The Next President Might Appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices

[g5000]

I wasn't kidding about what Ted Cruz said about what would happen if we had a Democratic President appointing Supremes.

"That we're going to have an election, and if liberals are so confident that the American people want unlimited abortion on demand, want religious liberty torn down, want the Second Amendment taken away, want veterans' memorials torn down, want the crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans, then go and make the case to the people."

Meet the Press - February 14, 2016

Please tell me you don't buy into Cruz's shit... Proper term is REDONKULOUS!

No, I don't buy into Cruz's rhetoric. And it annoys me when journalists let him get away with this kind of hyperbolic bullshit.

 

[bendog]

According to this study, since 1971, the average age at which a Supreme Court Justice retires is 78.7.

Here are the ages of the current eight Supreme Court Justices:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 82.9

Anthony Kennedy: 79.6

Stephen Breyer: 77.5

Clarence Thomas: 67.7

Samuel Alito: 65.9

Sonia Sotomayor: 61.8

John Roberts: 61.1

Elena Kagan: 55.8




According to this study, the odds of a Justice retiring go up by 169 percent if the President is of the same party as the President who appointed the Justice.

Here is who appointed the Justices:

Ginsburg: Clinton

Kennedy: Reagan

Breyer: Clinton

Thomas: Bush, Sr.

Alito: Bush, Sr.

Sotomayor: Obama

Roberts: Bush, Jr.

Kagan: Obama



If the President in office is the opposite party as the President who appointed the Justice, that Justice is more likely to die in office. See Antonin Scalia.


We have three Justices who are, or who will be, over the average age of retirement during the next Presidential term. Two of them were appointed by a Democrat, one was appointed by a Republican.

None of the remaining five Justices will hit the average age of retirement in the next eight years.

Right, the next potus, assuming he/she gets 8 years, will very very likely appoint FOUR.

Trump's a wild card, but we are talking about things as basic as whether abortion is legal or whether the civil rights acts will be judicially repealed.

 

[Auld Phart]

Number of Supreme Court Justices appointed by Presidents going back to Buchanan. Roosevelt appointed 8 because he was a four term President.

FDR tried to pack the Court with more, but failed.

List of Presidents of the United States by judicial appointments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I doubt Scalia planned on dying, or retiring, when his seat opened.

and we have several closing in on his age.

and, death care nothing about age.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

 

[g5000]

I doubt Scalia planned on dying, or retiring, when his seat opened.

and we have several closing in on his age.

and, death care nothing about age.

You need to read the OP again. Scalia was over the average retirement age, and he died in office just as predicted by the study which said Justices appointed by an opposite party President more often die in office than retire.

There are three remaining who are over, or will be over, the average retirement age in the next four years. The rest are nowhere near the retirement age for the next EIGHT years.

It would be way outside the actuarials for more than three Justices to be appointed in the next four years.

Possible? Yes. Likely? Very unlikely.

 

[Kondor3]

If the next POTUS is likely to be appointing as many as three (3) new Supreme Court justices...

Let's make sure that they're not Beaner-Loving Muzzie-Loving Homosexual-Loving LibTards...

Much like lead paint, thank God your kind is being phased out

You tell 'em, Tiger...

 

[g5000]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

 

[Auld Phart]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

 

[g5000]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

 

[bendog]

I doubt Scalia planned on dying, or retiring, when his seat opened.

and we have several closing in on his age.

and, death care nothing about age.

You need to read the OP again. Scalia was over the average retirement age, and he died in office just as predicted by the study which said Justices appointed by an opposite party President more often die in office than retire.

There are three remaining who are over, or will be over, the average retirement age in the next four years. The rest are nowhere near the retirement age for the next EIGHT years.

It would be way outside the actuarials for more than three Justices to be appointed in the next four years.

Possible? Yes. Likely? Very unlikely.

You don't think the next potus will name replacements for scalia, kennedy, Ginsberg and breyer?

 

[martybegan]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

God help us.

Amen.

A 6-4 or 7-3 progressive court...

Um. There are only nine Justices. Not ten.

...would be the end of the 2nd amendment, the breaking of the 1st, and who knows how many more would fall in the name of federal supremacy and overall governmental power.

On the other hand it might lead to the straw that breaks the camels back.

Ted Cruz claims we'll be sandblasting crosses and stars of David off veterans' tombstones.

My bad,let me correct to 6-3 and 7-2 (Because Roberts can be wishy-washy sometimes)

And while I don't go for that much hyperbole, it wouldn't be for lack of trying by some people.

 

[g5000]

I doubt Scalia planned on dying, or retiring, when his seat opened.

and we have several closing in on his age.

and, death care nothing about age.

You need to read the OP again. Scalia was over the average retirement age, and he died in office just as predicted by the study which said Justices appointed by an opposite party President more often die in office than retire.

