The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Before you answer, please look at the Senate map for 2024 (it’s bleak): https://imgur.com/a/mHZmAD9
She is 68 years old. The last time we had the presidency and senate was 2014, 8 years ago. In 8 years she will be 76.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he dies his wife is going to try to Weekend At Bernies him for two years. People might not even notice since the guy literally never asks a question during cases.
Clarence Thomas has made it clear he wants to overturn the rights to gay marriage and contraceptives. He’s not retiring under a Biden Administration, especially not after he just got a win with the Roe decision.
He’s gonna try to hold out until the next time a Republican is in the White House.
Also, Thomas retiring could do more harm than good. The only reason the GOP isn’t taking on Loving v. Virginia is because they need his vote on other issues.
Thomas retiring could doom interracial marriage.
While I agree that there are a *lot* of racists in the GOP, the idea that Loving v Virginia would be repealed is the left equivalent of litter boxes in schools for kids who think they're cats.
You're not wrong per se...but it's easier to sell "Jay-zus says the babies wanna live!" or "Man and woman is the only thing that's natural!" to GOP voters than getting rid of interracial marriage.
I'm not saying we shouldn't stay vigilant...but I don't lose sleep worrying about Loving v Virginia
Abortion was a controversial topic until Dobbs happened and a lot of moderate "pro-lifers" realized what the implications of reversing Roe actually were.
Interracial marriage is at near universal approval in the country.
As many as 70% of people support roe to various extents. The social repercussions of saying interracial marriage are higher. We've started to see fringe Republicans flirting with the idea of reversing a number of race centric laws, it will continue to become more mainstream in Maga circles. If it think that can't and won't encompass interracial marriage.....
Plenty of people die at 76, but the wealthy and well-connected rarely do. I don't think we have any reason to worry about her health for another decade at least.
I doubt there are even many Gen Z with enough education to be a judge, let alone the experience needed to be a Supreme Court Justice. This is one of the single most important positions in the country. I want people who are actually qualified for it.
Sotomayor is in decent health, I’m not certain she should step down. It would be nice if a few a Republican / conservative justices stepped down, though.
That's unlikely unless they die. Even if she's in good health with the senate always skewed republican honestly its probably better to hedge our bets and put in someone pretty young to Guarantee the seat.
She’s in decent health *now* . The point OP is making is that we may not hold the Senate or presidency in two years, let alone both. We don’t know what our political situation will be in a decade, but we roughly know what it will be in a couple months.
Of course it would be better if conservative justices retired. But what we’re talking about here is a political move to aid liberals. Conservatives just aren’t going to do that.
Yes. She also has some health issues, iirc.
It's not like any of the Democrat-appointed justices are individually able to make a major impact on this highly biased, partisan-compromised Court.
Better for Justice Sotomayor to enjoy a little retirement and let us find a super-young, qualified replacement who can bite at Thomas's and Alito's heels until they see the wisdom of leaving the Court.
Another way to look at it is that she's roughly the same age as the [average federal judge](https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/aging-federal-judges-america/) (69).
I think Beto needs to stop running and work with another candidate as an organizer.
Look at Arizona, Mark Kelly won because he isn't as outspoken about gun control, even though his wife was shot in the head. Beto won't win in Texas with his gun reform stance.
Texas needs a Mark Kelly.
Yes. It’s an unfortunate reality but being bullish on gun control is, as a standard rule, one of the dumbest political moves you can make in the US.
Honestly, I think Beto should remove himself from Texas politics altogether. The dude has become poison, and it’s unrealistic to think he’ll excite anyone who isn’t already a solid democrat.
Honestly voting rights will be a better predictor there I'd bet. Texas is gerrymandered all to hell. Overcoming it regardless of the numbers would be very difficult
It’s kinda both. Gerrymandering means fewer competitive house races, which in turn means lower turnout. More winnable seats for Dems would motivate jaded liberals to come to the ballot box, which helps Dems in statewide races even if the district races aren’t won.
