Supreme Court

Another Liberal Begs Ginsburg to Retire from SCOTUS



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, turned 81 years old over the weekend. How did her admirers on the American left celebrate the happy occasion? Writing at the Los Angeles Times, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Irvine School of Law and an outspoken progressive, told the elderly justice to get lost:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June. She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values.

There's plenty more in this vein, with Chemerinsky sketching out a parade of horribles he fears will occur if Ginsburg waits too long to step down. Nor is this the first time a prominent liberal has told Ginsburg to take one for the team. Back in 2011, when Ginsburg was just a sprightly 78, Harvard's Randall Kennedy urged her to retire just in case Barack Obama lost his bid for reelection. "If Obama loses," Kennedy wrote, Ginsburg will "have contributed to a disaster" and "besmirched" her otherwise "estimable" record.

Translation: Nice legacy you got there, Ginsburg. It would be a shame if we had to tarnish it for you. Why don't you just get with the program?

NEXT: Vid: How to Keep 30 People From Dying Everyday: Q&A with The Kidney Sellers' Sigrid Fry-Revere

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Erwin Chermerinsky is a terrible human being. Always expect the worst from him.

    1. Aw, but I liked Professor Chemerinsky. His (pretty damn good) Con Law textbook taught me more than my professor did in that course, and he also taught my BarBri course on Con Law when I took the Pennsylvania Bar Exam a decade ago.

      (But yeah, politically he’s pretty bad)

      1. I remember the “OMG!!!! Chermerisnky is teaching our BarBri class!!!!” people. We used his textbook too and I also learned more from that than my actual professor. Now that I think about it, I didn’t really learn anything from either of my Con Law professors.

      2. At last fall’s California bar association convention, Chemerinsky gave a seminar reviewing the past Supreme Court term; talking about the notable decisions and putting them into context, etc.

        When he’s in teacher-mode, he’s really funny and engaging. But when his politics slipped through, he was a weapons-grade asshole.

  2. Dude seems to know what time it is, that is for sure.

    1. Does anybody really know what time it is?

      1. Does anybody really care?

  3. They have so little faith in Hillary’s ability to finally ascend to her rightful place in history?

    1. Not if the vast right wing conspiracy has anything to say about it!

    2. She’s one of the very few women of power in DC that make Hillary look young.

  4. Shorter Chermerinsky: This Jew has outlived her usefulness. Put her on the next train!

  5. The naked admission of “we try to pack the Supreme Court with our TEAM” is hilarious. They don’t even bother pretending any more that justices are supposed to be impartial or to at least try to be.

    Also, the naked admission of “you are only useful as a tool of the TEAM, so step down now because your individual desires are irrelevant” is also hilarious.

    The best thing about the last few years and the Obama presidency has been the almost complete ripping off of all masks. They really are as repulsive and vile as suspected, and they don’t care anymore if you know it, because they think they will always be in power now. Thank Jeebus both TEAMs are so fucking stupid about that “we will be in power forever now” thing. If they weren’t, they’d be even more dangerous.

    1. What he said.

    2. Yes, but it’s okay when TEAM BLUE does it, Epi. You should know this by now.

    3. Maybe only libertarians should be appointed. I’d be great at that job, which I’d view as a part-time gig: “Um, no, no that’s not legal. Government loses.”

      That’s my opinion in toto.

      1. Maybe only libertarians should be appointed.

        Put non-lawyers on the court. “It says here ‘shall pass NO laws., this is a law so no.” Commerce exception, fighting words, bah!

      2. Too bad that will never happen because that’s not how humans or government works. Fantasies are fun, ProL, until reality busts in. Like when you fantasize about NutraSweet’s mom, and in your head she looks like Kate Upton, and then you realize she looks like NutraSweet.

        1. Can justices have people executed for no reason? Just wondering.

      3. I’d love to be a judge someday. “You’re suing the school because your snowflake got hurt playing tag? That’s insane. I’m dismissing the case and sanctioning your attorney.”