There are three remaining who are over, or will be over, the average retirement age in the next four years. The rest are nowhere near the retirement age for the next EIGHT years.

It would be way outside the actuarials for more than three Justices to be appointed in the next four years.

Possible? Yes. Likely? Very unlikely.

You don't think the next potus will name replacements for scalia, kennedy, Ginsberg and breyer?

If the next President is a Democrat, I think Kennedy will try to hang on.

If the next President is a Republican, I think Breyer will try to hang on. Maybe even Ginsberg.

 

[martybegan]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

 

[g5000]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

Not a lot of people know this, but there was a short spike in the number of legal abortions in the US after Roe v Wade, and then the numbers went back down and leveled out. The rate of abortions has actually been declining for some time.

 

[martybegan]

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

I would think there would be a reduction, from the urban areas in the deep south that have 1-2 abortion clinics, but for most of the country it would lead to a rash of quick State level votes guaranteeing Abortion on Demand, and not much else.

 

[g5000]

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

I would think there would be a reduction, from the urban areas in the deep south that have 1-2 abortion clinics, but for most of the country it would lead to a rash of quick State level votes guaranteeing Abortion on Demand, and not much else.

We would not return to what we had before Roe v. Wade. Abortion is far more socially acceptable now than it was back then. Nevertheless, legal abortions were far more common before Roe v Wade than than most people realize. Nearly 800,000 a year. Probably a higher rate than we have today.

If Roe v Wade was reversed, some states would still make abortion illegal. However, most of those states would have exceptions for health of the mother or rape or incest. But, just as in the past, the "health of the mother" exemption will lead to doctors using the flimsiest of reasons to permit an abortion.

 

[bendog]

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

Not a lot of people know this, but there was a short spike in the number of legal abortions in the US after Roe v Wade, and then the numbers went back down and leveled out. The rate of abortions has actually been declining for some time.

It's not so much Roe. But, I think it'll be a 4-4 split whether Texas may regulate out out-patient abortion clinics. Mississippi and at least one other Jesusland state has an identical law. Less than 1% of abortions have a incidence of something requiring hospitalization, and there's no showing that the requirement of the abortion providing doctor have admitting priviledges for the patient to be hospitalized.

Citizens United is in the balance, or more accurately whether congress can regulate campaign contributions. Imo it'd be very difficult for the Court to say the 2nd does not involve an individual right, but Heller leaves open regulation of that that right. We will continue to have a right to have an unsecured weapon in our homes, but beyond that ..... High capacity magazines could easily be found illegal in some states.

Racial preferences in admissions.

 

[martybegan]

I don't want to tempt fate, but I doubt Clinton could do worse than Sotomayor.

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

Not a lot of people know this, but there was a short spike in the number of legal abortions in the US after Roe v Wade, and then the numbers went back down and leveled out. The rate of abortions has actually been declining for some time.

It's not so much Roe. But, I think it'll be a 4-4 split whether Texas may regulate out out-patient abortion clinics. Mississippi and at least one other Jesusland state has an identical law. Less than 1% of abortions have a incidence of something requiring hospitalization, and there's no showing that the requirement of the abortion providing doctor have admitting priviledges for the patient to be hospitalized.

Citizens United is in the balance, or more accurately whether congress can regulate campaign contributions. Imo it'd be very difficult for the Court to say the 2nd does not involve an individual right, but Heller leaves open regulation of that that right. We will continue to have a right to have an unsecured weapon in our homes, but beyond that ..... High capacity magazines could easily be found illegal in some states.

Racial preferences in admissions.

I don;t have a right to have an unsecured weapon in my home, welcome to NYC.

 

[bendog]

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

Not a lot of people know this, but there was a short spike in the number of legal abortions in the US after Roe v Wade, and then the numbers went back down and leveled out. The rate of abortions has actually been declining for some time.

It's not so much Roe. But, I think it'll be a 4-4 split whether Texas may regulate out out-patient abortion clinics. Mississippi and at least one other Jesusland state has an identical law. Less than 1% of abortions have a incidence of something requiring hospitalization, and there's no showing that the requirement of the abortion providing doctor have admitting priviledges for the patient to be hospitalized.

Citizens United is in the balance, or more accurately whether congress can regulate campaign contributions. Imo it'd be very difficult for the Court to say the 2nd does not involve an individual right, but Heller leaves open regulation of that that right. We will continue to have a right to have an unsecured weapon in our homes, but beyond that ..... High capacity magazines could easily be found illegal in some states.

Racial preferences in admissions.

I don;t have a right to have an unsecured weapon in my home, welcome to NYC.

It is curious.

 

[Slade3200]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

All the more reason for Americans not vote for Clinton. As opposed to appointing Judges that will interpret the Law, she will appoint Justices who seek to Legislate from the Bench which is NOT what the Court was set up to do.

It is impossible for you to know that.