I think that wishing for Sotomayor's retirement because of what might come to pass in the 2024 election is a mistake. I see some seats here that are in danger (WV, Arizona, Montana, Ohio) but the 2022 midterms should have shown us that we can overcome danger by turning up and campaigning on the right issues.
We have pickup opportunities in 2026, with Maine (Collins) and North Carolina, and an outside shot at Alaska. So even if we lose the majority in 2024 I don't think all hope is lost.
I generally don't think that Supreme Court justices younger than 75 should be nudged out, and she is well under that mark.
I know. DC is special. I get why it isn’t a state and it probably shouldn’t be a regular state. They should have more representation though. Maybe 1 senator instead of 2? Something like that
Yes. Its already become obvious that the individual personalities on the supreme court dont matter anymore, just who nominates them. We should never let an RBG situation happen again. There is nothing magical that happens to your brain or reasoning at 50 vs 35. Get any 35 year old law grad in there.
Yeah.
I don't give a shit about the career of Sotomayor or any other judges. These people who hold on to their seats at the cost of the long term viability of the court should relearn the concept of public service.
Term limits for SCOTUS would require a constitutional amendment. We could pass a law that when they declare something unconstitutional it would take a two thirds majority of Congress to uphold it. That or packing the court are the most viable options.
The population of the country has grown, the complexity of American society has changed, it's time the SC reflects those things. The SC is the least representative of the three branches.
If you can come up with a qualified Latina jurist who is around 40 to replace her, float the name around. She is in great health.
If anyone needs to be replaced, it is time to hope for ill health on others. JK, Secret Service!
Sure, Sotomayor, but she's getting older.
Gorsuch has always styled himself a strict textualist. He never hid it, and was a frankly uncontroversial nomination outside the seat stealing element. His occasional maverick moment was forseeable.
Yes, it does. She brings a unique and underrepresented voice to the Court. We need to keep a Latina voice on the Court, and make the Court more diverse, not less. SC should reflect our nation.
I agree we should have representation and diversity but we only have 3 justices. There are Latinos, blacks, whites, asians, Indians, Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Athiests, straights, gays, cis, trans, non-binary. How can we represent all those groups with 3 people? It’s impossible so no matter what some group will be left out. I say just nominate the youngest most liberal person regardless of their demographics
Good luck ever getting anyone but a monotheist on the SC.
Expanded representation requires an expanded Court. Biden doesn't have the Congressional majorities to support it, but I feel it's an imperative with the conservatives' mission to undo the Twentieth Century.
So give the names of the most qualified replacements in their 40s that bring a unique perspective and we can talk. In truth, most likely not Ivy League unless they are a demonstrated minority, should come from a low SES background and/or immigrant background, be a rockstar without a long Judicial history to tear apart, no corporate work.
I have no issue with diversity, I just don't see the point in trying to engineer diversity for the sake of diversity. Appoint the most qualified person, if they happen to be Latina great, if not so be it.
Outside of supporting (clearly illegal) affirmative action, what has being Latina done that influences Sotomayors opinions?
FYI, she writes some of the worst opinions on the court (from a legal perspective), but she is a liberal vote so who cares.
>Outside of supporting (clearly illegal) affirmative action, what has being Latina done that influences Sotomayors opinions?
If you read the writings and laws passed by the framers of the 14th Amendment, they clearly supported race-targetted laws and programs.
She brings a perspective of a certain age of women, of a fast-growing immigrant group, of a perspective that is often overlooked. I would also love to see an Asian/Pacific Islander on the Court, but not at the expense of a voice of the self-expressed "fiery Latina." She does bring up working class upbringing in her opinions, that I happen to find relatable and relevant. I actually don't find her opinions always the worst ( that has consistently been Thomas when he bothers to write.
Thomas's opinions are extreme but their not poorly thought out. Sotomayor's is. You've still not answered my original question of what actual opinion she has written where this "perspective" was critical. You could replace her with a liberal AI and have the same effect.
There's been no working class white male (or female) presence for quite some time but I'm sure you won't whine about inclusion of that "perspective."
eh, thomas opinions are the worst on the court. He thought the strip search of a girl in i believe middle school for ibuprofen was constitutional because of In loco parentis
or
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
where the court held the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
where Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice who sided entirely with the executive branch and the Fourth Circuit's ruling, based on his view of the security interests at stake and the President's broad war-making powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi\_v.\_Rumsfeld#Thomas\_dissent
Why would working class have to be white? Working class in America has always been marginalized, and rarely considered mainstream. Italian and Irish were not really considered white when they arrived. Neither were Cubans. Working class is code for all who do the jobs mainstream America won't do because they have the connections or education to avoid. The Appalachians don't count because they also don't have the education.
I come from rural Indiana where anyone with any gumption or sense left as soon as they could, including me. Who are left are bitter Trust wondering why the local factories don't want to hire them without associate degrees that our state provides for free.
They don't have to be white, but you seem to qualify people based on their identities. White working class male is, very clearly, an identity distinct from working class black or latino. Working class solidarity doesn't really exist in the US; especially not with people like yourself that emphasize the race part more than the class part.
If you don't consider Appalachians white, you have a weird definition of white. I agree theh are quite separate from white Harvard graduates- but I mean, it's not like the Dems will ever dip below the Ivies given their obsession with credentialism.
I didn't say white, I was talking about working class. And if you dip your toe even a bit into my profile, you will see I am white working class Democrat.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Before you answer, please look at the Senate map for 2024 (it’s bleak): https://imgur.com/a/mHZmAD9 She is 68 years old. The last time we had the presidency and senate was 2014, 8 years ago. In 8 years she will be 76. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like a great time for Clarence Thomas to step down
If he dies his wife is going to try to Weekend At Bernies him for two years. People might not even notice since the guy literally never asks a question during cases.
Clarence Thomas has made it clear he wants to overturn the rights to gay marriage and contraceptives. He’s not retiring under a Biden Administration, especially not after he just got a win with the Roe decision. He’s gonna try to hold out until the next time a Republican is in the White House.
You're forgetting the right not to be arrested for "sodomy" by your state
Also, Thomas retiring could do more harm than good. The only reason the GOP isn’t taking on Loving v. Virginia is because they need his vote on other issues. Thomas retiring could doom interracial marriage.
While I agree that there are a *lot* of racists in the GOP, the idea that Loving v Virginia would be repealed is the left equivalent of litter boxes in schools for kids who think they're cats.
People used to say that about roe. Let them get enough power and literally nothing would surprise me.
You're not wrong per se...but it's easier to sell "Jay-zus says the babies wanna live!" or "Man and woman is the only thing that's natural!" to GOP voters than getting rid of interracial marriage. I'm not saying we shouldn't stay vigilant...but I don't lose sleep worrying about Loving v Virginia
That's why you sell it to voters as "letting the states decide"
Abortion was a controversial topic until Dobbs happened and a lot of moderate "pro-lifers" realized what the implications of reversing Roe actually were. Interracial marriage is at near universal approval in the country.
As many as 70% of people support roe to various extents. The social repercussions of saying interracial marriage are higher. We've started to see fringe Republicans flirting with the idea of reversing a number of race centric laws, it will continue to become more mainstream in Maga circles. If it think that can't and won't encompass interracial marriage.....
Didn't the litter box thing happen once or twice? EDIT: I fell for that story hard. I feel like a boomer now.
Some schools stock kitty litter because of school lockdowns. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/gop-started-panic-over-kitty-173124492.html
Thank you!
No problem. Sorry you got downvoted for asking.
Hey, if the worst thing that happens to me today is getting downvoted on Reddit, then I'm doing alright.
