Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Breyer needs to retire and focus on his ice cream empire   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Alito, today's Supreme Court, GOP voting laws Biden adviser, balance scales of Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Roe v. Wade, John G. Roberts  
•       •       •

1510 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2021 at 11:29 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



101 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-05-24 9:22:52 AM  
Lifetime appointments shouldn't be treated as a personal challenge. There's no high score list just for hanging around as long as possible.
 
2021-05-24 9:32:55 AM  
Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?
 
2021-05-24 10:36:18 AM  

wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?


Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?
 
2021-05-24 11:19:56 AM  
Breyer
needs to retire
and focus on his ice cream empire
 
2021-05-24 11:31:24 AM  
Pack the courts already.
 
2021-05-24 11:32:43 AM  
Nah, better to hang on to the seat for dear life until Republicans are in control of the Senate, and then die unexpectedly. Worked for RBG.
 
2021-05-24 11:33:46 AM  

NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?


Yes. That's how we got Trump's picks on the SC.
 
2021-05-24 11:34:54 AM  

NeoCortex42: Lifetime appointments shouldn't be treated as a personal challenge. There's no high score list just for hanging around as long as possible.


I was called a sexist for saying that RBG screwed up by not retiring while Obama had a supermajority.

My favorite argument was "How was she supposed to know she was going to die?" which ignores the fact that she was 75 and had two cancer diagnoses at the time.

Quite frankly, a lot of these Democrats need to pack it in. My favorite comment was from Will Menaker from Chapo Trap House who said, "Jerry Nadler shizzed in his doo-doo ass".
 
2021-05-24 11:35:21 AM  
The poll found nearly two-thirds of Americans, 63 percent, now want term limits or age limits on the justices. And more than a third, 38 percent, are open to restoring balance to the court by expanding the number of justices on its bench by four.

I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.
 
2021-05-24 11:35:22 AM  

special20: Pack the courts already.


Outlaw the Republican Party already and execute them for Treason!
 
2021-05-24 11:35:55 AM  
No, Biden needs to pack the court.
 
2021-05-24 11:36:25 AM  
ih1.redbubble.netView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 11:36:29 AM  

NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?


But it would really be uncivil and incredibly partisan for Democrats to abide by that, better to appear bipartisan and allow Republicans to filibuster anyway.
 
2021-05-24 11:37:10 AM  

special20: Pack the courts already.


Doesn't need to be packed, needs to be unpacked.
 
2021-05-24 11:37:11 AM  
Why does Breyer need to retire right now? The Senate will still have a Democratic "majority" through January of 2023 (assuming no one dies or is removed from the Senate) - and whatever argument the GOP has against it, even if Breyer retires the day before the new Senate is sworn in and a successor confirmed at 11:52am on Senate Inauguration Day, rings hollower than W's head.

I can see the argument in general, but we're creating a sense of urgency where there isn't one.
 
2021-05-24 11:37:50 AM  
"Frozen Dairy Treat" not "Ice Cream" The FDA frowns on your shenanigans, Subby, so use the correct labeling here before you get them in trouble.
 
2021-05-24 11:37:57 AM  

UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.


Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.
 
2021-05-24 11:38:29 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Why does Breyer need to retire right now? The Senate will still have a Democratic "majority" through January of 2023 (assuming no one dies or is removed from the Senate) - and whatever argument the GOP has against it, even if Breyer retires the day before the new Senate is sworn in and a successor confirmed at 11:52am on Senate Inauguration Day, rings hollower than W's head.

I can see the argument in general, but we're creating a sense of urgency where there isn't one.


To be fair, we're not in the business of selling press.
 
2021-05-24 11:40:12 AM  
All Federal jobs should have a hard cap of SS standard retirement age +5yrs.

These octogenarians need to make room for their offspring to be successful.
 
2021-05-24 11:40:14 AM  

special20: Pack the courts already.


Just to be clear, the the GQP already packed the courts.
Any effort by the Democrats to bring balance back would be more properly termed "unpacking" the courts.
 
