The Next President Might Appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices

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.


Yeah, the old Marxist Ginsburg is going to go be with her mentor Josef Stalin, very soon.

This is why even Trump is better than Hillary.

One more Elena Kagan type and the bill of rights is a thing of the past.
 
3, 4, 5. Doesn't matter. 3 or above by a Democrat means a polarity shift of the Court. That's the central point of this topic.

Some of you will see this as a good thing. Others will see it as a bad thing.
 
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. :lol:

With a Kagan type majority, we very well could be.
 
So the SCOTUS has been leaning Conservative and corporate centered for decades...but a more liberal court means God must help us?

A leftist court in the mold of Kagan and Ginsburg means the end of civil rights.

And of course you can give some examples of this in their previous rulings, right?

I'm still waiting for example of "liberal" justices ignoring precedent...
 
And of course you can give some examples of this in their previous rulings, right?

I'm still waiting for example of "liberal" justices ignoring precedent...

Kagan is a vocal opponent of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

{
Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a blistering dissent she wrote to the Supreme Court's decision to grant a temporary "religious exemption" to Wheaton College in Illinois.

Wheaton, which is an evangelical Christian school, was already exempt from the Affordable Care Act provision that mandates all health care policies offer contraception without a copay, by an accommodation offered by the Obama administration to overtly religious institutions. But the school objected to signing the administrative form that would allow their insurance provider to offer the coverage directly. According to MSNBC, the lawyer for Wheaton obnoxiously referred to this form in his argument as "a permission slip for abortion."}
All Three Female Justices Join In Scathing Dissent Of 'Religious Liberty' Decision

Kagan, like Ginsburg is radical in her hostility to the free exercise of religion and free speech.

You support Kagan precisely because of her hostility to civil rights. You of the left seek to use the courts to crush the opposition.
 
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.

Sotomayor stated so.
 
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.

Sotomayor stated so.
Oh, in that case... :)
 
"Legislate from the bench" is a bogus phrase. It's what losers say when the Court writes a decision against their way.

I didn't hear anyone on the Right complaining the Court had "legislated from the bench" when they invalidated Washington DC's legislation against guns in Heller.
 

Forum List

Back
Top