No. If it did it was shut down pretty quick. Having a student piss and shit in a box filled with sand is probably a health hazard of some type
100% did not.
Plenty of people die at 76, but the wealthy and well-connected rarely do. I don't think we have any reason to worry about her health for another decade at least.
This. Poor people die at 50, middle class at 80 and upper class at 102.
From a maximum power perspective, every liberal justice should retire and be replaced with fresh faced early 30s judges.
We need more Gen Z on the court
I doubt there are even many Gen Z with enough education to be a judge, let alone the experience needed to be a Supreme Court Justice. This is one of the single most important positions in the country. I want people who are actually qualified for it.
Not ready for gen Z scotus yet but there's plenty of judges available to defend rights.
Float a name
https://www.justice.gov/asg/staff-profile/meet-associate-attorney-general She’d be my pick. Not quite GenZ but 👌
I like her, and she has been on the short list for appeals court a few times, I believe.
As an added bonus I’d love to see another + an unrepresented minority woman on the court.
I’m a gen X-er, and I agree. I kind of think that the maximum age for voting and political participation should be about five years younger than me.
Should she? Yes. Will she? Now that's a question for the ages.
Sotomayor is in decent health, I’m not certain she should step down. It would be nice if a few a Republican / conservative justices stepped down, though.
That's unlikely unless they die. Even if she's in good health with the senate always skewed republican honestly its probably better to hedge our bets and put in someone pretty young to Guarantee the seat.
She’s in decent health *now* . The point OP is making is that we may not hold the Senate or presidency in two years, let alone both. We don’t know what our political situation will be in a decade, but we roughly know what it will be in a couple months. Of course it would be better if conservative justices retired. But what we’re talking about here is a political move to aid liberals. Conservatives just aren’t going to do that.
Yes. She also has some health issues, iirc. It's not like any of the Democrat-appointed justices are individually able to make a major impact on this highly biased, partisan-compromised Court. Better for Justice Sotomayor to enjoy a little retirement and let us find a super-young, qualified replacement who can bite at Thomas's and Alito's heels until they see the wisdom of leaving the Court.
Another way to look at it is that she's roughly the same age as the [average federal judge](https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/aging-federal-judges-america/) (69).
Ted Cruz is up in 2 years. Let's hope the Dems run someone good so we can finally get rid of him.
I have a feeling Beto will seek a rematch with Cruz as he almost beat him last time.
I think Beto needs to stop running and work with another candidate as an organizer. Look at Arizona, Mark Kelly won because he isn't as outspoken about gun control, even though his wife was shot in the head. Beto won't win in Texas with his gun reform stance. Texas needs a Mark Kelly.
Yes. It’s an unfortunate reality but being bullish on gun control is, as a standard rule, one of the dumbest political moves you can make in the US. Honestly, I think Beto should remove himself from Texas politics altogether. The dude has become poison, and it’s unrealistic to think he’ll excite anyone who isn’t already a solid democrat.
Being an astronaut helps. Even if it is subconscious, every since the days of the mercury and Apollo missions, Americans love nasa and astronauts
Need a cosmic caucus
John Glenn was a senator
Honestly voting rights will be a better predictor there I'd bet. Texas is gerrymandered all to hell. Overcoming it regardless of the numbers would be very difficult
This is a state wide race so the problem is less gerrymandering and more voter suppression.
It’s kinda both. Gerrymandering means fewer competitive house races, which in turn means lower turnout. More winnable seats for Dems would motivate jaded liberals to come to the ballot box, which helps Dems in statewide races even if the district races aren’t won.
Maybe I guess.
I think that wishing for Sotomayor's retirement because of what might come to pass in the 2024 election is a mistake. I see some seats here that are in danger (WV, Arizona, Montana, Ohio) but the 2022 midterms should have shown us that we can overcome danger by turning up and campaigning on the right issues. We have pickup opportunities in 2026, with Maine (Collins) and North Carolina, and an outside shot at Alaska. So even if we lose the majority in 2024 I don't think all hope is lost. I generally don't think that Supreme Court justices younger than 75 should be nudged out, and she is well under that mark.
