October 18, 2021

Report: Buzz surrounding potential Supreme Court vacancy ramps up

Speculation about the possible retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, continues to swirl as the Court’s current term heads toward its finish, as The Hill reports, and growing numbers of progressive activists are making their preferences about a departure quite clear.

Court watchers are on high alert about a potential end to Breyer’s time on the high court, particularly in the wake of last fall’s death of liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Many on the left believe that with Joe Biden in the White House, now is the ideal time for a vacancy to occur.

With Democrat control of the Senate hanging by a thread, liberals are concerned about seizing their opportunity to reverse the rightward shift that took place during the administration of former President Donald Trump, and they continue to lament Justice Ginsburg’s decision to remain on the court back when former President Barack Obama could have chosen her replacement.

Capital University law professor Dan Kobil explained the situation as viewed by the left, saying, “I’m sure Breyer realizes what a blow Justice Ginsburg’s non-retirement was to the possibility of ever having an even mildly progressive Court in our lifetime,” adding, “So I think he would not want to double down on what many view as her miscalculation.”

Noted progressive legal scholar and dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Edwin Chemerinksy voiced his belief that Breyer ought to retire soon, explaining to The Hill, “If one Democrat leaves for whatever reason, the Democrats could lose the Senate. For Breyer to have someone with his values and views replace him, retiring this summer could be crucial.”

Though similar pressure on Breyer has been mounting from progressive groups across the country, it has not been explicitly echoed by the president or his allies in Congress. As Politico noted, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) – a member of the Judiciary Committee – has stated that he would “never presume to tell a Supreme Court justice to retire,” but said Breyer “is very familiar with the potential risks of a Republican president appointing his successor.”

Blumenthal added, “He is well familiar with the way judicial appointments work, and I believe strongly he has in mind the best interests of the country and will make the right decision. There are political realities that I hope judges will perceive.”

Breyer has not given many public indications of his future plans, though he did tell Axios last year that considerations such as who occupies the Oval Office at a given time and the ideological composition of the sitting justices were “not totally irrelevant” with regard to when a justice might decide to retire, as The Hill further noted. However, as ABC News noted, he has also warned about highly partisan proposals to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices, saying:

It is wrong to think of the Court as another political institution…and it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior league politicians.

Though Justice Breyer’s true intentions remain to be seen, if Democrats were to make any headway with their radical proposals to expand and pack the high court, his departure, should it occur soon, would just be the tip of a very alarming iceberg.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
0 0 votes
Article Rating
simple-ad

This is a demo advert, you can use simple text, HTML image or any Ad Service JavaScript code. If you're inserting HTML or JS code make sure editor is switched to 'Text' mode.

Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Grin n barrett (@guest_1236912)
5 months ago

I have said it many times before and I will say it many times in the future. The court is a separate branch of a 3 branch system. It shouldn’t be liberal, it shouldn’t be conservative. It should be constitutional PERIOD. The court is supposed to rule on the letter of the law as it is written. Not how the left or the right want it to be but as it is written. There should be no partisanship what so ever. Anything else is political death to this nation’s system of government.

Manuel (@guest_1236924)
Reply to  Grin n barrett
5 months ago

Here, Here!!

roger vanhulle (@guest_1237238)
Reply to  Manuel
5 months ago

The constitution is what made America the land of plenty, and not the men and women that interpret it!

D (@guest_1236928)
Reply to  Grin n barrett
5 months ago

What does the SCOTUS have to do with how many Marxist Democrats are in the Senate ?

Henry Andrew (@guest_1237056)
Reply to  Grin n barrett
5 months ago

Well said, lets quit playing political games and have constitutionists there. That is the law to be followed, not personal opinion.

Bill (@guest_1237313)
Reply to  Grin n barrett
5 months ago

But the left makes decisions based on emotions not the constitution or rule of Law. Anything they do is for partison advantage. Like Obama being a justice. pure politics. America be damned

big r (@guest_1238096)
Reply to  Bill
5 months ago

Only a true constitutionalist would hold a seat on the court open for 10 months for a conservative to be placed on the court or add jurist in 2 weeks, fairness be damned, right?

MSGT JOHN CORREA (@guest_1238133)
Reply to  Grin n barrett
5 months ago

Well stated Grin n barrett! The definition of politics is: crafty; unscrupulous or artfully contrived, etc., and should never be used in interpreting the Constitution of the United States!

All that you pointed out is right on target! Only the Godless Democratic Party of Treason would take the task to misinterpret the Constitution. They never bothered to honor their Oath of Office; so why should they be trusted as members of the United States Supreme Court? I SAY NEVER!