2021-05-24 11:41:18 AM  

NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?


What happens if they gain a seat (and consequently the majority) in the 2022 midterms and Breyer keels over on January 4, 2023? The GQP could hold that seat open until after the 2024 elections give them the presidency and the power to name the nominee. The filibuster being nuked in that situation would be irrelevant.
 
2021-05-24 11:41:30 AM  

GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.


Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.
 
2021-05-24 11:43:26 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Why does Breyer need to retire right now? The Senate will still have a Democratic "majority" through January of 2023 (assuming no one dies or is removed from the Senate) - and whatever argument the GOP has against it, even if Breyer retires the day before the new Senate is sworn in and a successor confirmed at 11:52am on Senate Inauguration Day, rings hollower than W's head.

I can see the argument in general, but we're creating a sense of urgency where there isn't one.


Remember what they say about assuming. It makes an ass out of you, and gives the right another SCOTUS seat.
 
2021-05-24 11:43:42 AM  

NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?


Mitch will grumble and Democrats wont nominate anyone out of fear of seeming too partisan.

/s. But not by much.
 
2021-05-24 11:44:34 AM  

UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.


I'm sure Biden understands the nuances of Federal checks and balances better than you and knows that it's up to Congress to do these things
 
2021-05-24 11:45:13 AM  
Dr Dreidel: Why does Breyer need to retire right now? The Senate will still have a Democratic "majority" through January of 2023 (assuming no one dies or is removed from the Senate) - and whatever argument the GOP has against it, even if Breyer retires the day before the new Senate is sworn in and a successor confirmed at 11:52am on Senate Inauguration Day, rings hollower than W's head.

I can see the argument in general, but we're creating a sense of urgency where there isn't one.

Since Democrat's are trying to pack the court up to 13, it only makes sense that the Republicans should not let the Democrat's do that and hold off replacing a SCOTUS member until a Republican is president.
 
2021-05-24 11:45:32 AM  

UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.


So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?
 
2021-05-24 11:47:45 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Why does Breyer need to retire right now? The Senate will still have a Democratic "majority" through January of 2023 (assuming no one dies or is removed from the Senate) - and whatever argument the GOP has against it, even if Breyer retires the day before the new Senate is sworn in and a successor confirmed at 11:52am on Senate Inauguration Day, rings hollower than W's head.

I can see the argument in general, but we're creating a sense of urgency where there isn't one.


There was no sense of urgency towards RBG retiring from the Court at any time from 2009 to 2015. Then the GOP took over the Senate. She then tried to survive until the next time the Democrats had the presidency and the Senate simultaneously. She failed. Now we have a SCOTUS that's even more conservative than the one we had when Obama started his first term.

If you don't have urgency now, you might not be able to have it when you truly need it.
 
2021-05-24 11:48:22 AM  

UltimaCS: The poll found nearly two-thirds of Americans, 63 percent, now want term limits or age limits on the justices. And more than a third, 38 percent, are open to restoring balance to the court by expanding the number of justices on its bench by four.

I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.


Term or age limits requires a constitutional amendment. Not happening.
 
2021-05-24 11:49:04 AM  

Snapper Carr: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

I'm sure Biden understands the nuances of Federal checks and balances better than you and knows that it's up to Congress to do these things


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 11:50:24 AM  

GoldSpider: UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.

So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?


Um, yes. If the GOP can use it to deny us our voices, then I don't really see a problem with Democrats doing it to give us our voices back.
 
2021-05-24 11:50:36 AM  

NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?


It has.  And if the Democrats keep the Senate in 2022 (not a certainty) then Manchin will likely vote for a Democratic nominee.  But, Leader McConnell?  Yeah, I THINK he'd allow a vote on a Biden nominee in 2023, but I wouldn't put any money on it.
 
2021-05-24 11:52:35 AM  

SolderGlob: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.

So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?

Um, yes. If the GOP can use it to deny us our voices, then I don't really see a problem with Democrats doing it to give us our voices back.