        1. I’ll tell you one thing: If I’m ever a judge, the one thing I will fucking do is sanction attorneys like clockwork. Especially if I were a federal judge, with LIFETIME TENURE, BITCHES.

          1. “Oh, you hid evidence? Guess what, you lose your fucking law license and the jail sentence you wanted to impose of the defendant, guess what? You’re gonna have to serve it now.”

            Liberty motherfuckers.

      4. I would totally be writing two and three sentence opinions:

        “The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The requirement that __________ is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and is hereby overturned and shall be stricken from the statutes. So let it be written, so let it be done.”

        1. A great scene from that movie is when Yul Brynner calls for his armor. The man made getting dressed into a dramatic spectacle.

        2. Historically, they were pretty much one pagers until the last century.

          Not sure what happened exactly.

          1. Someone decided longwinded bullshit was smart, and concise reasoning was hopelessly bourgeoisie.

            1. And somewhere I recall reading one of the current justices say that if there was a way to find a law constitutional, they were duty bound to find it. I asked my brother the lawyer, and he’d never heard of that concept.

          2. They probably got more staff so someone else can do the research and drafting.

          3. Not sure what happened exactly.

            Can I guess?

    4. I’d lover to see her reply to this and all the other ass clowns. “Thank you so much for the advice, but your grand political strategy doesn’t concern me. There’s still plenty of work to be done, so if you’ll excuse me…”

      1. *love to see

  6. Shoulda just booked her a flight on Malasia Air.

  7. we’re past the mask falling; it was picked up and put into the landfill long ago. The notion of shuffling a judge off to the home in service to the party should be obscene so why am I not surprised that someone is actually saying it out loud?

    1. They are becoming more and more confident and boastful. They think the people will be perpetually lead in their direction forever. But people will eventually awaken to the stench of their BS and decide “I do not want to buy this turd sandwich anymore.”

      1. “In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”

        1. There are people I know like that. They don’t like some of the things that go on at their kid’s school, but cannot conceive of anything different. They don’t understand the government took over schooling EXPLICITLY for indoctrination…they just don’t believe it, can’t conceive that the union puts the teachers first, not their kid. They just don’t understand that others in power view them and their kids as pawns.

      2. When everyone in the echo chamber agrees, there’s no need to be coy about your motives.

      3. “I do not want to buy this turd sandwich anymore.”

        Does that mean they prefer the giant douche ?

  8. No I in team, just like in society.

  9. She should talk to Sandra Day O’Connor and learn what it feels like to have a distinguished run on the SC soiled forever by choices made at the end of it.

    1. I’ll take things no one gives a shit about for $600, Alex.

      Dude, if a Justice is driven to quit their post over political considerations, that is proof that they were never any more than a hack in the first place.

      1. Exactly. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be impartial or at the very least appear to be impartial. The moment you allow politics and your own personal beliefs trump your job as an imparital arbritartor of the Constitution, then you need to fucking retire.

        1. Well in this case she would be retiring. I would say that if politics trumps her job, her legacy deserves to be tarnished.

      2. Well aren’t we an innocent little cherub.

        It’s not partisan at all to me. If she lets a Republican president appoint her successor, the country will be objectively fucked.

        1. Are you serious? So she should retire simply due to politics as oppose to retiring because she feels her work is done? Dude, you have no principles at all and aren’t worth arguing with this board. Your moralizing on other articles means shit because to you power is an ends.

          I know a lot of people who call themselves Progressives and liberals and while I may disagree with them on many issues, they have some principles but you are absolute void of morality because you believe that the state along with politics trumps everything including individuals. You would made a perfect soldier in Stalin’s purges, you worthless piece of shit.

          1. I want only what’s best for my fellow human beings, period. That I believe this to require some occasionally cold political calculation should not be shocking. I know that the court is in fact highly politicized and that it matters a great deal to real human beings who gets to appoint its members, since it’s an extremely powerful policy institution.

