasn't meant to be practically impossible to amend, and if it were, that was a bad move. Sticking people with one set of rules for all time is not a practical way to run a civilization. 17 changes in two centuries is not evidence in favor of its flexibility.

  • Suicidy||

    It's not supposed to be flexivpble and easy to change you thieving Marxist. If you're wondering why, go look in a mirror.

  • Xeones||

    Things That Are Necessary And Proper For Government To Do:

    1.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Ruth B. Ginsburg...let's see now. Isn't she the same person that was turned down by 14 different law firms?
    Is that the same Ruth B. Ginsburg who voted for some of the most egregious US Supreme Court decisions as:
    1. Gonzales vs. Raich (2005)regarding regulating Interstate Commerce,
    2. Whitman vs. American Trucking Associates (2001) regarding lawmaking by administrative bodies,
    3. McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (2003)regarding campaign finance reform and free speech,
    4. Bennis vs. Michigan, (1996)regarding asset forfeiture without due process,
    5. Kelo vs. City of New London (2005)regarding eminent domain for private use
    6. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) regarding taking property by regulation,
    7. Grutter vs. Bollinger, (2003) regarding equal protection and racial preferences.
    Not that Ruth B. Ginsburg?

  • rogerfgay||

    First off, calling them "liberal" just demonstrates ignorance of the English language and a lot of apathy toward actual concepts that are being written about (unclearly). And doesn't it seem obvious that if you're using the label twice, it should mean the same thing both times. How do you figure that "liberals" want to get rid of a "liberal" judge because she expressed a "liberal" opinion?

    I'm just hoping that Reason might want to bring its standards to at least one notch above simple-minded radio and TV shock jocks. I mean - if you're all going for the same low level, there's not much reason to read.

  • Billy Bones||

    As brilliant as our forefathers were, this is the one area I believe they fucked up. I have absolutely no faith in receiving a fair and impartial hearing from the Supreme Court. I believe that when everyone in the media can state confidently how the judges are going to rule, before they rule, there is a huge problem. Honestly, show of hands, who did not know for certainty that the 3 female Justices would rule against Hobby Lobby? If you raised your hand, you're a liar. Why is that every nominee to the Court can be put in some sort of basket? Pro-choice/Pro-life. Pro-gun/Anti-gun. If I know how you will rule before you hear the case, you are not a judge.

    When looking at our separation of powers, Congress has no say in who becomes President, the President has no say in who becomes a Congressperson, so why in hell do those 2 entities have a say in who occupies our courts? That negates the checks and balances between the 3 separate powers. I have no real suggestions on how to fix our court system, but that doesn't mean I can't see it is broke.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement