Unintentionally funnny op-ed piece of the day

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

California law school dean writes an op-ed piece that says that Justice Ginsburg (liberal) should be forced to resign this summer so that Obama can nominate a younger liberal judge before the 2014 mid-tem elections (where it is assumed that Republicans will win more seats and be able to block liberal Court nominees).

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-ginsburg-should-resign-20140316,0,6883426.story

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2014 by \GoBillsInDallas/

[B-Man]

"War on Women"

 

 

 

"Your value to the community is gone old woman...............out onto the ice floe"

[Tiberius]

California law school dean writes an op-ed piece that says that Justice Ginsburg (liberal) should be forced to resign this summer so that Obama can nominate a younger liberal judge before the 2014 mid-tem elections (where it is assumed that Republicans will win more seats and be able to block liberal Court nominees).

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,6883426.story

I totally agree with him. It's a good idea.

[B-Man]

Apparently, NO ONE is safe from Leftist logic...........................lol

 

No Country for Old Men: Now there’s a call on the left for Justice Breyer to retire.

by James Taranto

 

Back in 2011 this column noted that some liberals were anxious to get rid of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their concern wasn’t jurisprudential but actuarial: They feared that Ginsburg, then 78, might outlast President Obama but not President Romney, and they didn’t want a Republican nominating her successor.

 

Ginsburg, whose 81st birthday is tomorrow, is still in office, and so is Obama.

This week Bloomberg View’s Jonathan Bernstein renewed the call for her departure, as well as that of Justice Stephen Breyer, now 75. (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan shouldn’t get too smug; their time will come.)

 

The argument now is that Republicans appear set to capture a Senate majority in November, or, as Bernstein delicately puts it, “there is simply no way of knowing whether Democrats will maintain a majority.” He adds that “there’s also no way of knowing when the next Democratic presidential victory might be.”

 

In truth, everyone knows it might be in 2016, but you see his point. From a partisan standpoint, there’s a realistic prospect that this year will turn out to be Ginsburg’s and even Breyer’s last opportunity to retire while Democrats hold both the White House and a Senate majority.

 

“Ginsburg and Breyer might not prefer a Supreme Court that is highly partisan and ideologically divided, in which retirements are strategic moves,” Bernstein concludes. “But that’s the court they’ve got. If they care about the principles they’ve fought for, they should retire in time for confirmation battles this year.” Following his advice would be unseemly, he acknowledges, but it’s worth it.

The ends justify the ends of their careers.

 

 

 

 

 

Rampant ageism.

[Azalin]

Leftist logic..............

 

is that not a bit of a contradiction in terms?

[Tiberius]

 

is that not a bit of a contradiction in terms

You are so partisan you don't agree with the left on anything?

[3rdnlng]

You are so partisan you don't agree with the left on anything?

 

What do you agree with the right on?

[Azalin]

You are so partisan you don't agree with the left on anything?

partisan? you don't pay very close attention, do you? I don't belong to any political party. I used to be a democrat, but left them when they began turning into socialists.

[Tiberius]

What do you agree with the right on?

 

Allowing fracking, keystone pipeline, strong military (ok, many right wingers want to cut that, but generally its right on) market based approaches to air pollution and free trade , Probably some other too but gotta go

[DC Tom]

You are so partisan you don't agree with the left on anything?

 

That's funny. You will openly take the most convoluted, self-contradictory positions on topics if it means you get to disagree with Republicans.

[Tiberius]

partisan? you don't pay very close attention, do you? I don't belong to any political party. I used to be a democrat, but left them when they began turning into socialists.

Democrats are on the left, you don't think they used logic when you supported them?

 

That's funny. You will openly take the most convoluted, self-contradictory positions on topics if it means you get to disagree with Republicans.

You, as usual, are full of chit. Go back to writing your child books you complete idiot

[B-Man]

Back to the thread.......

 

Erwin Chemerinsky leans heavily into Ruth Bader Ginsburg: She "should retire."

 

The influential dean of the UC Irvine School of Law puts his weight into the Ginsburg-must-retire movement.

 

 

It is necessary — don't you know? — for the over-aged woman to step aside. For the good of liberals.

 

Hey! What about Hillary?! This completely overlaps with the liberal interest in convincing Americans that Hillary is not too old to be President. I Googled "Hillary is too old" and got "[a]bout 56,900,000 results," including a column in today's USAToday titled "Is Hillary too old for 2016?"

 

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.

 

[O]nly by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values....

 

 

Chemerinsky frets about the Democrats' losing the Senate this fall, and Ginsburg's retiring in June, he assumes, will give Obama the power to pick "virtually anyone he wants" for the Court. Filibuster is unlikely, Chemerinsky informs us, and anyway, the Democrats have the power to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices. They've already eliminated the filibuster for the rest of the federal judiciary.

 

Chemerinsky doesn't touch upon the political repercussions of such a drastic and obvious move, but he can't be so shortsighted and judge-focused that he doesn't notice. Is he so pessimistic about the Democrats in the fall elections that he thinks they might as well throw their power around this summer while they still have it?

 

 

 

.

[Azalin]

Democrats are on the left, you don't think they used logic when you supported them?

when I was very young, the democrat party was significanly more conservative than they are now. Kennedy supported significant reductions in taxes, was big on national defense, and actually had a spine when it came to dealing with the Russians. even considering those stances, he was considered at the time to be too liberal. that's why he came to Texas....to try to heal the divide between conservative democrats and the more left-leaning dems of the time. in this day and age, any president with the convictions of JFK would have the modern left screaming that he was an ultra-conservative.