            I don’t know what’s unprincipled about that. I think you guys have a funny idea of what principles are. As if you can claim the moral high ground because you shout idealistic nonsense into the wind louder.

            1. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, boys and girls.

            2. H8RS! AMIRITE TONY??!!!888

          2. It’s not partisan to him because Tony is such a cocksucking hack that his “opposition” isn’t a real party, they’re actually the devil. Or something.

  10. You can tell they are desperate because in case Clinton or Warren loses in 2016, at least they have a liberal justice. Progressives claim to love the Constitution until it gets in the way of their policies.

    1. It’s not clear yet that things are bad enough to really discredit progressives. Maybe we need a President Warren to really put us in the shitter before people wake up.

      1. If I was the Republican opposition and Warren somehow someway won the election, i would allow her to dowahtever the fuck she wanted. Hopefully, it would scare the nation into it’s senses.

    2. Isn’t this more a concern about losing the Senate in 2014 than Hillary losing in 2016?

      1. True. It’s BS because if some Conservative law professor begged Scalia or Thomas to retire early because of a risk of GOP losing seats in Congress or winning the White House, the Progressives would lose their shit.

        1. Really? Are you under the impression that progressives would be shocked by such behavior coming from the Republicans?

          They used the SC to win a presidential election. Very little shocks us.

          1. D- trolling or A+ butthurt over a 14 year old case that led to the exact same outcome as the vote.

            If Obama was really smart he’d expand the court to 50 justices and appoint 41 of them himself. Now that’s progressive!

          2. I would say they are shocked about 8% of the time

  11. Shouldn’t Chemerinsky, et al., be conveying their message to the venerable Ginsburg in a more dignified behind-the-scenes manner? Or is that known to have failed? Or is there some other message ? for Us the People ? to be absorbed for some reason I’m missing?

    Does Chemerinsky have anything new to say ? anything that doesn’t make the pressure on Ginsburg even more unseemly? Her birthday just came up a couple days ago, and she hit 81. Last year was the landmark 80. 81 is not special, other than to be ? yikes! ? even older than 80. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and John Paul Stevens both served until they were 90.

    Is the 90 mark only for men? This would be the “war on women” if the President were a Republican. But the President is a Democrat, so it’s Step aside, old lady.

  12. I will have checked an item off my bucket list the day Scalia bites it and President Hillary is tasked with replacing him. I just want to see the GOP really lose its shit. I’m placing bets on a constitutional crisis.

    1. Yes, we all know that death to political opponents gets your shorts moist, comrade.

    2. 888888888888888888888 8888888888888888888888888 88888888888888888888888888888888888 8888888888888888 88888888888888888888888888

  13. These people are utterly loathesome.

    1. To quote Orwell, power is not a means, it’s an end to these people. When you see everything through the scope of control, you have no problem with saying and doing loathesome things to get your way.

      1. To quote Orwell, “I’m a socialist. Stop whoring me out for your tacitly authoritarian purposes, you insane libertarian fucks.”

        Pretty sure he said that.

        1. Trying to work around the rules of the game so that your Team keeps hold of a lifetime appointment spot, lest democracy fuck things up in the next couple years – nothing tacitly authoritarian about that.

          1. No MJ, we are obviously authoritarian because (garble garble garble).

            (Replace garble with some of Tony’s fucktarded stuff.)

        2. The tyranny of freedom.


          1. WE ARE THE 8%

  14. If she lets a Republican president appoint her successor, the country will be objectively fucked.

    Somebody needs his diaper changed.

    1. I wished that people like Tony would say that he would like the GOP eliminated and create an one party system. At the very least be honest.

      1. The GOP is the only political party in the entire world that doesn’t believe the greatest threat to the human species even exists. They resemble a large cult more than a political party anymore. Very few things would do the world a bigger favor than for them to disappear forever.

