The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Senator Blumenthal Suggests Justice Sotomayor Should Think About Retiring (Without Calling Upon Her to Do So)
Public calls continue for Justice Sotomayor to step down so that President Biden can name her replacement before the election.
Some commentators and political figures want Justice Sonia Sotomayor to retire before the election so that President Biden can name her replacement before the election with a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. As I noted here, commentators are making such calls openly, while political figures have been more private about their concerns.
This week, NBC News reported on comments by several Democratic Senators, including Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who suggested Justice Sotomayor should "weigh" the potential risks of remaining on the Court past an election. From the report:
"I'm very respectful of Justice Sotomayor. I have great admiration for her. But I think she really has to weigh the competing factors," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. "We should learn a lesson. And it's not like there's any mystery here about what the lesson should be. The old saying — graveyards are full of indispensable people, ourselves in this body included."
Blumenthal emphasized that Sotomayor is "a highly accomplished and, obviously, fully functioning justice right now." He added that "justices have to make their personal decisions about their health, and their level of energy, but also to keep in mind the larger national and public interest in making sure that the court looks and thinks like America."
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) likewise refused to say Justice Sotomayor should step down while emphasizing the potential implications of her being replaced by a Republican President.
"Run it to 7-2 and you go from a captured court to a full MAGA court," Whitehouse said in an interview. "Certainly I think if Justice Ginsburg had it to do over again, she might have rethought her confidence in her own health."
While some academics and political commentators have been more explicit in calling for Justice Sotomayor to retire this year, lest a President Trump name her replacement as occurred with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, others who called for Justice Ginsburg to retire are refusing to make such calls now. From a HuffPost report:
"I do not think Justice Sotomayor should retire now," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law.
In 2014, Chemerinsky tried to shock Democrats out of complacency with headlines like "Love Ya Ruth, But It's Time to Go."
"A crucial difference is that Justice Sotomayor is just 69 years old," he said. "I think that is quite different from when I urged Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer to retire. Both were in their 80s."
What worries Chemerinsky is not how old Sotomayor will be when the stars next align for the Democrats but how willing they are today, in an election year, to replace her with someone equally progressive.
"With the slim Democratic majority, there is no assurance that a replacement would get confirmed," he said.
Potentially concerning to Chemerinsky is that at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin (D-WV), has said he will not vote to confirm judicial nominees that lack some Republican support.
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
"With the slim Democratic majority, there is no assurance that a replacement would get confirmed," he said.
The time is ripe for a compromise candidate, somebody who can tell a man from a woman but does not believe abortion is murder. Schumer does not want Trump to nominate Judge Ho to the Supreme Court. Republicans do not want Biden to nominate another Jackson. Either could happen without a deal this year.
A compromise candidate such as Merrick Garland who was perceived as moderate back in 2016, though his discretion as AG has shown to be otherwise.
He was moderate then and he's moderate now.
Garland may be "moderate" on social issues but he's flat-out authoritarian on anything related to government power. Keeping him off the Supreme Court was absolutely the right decision.
I'll give B Hussein credit, Sotomayer -- as bad as she is -- isn't a Brown Jackson.
Shuette & Ricci - nuff said
"The time is ripe for a compromise candidate, somebody who can tell a man from a woman but does not believe abortion is murder."
Split the baby, as it were?
The good news for you is that the "conservative extremists" on the Supreme Court haven't called abortion murder, they've said it's up to the states (and Congress and the Pres, where federal authority applies).
Who listens to Blumenthal? Bueller?
Others have noted the hilarity of the fact that most of the Senators calling on her to step down on account of her age are considerably older than she is.
Maybe they should take their own advice, just to show they mean it?
Brett -- she's a diabetic and was one before blood sugar monitoring became as good as it is now -- her life expectancy is something like 50 and she's already outlived it by 20 years.
That of course is statistical, what her personal health profile looks like is anyone's guess
(Not a ) Dr Ed,
Just when I think you couldn’t say anything stupider…
You totally redeem yourself!!!
Diabetics routinely live into their 90s nows a days, and predicting life expectancy is like predicting if it’ll be cloudy for an Eclipse, I reserved a hotel room in Uvalde a year ago, looks like I fucked myself
Frsnk
The American Diabetes Association and the Center for Disease Control would beg to differ with you, but what do they know about Endocrinology?
If I’m not mistaken, you are an Anesthesiologist, aren’t you? Are you even on the FMCSA National Registry?
Conversely, have you ever written an IEP (or even know what one is)? Know what FAPE is? Or that kids in K-12 have diabetes and that can affect their ability to obtain/hold a CDL and hence the GOAL of their IEP?
Conversely, do you know anything about statistics or that there are people called "actuaries" who calculate mortality risks and that is what I was referring to? NOT outliers....
If you were paying attention in medical school, you might remember a conversation about COMPLICATIONS OF Diabetes, cardiac, kidneys and elsewhere -- badly exacerbated by poor control of glucose levels, which was common before 1975 -- and when was she diagnosed?
Mick Jagger is evidence that one can do Lord only knows how many drugs and engage in Lord only knows how many unsafe sex practices and not die in your 30s -- but he is an outlier.
I have an EdD and have never claimed otherwise.
FMCSA? that's for docs doing Commercial Truck Driver Physicals, so no, I'm not, neither are most Specialists.
Learned way back in Med School not to trust peoples who speak in Acronyms, unless they're cool ones, like HMFIC, NWA, DSL.
And Anesthesiologists deal with complications of Diabetes more than just about any other specialty as we're the ones keeping them alive while the Surgeon inflicts his procedure on them, and given that 1/2 the population's obese its probably the most common chronic problem we deal with, which includes
1: Diabetics are automatically assumed to have a "Full Stomach" and not because they're fat fucks who can't not stuff their faces for 8 hours before their surgery, but Diabetes slows gastric emptying, so you have to do a more dangerous "Rapid Sequence Intubation" instead of the safer variety where you make sure you can bag the patient after they're asleep. Being Fat fucks means they're also harder to Intubate and start IV's on. And Arterial Lines? like trying to put Spaghetti into a rock.
2: Impaired Autonomic Response: So just put in an Epidural or a Spinal? Just be ready for their BP to bottom out because their Sympathetic Nervous system is Fucked Up (medical term), but don't raise the BP too high, because they also have
3: End Organ Damage, Brain, Heart, Kidneys, so they don't tolerate as much as the Furniture Polish (Gas Passer Slang for Volatile Anesthetics) as Non Diabetics,
and those Life Expectancy Calculators are bullshit, just ask Heath Ledger, or Andy Breitbart
Frank
Sotomayer has Type 1 diabetes, not Type 2.....
Drackman is not an idiot. He is a liar.
This is type-1 diabetes which began when she was 7 years old, and her organ systems were still maturing.
No she's not gonna live into her 90s.
So you're fucking Nostradamus? This is from CBS (Clinton Broadcasting System) so take it with a grain of Kosher Salt.
GREAT NECK, N.Y. -- A Long Island great-grandmother is one of the oldest living Americans with Type 1 diabetes.
She was told as a child she would not live more than a few years. As CBS2's Carolyn Gusoff reports, doctors say her longevity is living proof of great hope for a full life.
"I was told I would probably have about a three-to-five-year lifespan," Libby Lashansky said.
Lashansky has had a lot of time to prove her 1940s doctors wrong.
At age 11, she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. The now-92-year-old Great Neck woman is among a handful of the oldest patients with the lifelong diagnosis.
Frank "Wait, there's more!"
" is among a handful"
In MY field, we call that a statistical outlier.
In my field, too.
In Scientific fields we say that data is (are?) "Granular"
Do you drive a Field Car? Don't know what a "Field Car" is, I defer to the great John Milner
"A field car runs through the fields, droppin' cow shit all over the place to make the lettuce grow."
Sort of what you do for this blog, and god bless ya, son, we love you for it!
Frank
You know something that DOES decrease Life Expectancy??
"Mortality trends over five decades in adult transgender people receiving hormone treatment: a report from the Amsterdam cohort of gender dysphoria" The Lancet Sept 2, 2021
Background
Increased mortality in transgender people has been described in earlier studies. Whether this increased mortality is still present over the past decades is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to investigate trends in mortality over five decades in a large cohort of adult transgender people in addition to cause-specific mortality.
Interpretation
This observational study showed an increased mortality risk in transgender people using hormone treatment, regardless of treatment type. This increased mortality risk did not decrease over time. The cause-specific mortality risk because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV-related disease, and suicide gives no indication to a specific effect of hormone treatment, but indicates that monitoring, optimising, and, if necessary, treating medical morbidities and lifestyle factors remain important in transgender health care.
Frank
Frank,
This is anti-trans Russian propaganda. You should be ashamed for licking Putin's balls like that.
The Lancet's about as Russian as Lebron James
The (UK) Lancet is many things, Russian propaganda isn't one.
The peanut gallery did not get your ‘joke’ (see above).
Awww …
Doesn't fucking matter, except that Type 1 is often not as bad, because you can control it with Insulin alone, and they're usually not fat fucks, just unlucky that J-hovah dealt them a bad Pancreas.
Type 2 are usually Insulin resistant, require a shit-load of oral medications with multiple side effects, that they don't like taking, the "Diet" they go by is usually 1 Big Mac instead of 2, and the only Exercise they get is trying to get their fat ass feet into their slip on shoes (when did adults stop wearing shoes with laces?)
Frank
Frank, the current glucose monitoring technology didn’t exist in the 1960s. Sotomayer’s smart phone monitors hers (and reportedly went off in a hearing) — smart phones didn’t exist even 20 years ago.
(A millionaire was showing me his new one in 2007.)
Yes, there are outliers but — statistically speaking — “before 1975” is generally used as a threshold for morbidity.
Also, the more someone’s blood sugar varies the more bad off they are and she’s had to have EMTs respond at least once. We don’t know how stable her sugar level is as we don’t know much about the health of SCOTUS justices.
But I’m dealing with mean, median, & mode — none of which look good for her…
And I don't know where you practice medicine, but you definitely are not seeing a representative cross section of the population although no-tie shoes ARE popular with the arthritic elderly because of the arthritis...
Some of you might have started reading Dr. Ed’s stupid take about diabetes and thought you could be as wrong as him some day. But then you come across him casually getting Mick Jagger mixed up with Keith Richards, and you realize that this sort of wrongness can’t be taught. You either have it, or you don’t.
Is it your position that Mick Jagger didn’t do drugs. And groupies ?
RE: "Diabetics routinely live into their 90s these days"
Not type-1 diabetics whose symptoms began when they were single-digit age, in the early 1960s.
"I have an EdD and have never claimed otherwise."
In other words, a worthless degree, as you show nearly every day.
Mine is now a PhD program.
Ph? doesn't that stand for "Piled Higher"??
Hey, leave Dr. Ed alone! I'm totally here for this Dr. Ed vs. Dr. Frank (low-glycemic) food fight.
You have an EdD? Viagra may help.
I think this shows the confidence that the Dems don't have in a Biden re-election and holding the Senate....
Yeah, blind confidence would be foolish.
You don't really believe the FBI, DOJ, the CIA and the rest of the IC are going to allow Trump to win?
No reason for Sotomayor to retire before the election. If biden wins, no immediate issue (unless they lose the senate which would be very unlikely if biden wins)
If biden loses, then the dems can run anyone through before Jan 20th? since the Dems will still control the senate.
70 days of filibuster?
It's been done before, and what they could do is filibuster SOMETHING ELSE and thus shut down the Senate. It would take more than just Ted Cruz but if they had 20-30 Republicans willing to do this for an hour a day, EVERY DAY (and night) then it's doable.
Looked at the transcripts of one of Strom Thurmans Fillerbusters of the Voting Rights bill, dude literally read the Voting laws of every state, all the time he was paying his own Stormy Daniels child support
Frank
I’ve heard that people used to read the phone book.
I've heard there used to be things called phone books...
The interesting question would be if both Trump and MAGA in the Senate win.
They could eliminate the filibuster on a 51-50 vote, but the consequence of doing that would be (at least) 4 years of not having it AND not being able to stop Trump. I don't think they would want that.
The GOP could easily win the Senate even if Biden wins. They would need to flip only 2 seats and West Virginia is a given. Any one of AZ, MI, MT, NV, OH, PA or WI would suffice. Plus, Maryland is now in play.
But that would still leave the Ds in control until 3 Jan 2025. Plenty of time. And plenty of votes too. Romney, Collins and Murkowski all voted for KBJ, so there’s no problem with Manchin’s vote. So the pro-confirmation vote for anyone Biden nominates, who is to the right of Pol Pot, currently stands at 54.
After 3 Jan 2025, Romney is retiring, so the automatic pro-confirmation vote is down to 53, before considering 2024 election results. But the Rs would have to win 4 seats net to get the pro-confirmation score down to 49. Not impossible but definitely way less than 50-50 odds. West Virginia sure, and maybe 50-50 in each of Montana, and Ohio. Then they'd have to win one of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona or Nevada, and I’d put each of those at more like a 25% chance (at best.) Since these results would be correlated (ie we’re not dealing with independent probabilities) maybe it’s something like a 1 in 5 chance of the GOP gaining 4 seats net. (I'm ignoring Maryland as (a) a fairy tale and (b) a sure confirmation vote anyway.) And even that would only be enough so long there aren’t further GOP defections.
So the Biden team should obviously have someone ready to go, and in the IMHO highly unlikely event that they lose the Presidency they still have nearly two months post election to get a Sotomayor repacement confirmed. It took the GOP 32 days to get ACB onto the court.
And if Biden wins but the Ds lose the Senate, they’d have to lose it very badly (ie too badly to be consistent with Biden winning) for there to be a confirmation problem even with a GOP controlled Senate post 3 Jan 2025. Collins and Murkowski won’t sit still for a 4 year Garlanding.
Highly unlikely Biden loses? If the election were held today, I estimate Trump to have about a 75% chance of winning based on the polls and a back-of-the napkin application of Nate Silver's model.
Basically, to win, Trump has to win one of Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania. (Assuming he also wins Arizona and Georgia, and doesn't lose North Carolina.) The bit in brackets is pretty likely* if he does win one of those three "Blue Wall" states, because correlation.
But Trump is not up by much in any of those states, and he has no discernable ground game - like last time - and the GOP is just beginning to think - 6 months before the election ! - about maybe having some kind of plan for those drop boxes that they ignored last time. And maybe thinking about encouraging GOP voters to consider mail in voting.
Meanwhile while the Rs scramble to catch up to 2020, the Ds have been working away on registration - including lots of lovely federal help - and honing their mail in and drop box game. I'm confident that Biden will comfortably exceed his poll numbers, especially in the battleground states. (Ditto close Senate and House races.)
All three Blue Wall states have Democrat Governors and Democrat majority Supreme Courts. I don't know about the Michigan SC, but the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin SCs are amongst the most aggressively partisan in the country. So roughly knock 2.5% off Trump's score for the lack of a ground game, and knock another 2.5% off for the difficult Dem controlled turf, so if you see Trump at 53-47 in the polls in Wisconsin, he's still losing. I could add a point or two for the Kennedy effect. 3rd party candidates always fade in the home stretch and Kennedy is currently pulling more Ds than Rs.
And if it's 50-50, he's guaranteed to lose in the state courts. So to have even a 50-50 chance he needs to be doing way better in the polls than he is now. He might if the economy goes south alarmingly, but if he does look like a clear winner his chances of getting himself shot improve greatly.
If you want to bet on Trump at 75% odds I'm very willing to take your money 🙂
* though Arizona now has a Dem Governor, and the Ds solidly control the election machinery in Maricopa.
So your saying the fix is in (again)?
If I were the Biden camp, I would not rely on the polls are skewed against me strategy, particularly since they were skewed against Trump in both 2016 and 2020. They have work to do.
Biden is doing about 1 percentage better in the polls in a 2-way horse race than with Kennedy in the mix.
I'm not taking the bet you proposed (1-3 on Trump winning) because the election is not today (the polls can easily move). But since you are confident Biden will lose, I will take 3-1 odds on Trump winning and you should believe you are getting a good deal.
Eh ? I’m confident Biden will lose ?
Please clarify
Oops. Of course, I meant you are confident Biden will win. So, you should be happy to take 1-3 odds and Biden, right?
OK. On the honor system, if Biden wins you will give $25 to a non-political good cause of your choice. Doesn't have to be a charity, you can hand out cash to homeless folk if you want.
Likewise if Trump wins, I will do the same to the tune of $75.
Any other result, whether caused by death, withdrawal, disqualification or the arrival of aliens - the bet is off.
If I lose, you may have to remind me, as the memory is weak.
Deal. I hope I lose.
how does "Ground Game" matter? Like some asshole ringing my doorbell is gonna get me to change my mind? Would make me more likely to vote for the guy who isn't bothering me. Or does your "Ground Game" include slashing the tires of probable MAGA Voters and Mail Carriers tossing their mail-in ballots (I know! it doesn't happen! except when it has)
Frank
The theory is the ground game gets people to the polls who otherwise don't bother to vote. Or in this day and age, gets them to mail in their votes.
Oh yeah, it would get me to vote, for the other guy.
They only ask people who they have good reason to believe will vote their way (e.g., based on party registration).
Oh yeah, like those people from the Korean Church who interrupted the Iron Bowl last year (didn’t interrupt soon enough)
“Oh We Sorr-wee, We thought Ko-wee-an people Wive Here!!!”
So Race-ist, just because I’m not yellow, short, or have slanty eyes, they just assumed I wasn’t Ko-wee-an.
Love wiving in a Ko-wee-an neighborhood, quiet, everyone's polite, not a lot of stray dogs/cats, lots of Hyundai’s though
Frank
They go to housing projects, nursing homes and neighborhoods and collect every last mail in ballot. Toting a big santa bag full of prepaid debit cards just, uh, for gas money.
Nate Silverstein? the guy who predicted Hilary Rodman would win in 2016 then said he didn't. I picked every state right in that erection except Nevada, but nobody gives me a blog. He should stick to picking Premier Leage games
Silver’s model predicts how often the polls get it wrong. In 2016, he gave Trump a 30% chance of winning, more than any other poll aggregator. Right now, I suspect his model would predict the polls have a 25% chance of being wrong (wrongly predicting Biden will lose) if the election were held today (he has yet to publish his model for 2024).
How did your predictions work out in 2020?
OK, I picked it wrong, but at least have the balls to admit it, unlike Silverstein, of course I didn’t factor in the unverified Mail-in ballots in Michigan/Wisconsin/PA or the Fraud in AZ (I did factor in the GA Fraud, hey, I was wrong)
Of course there wasn’t an RFK Jr. running in 2020 (I’ll be amazed if he survives to erection day, Our Woke Occupational Government/Pharmaceutical-Military Industrial Complex doesn’t tolerate peoples who fuck up their schemes) or October 7, which has finally convinced at least a few of my Tribe to switch sides.
Frank
If Silver’s model is good, he is supposed to get 2016 “wrong” 30% of the time. If he always got it “right,” his model sucks.
I don't think the Dems are united enough to get 50 votes ---
"“The odds are better that [protests] will happen, and I don’t think anyone is in a position to stop that. I think it’s a pretty dangerous environment,” Zogby said, referring to the anti-Vietnam War protests that rocked the 1968 Democratic convention. “We could very well get a replay of ‘68 in Chicago, which is not going to be pretty.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4577481-democrats-israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians-joe-biden-chicago/
That's Zogby saying that, not me (although I agree -- and love it...).
What are the odds that Brandon would be able to get a SCOTUS nominee through without getting dragged into Gaza? Do I hear "slim to none"?
"Zogby" and "fairy tale" are actually the same word in many languages.
Why, pretty soon she’ll be old enough to run for president!
Or for Senator. Blumenthal is 78, while Sotamayor is 69.
But he’s a Vietnam Vet! Be sure to thank him for his service
He can retire with a Senate pension and Social Security. That's plenty of thanks.
Packing the court without packing the court?
“Danang Dick” said he was a Vietnam Vet, worse than anything Santos or even 1/1024th Poke-a-Hondas claimed, why is this piece of shit still in the Senate?
Frank
"69-year-old in seemingly good health is too old to be a Supreme Court justice," declare same people who believe feeble 82-year-old with dementia is the best qualified individual in the entire country to be President.
Pro tip: nobody in good faith thinks Biden has "dementia." Everyone who says it is lying to you.
No, he's just the same dumb shit he always was.
Sign you have Dementia: you’re too demented to notice other Demented peoples
Frank “Deranged, not Demented (there’s a difference)
"Pro" tip? Are you a doctor?
If Biden were your father, you'd take away his car keys, and everyone knows it. I went through the same thing with my late father, and I see that same "Where am I? What's happening?" look in Biden's eyes. He cannot string three coherent sentences together when he's not reading a script. Perhaps the effects are not as noticeable to some, because Biden was never the brightest bulb even before his cognitive decline began.
Hmmnn. I wonder when he last drove the Corvette or is he only allowed to sit in it and make engine noises?
Wolf’s comment supports David Nieporent’s point. Wolf’s claim that Biden “cannot string three coherent sentences together when he’s not reading a script” can be disproved with a one minute internet search:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-interviewed-msnbc-scotus-decision-rcna91871
The remainder of his claims are not quite so directly refutable, but they are not believable. The only question is why Wolf is lying. The most consistent dipute between Democrats and Republicans is over tax rates on the wealthy. Perhaps Wolf thinks that lying about Biden is a better way to win votes than arguing that Jeff Bezos and George Soros should pay lower taxes.
“Lincoln Riley. An innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That’s right. But how many of the thousands of people [are] being killed by legals?”
3 Sentences, to me incoherent, and Parkinsonian Joe should be 25th amendmented to a Dover Memory Care, and if he meant to say what he said, it’s even worse and should have been immediately impeached, tried, and convicted for Accessory to Murder, no way Laken (not “Lincoln” for Christs sake) Riley’s murderer would be in the country if “45” was still in the Oval Orifice.
Frank
Sorry, they just describe Biden's memory as “hazy,” “fuzzy,” “faulty,” “poor” and having “significant limitations.”
Not full blown dementia. But just bad enough that it would be difficult to convict him, because of his forgetfulness.
Are you trying to project Iran Contra dodges onto Biden?
Diabetes. Diabetes. Diabetes. Type-one, single-digit-age-onset diabetes!!!
As usual, the rules are set by 41 Republican Senators representing 15% of the population
Poor you.
So repeal the 17th Amendment Bee-Otch
"rules are set by 41 Republican Senators "
?
There is no filibuster anymore for judges.
Don't confuse the Cap'n with Facts
Where's Sarcastr0 to chastise you about being a populist?
Just let each state be their own government then.
Blumenthal is older than the Sotomayor. Maybe he should retire.
Apparently, Justice Thomas is immortal. There have never been calls for him to retire.
If Pres. Biden were to lose to Pres. Trump, there would be time in November and December to confirm a replacement in the Democrat-controlled Senate. It would be a cluster, but there would be time.