MSGT JOHN CORREA
USAF (RET)

Brigit (@guest_1238451)
Reply to  Grin n barrett
5 months ago

Amen to that!
The Supreme Court is good just like it is; they have ruled in the Democrat’s favor & the Republicans favor, that is the way it is supposed to be.
I’m not always happy about what they do, but it has to be fair to both sides; and I say Trump added decent people. We’re not supposed to always get our way; but, I do look for them to rule in our favor on any 2nd Amendment issue…there aren’t many ways to interpret, “the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The way I look at it, we’ve already allowed them to infringe more than we should have. I don’t think there should be any problem with law abiding people on concealed carry…criminals are going to concealed carry, whether they are lawfully allowed to, or not. It unfairly puts good, law abiding people at a disadvantage.

Dennis L Ruffin (@guest_1236918)
5 months ago

Why would anyone with an I.Q. higher than room temperature, care what Blumenthal, the Viet Nam ‘stolen glory’ moron has to say?

S M Mcghee (@guest_1237442)
Reply to  Dennis L Ruffin
5 months ago

They cared when it was McClain or Kerry, also fake hero’s of Vietnam!

jboo7 (@guest_1236951)
5 months ago

With the terror freely roaming around these days, I only fear that camp might try to create a vacancy!
And I don’t think it would cause any scruples in that camp – even high up.

CJM (@guest_1236987)
5 months ago

It’s pure nonsense that the US Supreme Court Justices are “appointed for life” because It is “in the Constitution.” Politicos have hoodwinked the American Public for eons by making that claim. The only thing that the US Constitution states about the Justices is that they are “appointed for a time.” That phrase can mean short, medium, or long length of time–it doesn’t engrave “lifetime” in stone. Before anyone gets all huffy, suggest you read it yourself–I did because I couldn’t recall such a thing being in the Constitution when we studied it in high school. There should be term limits on how long a Justice can serve on the bench, regardless of which Court it is. In some States, the State Judges are elected as opposed to being appointed. It’s time the US Supreme Court give up it’s “lifetime” supremacy and serve for a decent period of time before vacating that position and quit lying to the people about their coveted status.

IlliniGuy (@guest_1236990)
5 months ago

Blumenthal is a true FRAUD, as are many of his fellow Marxist Satanists. Wherever there is an opportunity or a supposed one, they’ll attack like vultures. I wonder what they’re going to do with their “oreo” senators and reps? They certainly do have a strange way of showing how they say they love our country. What a pile of BS.

Stephen Russell (@guest_1237010)
5 months ago

If retired, pure power grab only

Katydid (@guest_1237036)
5 months ago

Hang in there Bryer. 82 is still young now days. You can do good work still.

Randolph Chin_Quee (@guest_1237081)
5 months ago

Another republican justice will be on the supreme court that’s my prediction.

bill (@guest_1237314)
Reply to  Randolph Chin_Quee
5 months ago

How about a strict constitutionalist?

Roger Yaste (@guest_1237127)
5 months ago

There should never be left right balance in any court. The only bias allowed by a court is toward the constitution and the law. A display of bias toward other than the constitution and law is hard and fast grounds for impeachment and removal from the bench. A politician who might attempt balancing a court should be removed from office and banned from any position where he might effect balance.

Magella Desniege Duhaime (@guest_1237168)
5 months ago

How naïve of me to think Supreme Court Justices are to interpret the constitution as the Founders intended it out to be. Without regards of Democrat or Republicans. Guess I was wrong.

roger vanhulle (@guest_1237274)
Reply to  Magella Desniege Duhaime
5 months ago

What part of “Shall not be infringed” is not understandable?

bill (@guest_1237317)
5 months ago

The left cares only about what makes them FEEL good. The second ammendment makes them frightened because they are crooks. I cant trust a Democrap.

jerry d. bresee (@guest_1237335)
Reply to  bill
5 months ago

Bill, you cannot trust a Communist Democrat with your freedoms!

acosta contina (@guest_1237530)
5 months ago

Justice Stephen Breyer warns against ‘packing’ Supreme Court.
Waiting until result Presindent Tuesday 5th Novement 2024
Breyer says a partisan expansion of the Supreme Court would ‘erode’ trust.

Billy (@guest_1238103)
5 months ago

Here comes the take over of the Court by Social Democrat’s.

OUR TWEETS

PRESIDENT'S TWEETS

Sign Up For The Daily Newsletter

SYNDICATED NEWS

25
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x