"The ends justify the means" is the mantra of every authoritarian.
 
2021-05-24 11:53:25 AM  

UltimaCS: Snapper Carr: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

I'm sure Biden understands the nuances of Federal checks and balances better than you and knows that it's up to Congress to do these things

[Fark user image 425x239]


That doesn't mean what you think seem to think it means.  It appears you need refreshers both in Logic and Civics.
 
2021-05-24 11:53:57 AM  

GoldSpider: SolderGlob: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.

So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?

Um, yes. If the GOP can use it to deny us our voices, then I don't really see a problem with Democrats doing it to give us our voices back.

"The ends justify the means" is the mantra of every authoritarian.


Yeah, being an authoritarian requires much more than just believing that the ends justify the means.
 
2021-05-24 11:53:58 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?

It has.  And if the Democrats keep the Senate in 2022 (not a certainty) then Manchin will likely vote for a Democratic nominee.  But, Leader McConnell?  Yeah, I THINK he'd allow a vote on a Biden nominee in 2023, but I wouldn't put any money on it.


I would put ten bucks on a hypothetical 2023 Senate Majority Leader McConnell refusing to let any Biden nominee to SCOTUS get a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee, let alone a floor vote. The GQP has one main principle nowadays: any act is acceptable if it holds power with or garners more power for the GQP.
 
2021-05-24 11:54:55 AM  
While Juan Williams may be right for once, he can still fark himself up his stupid ass.

I'd say nominate Barack, but Michelle would probably kill him for getting back into government. Nominate AOC. She's an experienced lawyer, she's young, and her seat's safe.
 
2021-05-24 11:55:37 AM  
👏HE👏DOESN'T👏OWE👏YOU👏ANYTHING!
 
2021-05-24 11:57:50 AM  

GoldSpider: SolderGlob: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.

So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?

Um, yes. If the GOP can use it to deny us our voices, then I don't really see a problem with Democrats doing it to give us our voices back.

"The ends justify the means" is the mantra of every authoritarian.


That's a nice one-way ratchet the GQP has constructed. They can do anything they want regardless of public consent because that's what authoritarians do, and Democrats can't do anything they want even with public consent because that's what authoritarians do.
 
2021-05-24 11:58:01 AM  

SolderGlob: GoldSpider: SolderGlob: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.

So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?

Um, yes. If the GOP can use it to deny us our voices, then I don't really see a problem with Democrats doing it to give us our voices back.

"The ends justify the means" is the mantra of every authoritarian.

Yeah, being an authoritarian requires much more than just believing that the ends justify the means.


Things like asserting unilateral authority to add justices to the court because fark you that's why?
 
2021-05-24 11:58:28 AM  

The Lone Gunman: NeoCortex42: Lifetime appointments shouldn't be treated as a personal challenge. There's no high score list just for hanging around as long as possible.

I was called a sexist for saying that RBG screwed up by not retiring while Obama had a supermajority.

My favorite argument was "How was she supposed to know she was going to die?" which ignores the fact that she was 75 and had two cancer diagnoses at the time.

Quite frankly, a lot of these Democrats need to pack it in. My favorite comment was from Will Menaker from Chapo Trap House who said, "Jerry Nadler shizzed in his doo-doo ass".


Yep. Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, among others. I've been told specifically about Pelosi, "why should she retire? She's doing great and is a strong speaker."  That's, frankly, over-rated. The position is strong and anyone that would be in contention for it is going to be a strong leader (with a few exceptions). The fact is the Democratic caucus is too old and has been hanging on for too long. They choked out one generation (Gen X) and could end up doing the same to millenials if they continue down this path.

The GQP, for all their faults, does get younger members (who are nuts, too, which is currently the norm for the party) to be queued up for leadership.  Kevin McCarthy is old Gen-X or young boomer depending on how you cut it. (Often referred to as Generation Jones). The average of the GQP leadership is 53.5 (58 when Cheney was in). The average age of the Democratic leadeship? 69.8.  The youngest member of the leadership 14 years older than the youngest member on the GOP side.  The top 3 posts are all 80+.
 