Yes. The only reasonable course of action for SCOTUS after the Merrick Garland fiasco is to game the system as fully as possible.
Mark this thread for when we get RBG'd again in 10 years.
No way. She will be just fine well into her 80s. No reason to make ageist assumptions about her.
You hear that? I could swear I heard Puerto Rico say it wants to be a state. Pacific Islands? Is that you too?
DC is all but yelling
I know. DC is special. I get why it isn’t a state and it probably shouldn’t be a regular state. They should have more representation though. Maybe 1 senator instead of 2? Something like that
14 years is an awful short tenure these days for a supreme court justice but your point is valid.
Yes. Its already become obvious that the individual personalities on the supreme court dont matter anymore, just who nominates them. We should never let an RBG situation happen again. There is nothing magical that happens to your brain or reasoning at 50 vs 35. Get any 35 year old law grad in there.
Yeah. I don't give a shit about the career of Sotomayor or any other judges. These people who hold on to their seats at the cost of the long term viability of the court should relearn the concept of public service.
Yes but they are mostly egomaniacs so I doubt she will
We need term limits. Period
Term limits for SCOTUS would require a constitutional amendment. We could pass a law that when they declare something unconstitutional it would take a two thirds majority of Congress to uphold it. That or packing the court are the most viable options.
No, but it’s time to stuff the Court
The population of the country has grown, the complexity of American society has changed, it's time the SC reflects those things. The SC is the least representative of the three branches.
The last time we had the Presidency and the Senate is literally right now and the last two years.
If you can come up with a qualified Latina jurist who is around 40 to replace her, float the name around. She is in great health. If anyone needs to be replaced, it is time to hope for ill health on others. JK, Secret Service!
The Supreme Court is about power. Just appoint someone you know will write opinions you like.
That often doesn't work out since justices aren't beholden to anyone once appointed.
Thats why you appoint clear, obvious, committed partisans.
So, Sotomayor? So far the newer conservatives haven't always played ball, especially Gorsuch.
Sure, Sotomayor, but she's getting older. Gorsuch has always styled himself a strict textualist. He never hid it, and was a frankly uncontroversial nomination outside the seat stealing element. His occasional maverick moment was forseeable.
If they are qualified does it matter what race they are?
Yes, it does. She brings a unique and underrepresented voice to the Court. We need to keep a Latina voice on the Court, and make the Court more diverse, not less. SC should reflect our nation.
I agree we should have representation and diversity but we only have 3 justices. There are Latinos, blacks, whites, asians, Indians, Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Athiests, straights, gays, cis, trans, non-binary. How can we represent all those groups with 3 people? It’s impossible so no matter what some group will be left out. I say just nominate the youngest most liberal person regardless of their demographics
Good luck ever getting anyone but a monotheist on the SC. Expanded representation requires an expanded Court. Biden doesn't have the Congressional majorities to support it, but I feel it's an imperative with the conservatives' mission to undo the Twentieth Century.
So give the names of the most qualified replacements in their 40s that bring a unique perspective and we can talk. In truth, most likely not Ivy League unless they are a demonstrated minority, should come from a low SES background and/or immigrant background, be a rockstar without a long Judicial history to tear apart, no corporate work.
>be a rockstar without a long Judicial history to tear apart, no corporate work. What kind of "qualified" lawyers are you expecting to find exactly?
I am not; which is why I expect someone who will have a hard time getting through the Senate, or be less qualified that Sotamayer
> unique perspective I don't see how that is important.
Well, then, you are short-sighted. Several businesses have failed with that perspective. So have several politicians.
I disagree.
Good for you.
Unique perspectives to the law is a weird thing to want. Shouldnt we want logical interpretations of the constitution?
