The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Should Justice Sotomayor Retire? Some People Think So.
Some liberals and progressives think Justice Sotomayor should retire this year to ensure a Democratic President names her replacement.
Back in January, Politico reported that some Democrats, including in the White House, were hoping Justice Sonia Sotomayor would retire this year.
Some Democrats close to the Biden administration and high-profile lawyers with past White House experience spoke to West Wing Playbook on condition of anonymity about their support for Sotomayor's retirement. But none would go on the record about it.
They worried that publicly calling for the first Latina justice to step down would appear gauche or insensitive. Privately, they say Sotomayor has provided an important liberal voice on the court, even as they concede that it would be smart for the party if she stepped down before the 2024 election. There is a firm belief that a Senate controlled by Republicans will simply not confirm a Biden-picked Court nominee should he run and win reelection. Should a vacancy occur under a Republican run Senate with a Republican in the White House, it could expand the current 6-3 conservative majority into an even more powerful 7-2 split.
But getting party leaders to speak more openly about those realities has been difficult.
Party leaders may be unwilling to broach the topic, but Josh Barro isn't. He writes:
Sonia Sotomayor will turn 70 this June. If she retires this year, Biden will nominate a young1 and reliably liberal judge to replace her. Republicans do not control the Senate floor and cannot force the seat to be held open like they did when Scalia died. Confirmation of the new justice will be a slam dunk, and liberals will have successfully shored up one of their seats on the court — playing the kind of defense that is smart and prudent when your only hope of controlling the court again relies on both the timing of the deaths or retirements of conservative judges, plus not losing your grip on the three seats you already hold.
But if Sotomayor does not retire this year, we don't know when she will next be able to retire with a likely liberal replacement. It's possible that Democrats will retain the presidency and the Senate at this year's elections, in which case the insurance created by a Sotomayor retirement won't have been necessary. But if Democrats lose the presidency or the Senate this fall (or both) she'll need to stay on the court until the party once again controls both. That could be just a few years, or it could be a while — for example, Democrats have previously had to wait 14 years from 1995 to 2009, and 12 years from 1981 to 1993.2 In other words, if Sotomayor doesn't retire this year, she'll be making a bet that she will remain fit to serve through age 82 or 84 — and she'll be taking the whole Democratic Party coalition along with her in making that high-stakes bet.
If Democrats lose the bet, the court's 6-3 conservative majority will turn into a 7-2 majority at some point within the next decade. If they win the bet, what do they win? They win the opportunity to read dissents written by Sotomayor instead of some other liberal justice. This is obviously an insane trade. Democrats talk a lot about the importance of the Court and the damage that has been done since the court has swung in a more conservative direction, most obviously including the end of constitutional protections for abortion rights. So why aren't Democrats demanding Sotomayor's retirement?
Some may worry that Senate Republicans would seek to block the confirmation of a replacement. I doubt this is a serious threat. For one thing, Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell demonstrated that a committed majority can get a nominee through. For another, were Sotomayor to announce plans to retire, she could make it contingent upon the confirmation of a replacement, and rescind her retirement should a replacement not get confirmed in time.
All this said, I doubt Justice Sotomayor will retire this year (not that I would be one to know). If she were to make such a decision, it would likely be communicated to the White House this spring, and announced at the end of the Supreme Court's term.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nothing says “legitimacy of the Supreme Court” like a justice making politically motivated retirement decisions.
That was a snark, but I have an honest question: in the history of SCOTUS, how often has this been an actual, know reason for a justice to retire?
Recently, isn't it the known reason in all cases? At least as well as anything like this can be known.
All of the liberal justices should retire after trump wins the election. I think it will take a total collapse before any improvement can come. Trump and 9 conservative justices will help that happen.
Maximizing the contradictions?
It was widely reported that Sandra Day O'Connor was upset when Florida was initially called for Gore in the 2000 election; she wanted to retire but wanted a Republican president to nominate her successor. Rehnquist wanted to retire but would delay doing so until a Republican was president.
It probably happened less often in the past, when Justices did not always end up reflecting the nominating President's political leaning.
She was at a cocktail party, and publicly stated that she would never retire while a Dem was president. (There were some half-hearted attempts to shame her into recusing from Bush v Gore, based on her words, but that of course went nowhere.)
It's a very very political decision, as well as a deeply personal one. It's been going on forever, so I'm not the tiniest bit surprised that it continues on, to this day. A lot of us (a) loved RGB, and (b) curse the fact that she was selfish enough to try and hang on forever, which gave one extra seat on the Sup. Ct to far-right conservatives. Just enough to nudge the court into the numbers for overturning Roe v Wade.
That will always be a major part of her legacy, as far as I'm concerned. I only hope that Sotomayor learned from the disastrous decision by RGB. (I'm not holding my breath.)
santamonica811 9 hours ago - ".....which gave one extra seat on the Sup. Ct to far-right conservatives."
Santamonious - Fyi - Barrett is pretty much middle of the road.
Handmaiden Road, maybe.
always with unthinking parroting of hackneyed lower class speech.
Do you still say 'Groovy" and "outasite"
I would think that the timing of Kennedy’s retirement and a former clerk of his that he liked being his replacement is fairly strong evidence that he was waiting for a Republican President before retiring.
It's not her age as much as she has Type 1 Diabetes, which means that she doesn't have a normal lifespan. She was born in 1954, diagnosed when she was 7 (i.e. 1961) which was before the level of care we have today.