2021-05-24 11:58:40 AM  
jackscountrystore.coView Full Size

Can we put him out to pasture?
 
2021-05-24 11:58:51 AM  

Serious Black: That's a nice one-way ratchet the GQP has constructed. They can do anything they want regardless of public consent because that's what authoritarians do, and Democrats can't do anything they want even with public consent because that's what authoritarians do.


I'd prefer we hold them accountable for breaking the law.  You'd prefer we emulate them.
 
2021-05-24 11:59:51 AM  

GoldSpider: Serious Black: That's a nice one-way ratchet the GQP has constructed. They can do anything they want regardless of public consent because that's what authoritarians do, and Democrats can't do anything they want even with public consent because that's what authoritarians do.

I'd prefer we hold them accountable for breaking the law.  You'd prefer we emulate them.


Trump didn't break any laws by packing the court.
 
2021-05-24 11:59:55 AM  

Ragin' Asian: While Juan Williams may be right for once, he can still fark himself up his stupid ass.

I'd say nominate Barack, but Michelle would probably kill him for getting back into government. Nominate AOC. She's an experienced lawyer, she's young, and her seat's safe.


Aoc isnt a lawyer. Not that it matters, since you don't have to be.
 
2021-05-24 12:02:35 PM  

NeoCortex42: wooden_badger: Hmmmm, so we go to an 8 member SCROTUS, until there's a GQP president?

Hasn't the filibuster already been nuked for SCOTUS?


It has and McConnell can't block a new appointment this time.

You can be guaranteed he'll wail that forcing pen through is an assault on democracy though.
 
2021-05-24 12:03:52 PM  

GoldSpider: SolderGlob: GoldSpider: SolderGlob: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: GoldSpider: UltimaCS: I'm sure Biden will take the brave stance of doing neither of these things.

Sounds like you miss the last guy, who had no hang-ups about asserting authority that didn't belong to him.

Which is a bad thing with dire consequences, or so I'm told.

So your argument is that Biden should do it because Trump largely got away with it?

Um, yes. If the GOP can use it to deny us our voices, then I don't really see a problem with Democrats doing it to give us our voices back.

"The ends justify the means" is the mantra of every authoritarian.

Yeah, being an authoritarian requires much more than just believing that the ends justify the means.

Things like asserting unilateral authority to add justices to the court because fark you that's why?


Or, How about adding them because the GOP decided it wanted to change the rules when it benefitted them? 

Oh, that's right. They can do whatever they want, no matter how immoral, unethical, or borderline unlawful so long as Democrats are the ones jumping through farking hoops and making sure that absolutely nobody is upset when they try to roll back those changes to help Americans. Because, god forbid someone was upset that a Democrat tried to restore voting rights that were stripped away, or depoliticizing the farking SCOTUS. That might upset someone, and therefore Democrats need a signed permission slip from Republican Jesus himself. 

fark off with your appeasement. Listening to you is exactly why this country was almost toppled by an authoritarian.
 
2021-05-24 12:03:57 PM  

UltimaCS: GoldSpider: Serious Black: That's a nice one-way ratchet the GQP has constructed. They can do anything they want regardless of public consent because that's what authoritarians do, and Democrats can't do anything they want even with public consent because that's what authoritarians do.

I'd prefer we hold them accountable for breaking the law.  You'd prefer we emulate them.

Trump didn't break any laws by packing the court.


No he broke other laws.  He also asserted power he didn't have ("presidential immunity").
 
2021-05-24 12:04:27 PM  

SolderGlob: Or, How about adding them because the GOP decided it wanted to change the rules when it benefitted them?


Fine.  Do it legally.
 
2021-05-24 12:05:56 PM  
Yeah, dude's been in the SCOTUS job for 37 years, and a judge since Jimmy Carter appointed him back in 1980. If it were me, I'd say "Yo, I'm done. Forty-One years is time to pull up stakes and roll up the tent."
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.