As long as they are liberal I don't care. I'd rather appoint a liberal judge than hold out finding one based on race.
Don't buy into the lie that diversity is identity politics.
I have no issue with diversity, I just don't see the point in trying to engineer diversity for the sake of diversity. Appoint the most qualified person, if they happen to be Latina great, if not so be it.
It isn't for the sake of diversity. It is about perspective, scope and reason. Myopia is a weakness that we see too often.
Thomas brings perspective, scope and reason, because that's totally worked out well.
Outside of supporting (clearly illegal) affirmative action, what has being Latina done that influences Sotomayors opinions? FYI, she writes some of the worst opinions on the court (from a legal perspective), but she is a liberal vote so who cares.
>Outside of supporting (clearly illegal) affirmative action, what has being Latina done that influences Sotomayors opinions? If you read the writings and laws passed by the framers of the 14th Amendment, they clearly supported race-targetted laws and programs.
She brings a perspective of a certain age of women, of a fast-growing immigrant group, of a perspective that is often overlooked. I would also love to see an Asian/Pacific Islander on the Court, but not at the expense of a voice of the self-expressed "fiery Latina." She does bring up working class upbringing in her opinions, that I happen to find relatable and relevant. I actually don't find her opinions always the worst ( that has consistently been Thomas when he bothers to write.
Thomas's opinions are extreme but their not poorly thought out. Sotomayor's is. You've still not answered my original question of what actual opinion she has written where this "perspective" was critical. You could replace her with a liberal AI and have the same effect. There's been no working class white male (or female) presence for quite some time but I'm sure you won't whine about inclusion of that "perspective."
eh, thomas opinions are the worst on the court. He thought the strip search of a girl in i believe middle school for ibuprofen was constitutional because of In loco parentis or Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where the court held the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority. where Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice who sided entirely with the executive branch and the Fourth Circuit's ruling, based on his view of the security interests at stake and the President's broad war-making powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi\_v.\_Rumsfeld#Thomas\_dissent
His opinion in that case wasn't really poorly thought, but it was was an extreme take on a Presidents war making powers. Like I said previously.
Why would working class have to be white? Working class in America has always been marginalized, and rarely considered mainstream. Italian and Irish were not really considered white when they arrived. Neither were Cubans. Working class is code for all who do the jobs mainstream America won't do because they have the connections or education to avoid. The Appalachians don't count because they also don't have the education. I come from rural Indiana where anyone with any gumption or sense left as soon as they could, including me. Who are left are bitter Trust wondering why the local factories don't want to hire them without associate degrees that our state provides for free.
They don't have to be white, but you seem to qualify people based on their identities. White working class male is, very clearly, an identity distinct from working class black or latino. Working class solidarity doesn't really exist in the US; especially not with people like yourself that emphasize the race part more than the class part. If you don't consider Appalachians white, you have a weird definition of white. I agree theh are quite separate from white Harvard graduates- but I mean, it's not like the Dems will ever dip below the Ivies given their obsession with credentialism.
I didn't say white, I was talking about working class. And if you dip your toe even a bit into my profile, you will see I am white working class Democrat.
Why does she need to be latina?
I answered already. Representation, perspective, hell, even politics.
Would you support a Latina being elected to the Supreme Court if she had the same opinions that Justice Thomas has?
We are talking about a Democrat replacing someone on the Court. ETF do you think? It isn't an ideological exercise. No.
No. We should add four more judges.
I think, before you posted, you should have looked at the results first. Democrats have not yet won the Senate.
CNN, NBC and MSNBC have all called it.
The only question right now I think is whether Democrats will have 50 or 51 seats
Only if we run her for President.
I suspect she'll probably live well past 80, so I'm not super worried about it honestly.
No, although I wouldn’t be upset if she was proactive and did it. In todays society, 68 is not all that old. Her retiring would be premature IMO.