Patients with type 1 diabetes that were born between 1950 and 1964 lived only an average of 51.5 (men) or 54.8 years (women). See: https://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/61/11/2987/33742/Improvements-in-the-Life-Expectancy-of-Type-1
So if she's 69 years old, she's exceeded her life expectancy already.
Odd that someone could write a lengthy post on Sotomayor's retirement prospects and not mention that. It's the elephant in the room. Not only is her actuarial lifespan shorter, type 1 diabetics experience increased medical issues late in life, including severe hypoglycemia, micro- and macrovascular complications, cognitive decline, and physical disabilities. Thus, the risk of an unexpected health even in the next 5-9 years is not low.
Diabetes can cause blindness at her age -- and then what?
Who determines if a Justice is still physically capable to be a justice?
And none of us know what her actual health is or isn't right now.
The justices decide for themselves. See Douglas, William O.
IDK who you're referring to, but Barro certainly mentions it.
In my lifetime we have had few Justices as clueless as she was even in her prime.Ketanji is close even now.
She should never have been approved.
Sotomayor, a liberal, tried during the Friday hearing to emphasize the danger posed by the omicron variant of the virus. She said, “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.”
Facts First: Sotomayor’s claim about children wasn’t even close to accurate. According to federal data at the time Sotomayor spoke, fewer than 5,000 people under the age of 18 were hospitalized in the US with confirmed or suspected cases of Covid-19
I think its too early to tell on Ketanji
Sotomayer never belonged on the court. Her stunt in Ricci should have disqualified her. Her dissent in Shuette showed her contempt for 14A.
So you admit --- without saying-- that she does not evidence any brilliance of speech or thought.You could have at least said thaty you know.
“Some may worry that Senate Republicans would seek to block the confirmation of a replacement. I doubt this is a serious threat. For one thing, Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell demonstrated that a committed majority can get a nominee through. For another, were Sotomayor to announce plans to retire, she could make it contingent upon the confirmation of a replacement, and rescind her retirement should a replacement not get confirmed in time.“
You’re not under oath. This isn’t subject to approval by your firm or school or professional colleagues. There’s nothing consequential about this at all. Yet I still can’t believe you could type and post it with a straight face.
What did he say that was wrong? He didn't say "That's beneath the GOP; they wouldn't do that." He said it wasn't a serious threat — that is, the GOP can't block her replacement.
I don't know how you could be a justice and have anything but contempt for anyone who would suggest to you that you retire because there's a risk you won't be around long enough for someone else to be appointed who will also make partisan rulings he wants.
Why do you hate women so?
I really dislike this kind of political gamesmanship. This is one reason I would rather have fixed terms, like 20 year terms, for SCOTUS justices.
I agree very much with John's comment. The lifetime appointment has not served the court well in recent years. Good candidates are passed over for younger candidates. Retirements are based on politics rather than practical consideration like the justices' health.
I also would love to see the appointment and terms of all federal judges changed to reduce their political nature,but I don’t think it will ever happen. That is because both parties want them to be political. Each just wants to be the side that can appoint the most judges.
Justice Sotomayor is in the minority and will likely be their even if she does stay on the court into here 80s. She will likely see her remaining years on the Court as one of writing dissents. It may well be that the best thing she can do to advance her ideas on the Constitution and the Law is to allow President Biden to nominate a young justice. I hope she will give this some consideration.
You are aware the Greeks urged moderation even in regard to moderation. The wisdom is not a dull journey down the center of the road until death. Even a relative of mine used to say "a little luxury is a necessity" and this relative was probably someone you'd have thought took your view.
"They worried that publicly calling for the first Latina justice to step down would appear gauche or insensitive."
Note the identity politics. Apparently it would not be gauche to call for a white man to step down.
(IMO, it's gauche either way. But I'm from the old school for which race and gender did not matter to things like this.)
It doesn't matter because white man have always been on the Supreme Court. It different when it takes 220 years to get the first Latina justice.
Bored Lawyer liked it better when the Supreme Court was white and male and women and Blacks knew their place.
It's a big part of the reason he's disaffected, disdainful toward modern America, and ready for replacement.
If a 69 year-old Justice should retire, then certainly an 81 yo POTUS should retire.
The ageist claim here is offensive, given the ancient status of Mr Biden.
And a 77 year old former President should not be running.
I could not agree more.
In fact he should not be running even if he were 10 years younger
He is only running because of the 81 year old.You do have a TV ,don't you. ANd don't call me a Trumpie, I AM NOT.
And the guy less than four years younger than Biden, Senator Grassly that ran for reelection at 89, Clarence Thomas (75)…
This is a bizarre idea that would be a disaster if they did it.
1) Unless they know something non-public about her health she's just as capable as when she was nominated so there's no good reason to retire.
2) It's accepted that justices will delay their retire to ensure their party nominates their successor, but not that they significantly expedite it.
3) The GOP just exposed themselves as massive hypocrites for creating the "no SCOTUS confirmations in an election year" rule and then literally confirming Barrett 8 days before the election. Do Democrats really think its a wise idea to let the GOP off the hook by volunteering for an election season confirmation? Just to replace a Democratic Judge earlier than otherwise?
I forgot that Justice Thomas is 75. Life expectancy may be more important than ethical misconduct in influencing his remaining tenure.
The important point is that his obituary will lead with his ethical failings and, if he lives more than a few more years, his role as precipitate for enforceable and sensible ethical standards governing Supreme Court justices. He will be remembered as a stain on the Court.
Is there one person one here that would give you ascendancy over Thomas with your hate and pro-gay and anti-religion (not to mention cowardice)