        I absolutely do not prefer it this way. A single-party state will obviously corrupt quickly, and our system would likely generate a new second party. But the worst of all worlds is having those corrupt boobs in charge.

        1. Because the country ran by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is so much better.

          1. Yes, so much better. Exactly.

          2. Dude, you really need to stop validating it. It will go away if you ignore it.

        2. The GOP is the only political party in the entire world that doesn’t believe the greatest threat to the human species even exists.

          He’s speaking, of course, about manbearpig.

  15. Nice legacy you got there, Ginsburg. It would be a shame if we had to tarnish it for you. Why don’t you just get with the program?

    “Why don’t you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?”

  16. The GOP is the only political party in the entire world that doesn’t believe the greatest threat to the human species even exists.

    You’ve got an epic case of diaper rash, don’t you?

    1. That doesn’t even make sense in this context. Try harder. Maybe ease up on the Republican fellatio for a minute.

  17. I’m a big liberal that wishes Ruth Ginsburg Retires.

    I’m still really pissed off that Sandra Day O’Connor retired.

    She is a PERFECT that I can live with.

    1. She is a PERFECT that I can live with.

      Well said!

  18. This sort of thing would go away with one change:

    Forget the concept of “vacancies” on the SC. Every two years ? that is, once for each new President or Congress ? appoint one judge. The size of the SC will fluctuate, but so what?

    This will never happen because you know what else would go away with this change? The quadrennial ritual of scaring voters into line with “The incoming President could appoint a majority of the Supreme Court, so OMG don’t waste your vote on something frivolous like a principled protest!”

    1. (One appointment every two years happens to be very close to the historic average rate.)

  19. Tony. Your whole ideology is build upon violence. You yourself cannot use violence against others. You hide behind politicians , who hide behind the police and standing armies. You are shielded from any consequences for the theft you advocate, and your policies do more to hurt individuals in an economy than help them.

    Both sides should take a walk, and go home. Neither have shown themselves able to defend or protect liberty. Folks like Tony would then have to go door to door and rob people. I doubt you’ll make it passed the first one.

    The funny thing about folks who try and act all aggressive, once you defend yourself and kick the shit out of them they want to call the cops, and make you out to be the bad person, when all u were doing was minding your business.

    Bring it biotch. I’m waiting for u :0P

    1. Your entire worldview is built around violence. Mine is built around minimizing violence. You support only those government functions that involve actually shooting people in the face (after taxing people to pay for the service, of course). Property is inherently aggressive. Reacting to crime is inherently aggressive. National defense, obviously. And don’t get me started on the insane gun fetishism that goes on around here. I’m the one obsessed with violence? You’re one of those morons who can barely vocalize a thought without threatening to shoot me, so why don’t you take your toys and your obvious lack of an education and shut the fuck up?

      1. Your view does not minimize violence, it requires violence. So when governments use eminent domain that’s not aggressive anymore? Oh, because your masters say that violence is ok in that regard all is well. Property is acquired through homesteading or a mutual agreement between individuals in the sale of already owned land……in a free society anyway. This fee simple, etc. does not coincide with liberty.

        No one threatened you lol. What you did show was your fear of an individual whom is capable of defending against theft or aggression by folks like you by saying 1)”Reacting to crime is inherently aggressive” and 2) attempting to deflect by calling others violent whom support a non aggression principle, and finally 3) your fear of an armed people..

        You further exhibit the traits of a big meow by telling me to shut up over a forum. Come and shut me up. But maybe instead of your violent ways, we can grab some pizza and you might be able to see that your ideology must survive through force theft and coercion. If you would like to demonstrate such aggression, or attempt to rob feel free. But mind you, there won’t be a politician you can hide behind to shield you from any consequences you would face. But I’d much rather some kick @$$ pizza, and you walking away supporting liberty instead of slavery.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.