 

Richard Nixon, who took office only five years after Kennedy's death, was arguably more of a leftist than Kennedy ever was, having instituted price controls on things like meat, and creating the EPA.

 

I was a democrat in the days of Reagan. at first I couldn't stand him (I actually thought Jimmy Carter was a better president back then, I'm embarrassed to say), but eventually I had to admit that his economic policies were starting to work. I was impressed that he could be such bitter enemies with Tip O'Niell and still successfully work with him. I liked that he showed the same kind of backbone in dealing with the Soviets that Kennedy had. still, it wasn't until the early Clinton years that I realized that the democrats had moved so far away from what they had been only a decade or two prior that they were little more than socialist-lite. since those days, they've practically sprinted toward becoming full-blown socialists. I've changed somewhat over the years, but the democrats have abandoned enough of the things I believe in that I want no part of them anymore.

 

the republican party is making a similar migration to the left in a pathetic attempt to be popular. this is what's given rise to the creation of the TEA party movement. it is the last bastion of fiscal conservatism out there (aside from the Liberatarians). that's why they have my support.

 

as for the rest - all the social issues - I believe that for the most part, people can and should make their own way through life, because it affords them true freedom, and is the best bet for individual success.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Azalin

[Jim in Anchorage]

great post.

[Tiberius]

when I was very young, the democrat party was significanly more conservative than they are now. Kennedy supported significant reductions in taxes, was big on national defense, and actually had a spine when it came to dealing with the Russians. even considering those stances, he was considered at the time to be too liberal. that's why he came to Texas....to try to heal the divide between conservative democrats and the more left-leaning dems of the time. in this day and age, any president with the convictions of JFK would have the modern left screaming that he was an ultra-conservative.

 

Richard Nixon, who took office only five years after Kennedy's death, was arguably more of a leftist than Kennedy ever was, having instituted price controls on things like meat, and creating the EPA.

 

I was a democrat in the days of Reagan. at first I couldn't stand him (I actually thought Jimmy Carter was a better president back then, I'm embarrassed to say), but eventually I had to admit that his economic policies were starting to work. I was impressed that he could be such bitter enemies with Tip O'Niell and still successfully work with him. I liked that he showed the same kind of backbone in dealing with the Soviets that Kennedy had. still, it wasn't until the early Clinton years that I realized that the democrats had moved so far away from what they had been only a decade or two prior that they were little more than socialist-lite. since those days, they've practically sprinted toward becoming full-blown socialists. I've changed somewhat over the years, but the democrats have abandoned enough of the things I believe in that I want no part of them anymore.

 

the republican party is making a similar migration to the left in a pathetic attempt to be popular. this is what's given rise to the creation of the TEA party movement. it is the last bastion of fiscal conservatism out there (aside from the Liberatarians). that's why they have my support.

 

as for the rest - all the social issues - I believe that for the most part, people can and should make their own way through life, because it affords them true freedom, and is the best bet for individual success.

You are right, during the Kennedy years the Southern wing of the Democratic party was segregationist. So yes, they were Conservative as all hell. Thank god that trash left and the South is now Republican. Kennedy stood up to Russians in Cuba, our back yard, not theirs! You see the difference? Or do your partisan blinders obstruct simple geography?

 

You say you love fiscal Conservativism but say you supported Kennedy, they guy that proposed medicare, medicade and a general expansion of welfare state?

[3rdnlng]

when I was very young, the democrat party was significanly more conservative than they are now. Kennedy supported significant reductions in taxes, was big on national defense, and actually had a spine when it came to dealing with the Russians. even considering those stances, he was considered at the time to be too liberal. that's why he came to Texas....to try to heal the divide between conservative democrats and the more left-leaning dems of the time. in this day and age, any president with the convictions of JFK would have the modern left screaming that he was an ultra-conservative.

 

Richard Nixon, who took office only five years after Kennedy's death, was arguably more of a leftist than Kennedy ever was, having instituted price controls on things like meat, and creating the EPA.

 

I was a democrat in the days of Reagan. at first I couldn't stand him (I actually thought Jimmy Carter was a better president back then, I'm embarrassed to say), but eventually I had to admit that his economic policies were starting to work. I was impressed that he could be such bitter enemies with Tip O'Niell and still successfully work with him. I liked that he showed the same kind of backbone in dealing with the Soviets that Kennedy had. still, it wasn't until the early Clinton years that I realized that the democrats had moved so far away from what they had been only a decade or two prior that they were little more than socialist-lite. since those days, they've practically sprinted toward becoming full-blown socialists. I've changed somewhat over the years, but the democrats have abandoned enough of the things I believe in that I want no part of them anymore.

 

the republican party is making a similar migration to the left in a pathetic attempt to be popular. this is what's given rise to the creation of the TEA party movement. it is the last bastion of fiscal conservatism out there (aside from the Liberatarians). that's why they have my support.

 

as for the rest - all the social issues - I believe that for the most part, people can and should make their own way through life, because it affords them true freedom, and is the best bet for individual success.

 

I get a kick out of explaining to a lib how I am a "JFK Conservative". Good post.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The Court has always been political, but the second it becomes completely, and outwardly partisan, it becomes invalid.

 

There is a reason that Court appointments are for life; and that reason is to prevent exactly the sort of ugliness this professor is advocating for.

[Tiberius]

The Court has always been political, but the second it becomes completely, and outwardly partisan, it becomes invalid.

 

There is a reason that Court appointments are for life; and that reason is to prevent exactly the sort of ugliness this professor is advocating for.

Bush v Gore?

[3rdnlng]

Bush v Gore?

 

What's your point?

[Tiberius]

What's your point?

It's pretty self-explanatory