Stephen Breyer hints at retiring from the Supreme Court

Just a hint, but it could be real!

Imagine, Biden get's to make a selection?

It won't change the balance of the Court, but it may give Biden a win!

Harris.  Joe gets rid of her as a running mate (and embarrassment) and touts a black female to be put on the court making all the people that really don't care about qualifications very happy..   

Harris.  Joe gets rid of her as a running mate 

I think that would be his ideal solution, but no Republican would vote for her.  Would she cast the deciding vote for herself, assuming all Democrats would look past her obvious unfitness?

Joe won't be able to find anyone to the left of Breyer, but he will almost certainly get a younger individual. He'll get something to brag about going into the midterms, which his beleaguered party was desperate for. 

to the left of Breyer, but he will almost certainly get a younger individual.

It almost doesn't matter who he picks, because progressives justices always vote the same way.  He does probably need to nominate  someone who can  help  carry the  intellectual weight along with Kagan, since Sotomayor is no help there.

This is what the left was pressuring Breyer for.  We can only imagine who gets nominated.

Can you fill a seat during a midterm election year?

What was the Biden rule?

Just heard the guy on the local radio talk show throw this hilarity out there. Biden appoints Harris, she gets the nod. Biden taps Hillary as his VP. Joe's lack of cognisance forces him to leave office, Hillary becomes PotUS and appoints Michelle Obama VP. I laughed for ten fucking minutes 

That would solve everything, wouldn't it?

Certainly would assure a GOP PotUS in 2024 And Biden gets rid of that nasally sounding VP he has now LOL

As much as the dems would love to dump Harris, Susan Rice & Ron Klain know they need someone with a little judicial experience & depth.  Sadly the Senate democrats can get virtually anyone they want appointed.

It's Official:

Supreme Court   Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, Fox News confirmed, setting   President Biden   up with the first opportunity to fill a vacancy on the high court. 

A source close to Breyer told Fox News that the justice will step down at the end of the current Supreme Court term early this summer. 

foxnews

While yes he probably will retire, I do like how he only talked about an eventual retirement and now it's "sources close to him" who have confirmed his retirement date.  Justice Breyer to my knowledge still has not himself stated that he is retiring.  

But geeze,  they gotta fill those news hours somehow...

Klain & Rice had to get the ball rolling. They need to get him replaced with a hard line progressive. I'm sure that Breyer told them of his intentions, which kind of make sense. Breyer was a bit of an old fashioned liberal who wasn't going to let some Republican President replace him. Obviously the democrats will be losing power in about 11 months and it may be a long, long time before they ever see it again.

I see he's officially stated his plans to retire, presenting a letter to President Biden and stating his intentions in a press conference.  Good for him, I hope he enjoys a long and healthy retirement as partial compensation for his many years of public service.

But I don't get it.  Can he make terms about his successor being nominated AND confirmed before he leaves the bench?  Is that right and proper?  I'm not gonna ask if it's constitutional as where would you go besides court to ask if it was..   lol

During his campaign, Biden promised that he would nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. One potential option is D.C. Circuit Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson – a progressive favorite who Biden nominated last year. 




Ketanji Brown Jackson  (born September 14, 1970) ^[1]  is an American attorney and jurist serving as a  United States circuit judge  of the  United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . ^[2]  She was a  United States district judge  of the  United States District Court for the District of Columbia  from 2013 to 2021. Jackson has also been Vice Chair of the  United States Sentencing Commission  from 2010 to 2014 and a member of the  Harvard Board of Overseers  since 2016.

Notable rulings [ edit ]

• On September 11, 2013, in   American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture , Jackson declined to enjoin a   U.S. Department of Agriculture   rule preliminarily that required   meatpackers   to identify the animal's   country of origin . She found that the rule likely did not violate the   First Amendment . ^[20]
• On September 5, 2014, in   Depomed v. Department of Health and Human Services , Jackson ruled that the   Food and Drug Administration   had violated the   Administrative Procedure Act   when it failed to grant pharmaceutical company Depomed market exclusivity for its orphan drug, Gralise, despite the fact that Gralise met the statutory requirements for exclusivity under the   Orphan Drug Act . ^[21]
• On September 11, 2015, in   Pierce v. District of Columbia , Jackson ruled that the   D.C. Department of Corrections   violated the rights of a deaf inmate under the   Americans with Disabilities Act   because jail officials failed to assess the inmate's need for accommodations when he first arrived at the jail. ^[22]
• In April and June 2018, Jackson presided over two cases challenging the   Department of Health and Human Services ’ decision to terminate grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs two years early. ^[23]   Jackson ruled that the decision to terminate the grants early, without any explanation for doing so, was arbitrary and capricious. ^[24]
• On August 15, 2018, in   AFGE, AFL-CIO v. Trump , Jackson invalidated provisions of three   executive orders   that would have limited the time federal employee   labor union   officials could spend with union members, the issues that unions could bargain over in negotiations, and the rights of disciplined workers to appeal disciplinary actions. ^[25]
• On November 23, 2018, Jackson held that 40 lawsuits stemming from the disappearance of   Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 , which had been combined into a single   multidistrict litigation , should be brought in   Malaysia , not the United States. ^{[26] [27]}
• On September 4, 2019, in   Center for Biological Diversity v. McAleenan , Jackson held that Congress had stripped federal courts of   jurisdiction   to hear non-constitutional challenges to the   U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security 's decision to waive certain environmental requirements to facilitate construction of a   border wall   on the   United States and Mexico border . ^[28]
• On September 29, 2019, Jackson issued a preliminary   injunction   in   Make The Road New York v. McAleenan , blocking an agency rule that would have expanded "fast-track" deportations without immigration court hearings for   undocumented immigrants . ^[29]   Jackson found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had violated the   Administrative Procedure Act   because its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the agency did not seek public comment before issuing the rule, which made Jackson set aside the rule. ^[30]
• On November 25, 2019, Jackson issued a ruling in   Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn   in which the   House Committee on the Judiciary   sued   Don McGahn , former   White House Counsel   for the   Trump administration , to compel him to comply with the   subpoena   to appear at a hearing on its   impeachment inquiry   on issues of alleged   obstruction of justice   by the administration. McGahn declined to comply with the subpoena after U.S. President   Donald Trump , relying on a legal theory of executive testimonial immunity, ordered McGahn not to testify. In a lengthy opinion, Jackson ruled in favor of the House Committee and held that senior-level presidential aides "who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena" even if the President orders them not to do so. ^[31]   Jackson rejected the administration's assertion of executive testimonial immunity by holding that "with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist." ^[32]   According to Jackson, that conclusion was "inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law." ^{[32] [33] [34]}   Jackson's use of the phrase "presidents are not kings" gained popular attention in subsequent media reporting on the ruling. ^{[35] [36] [37] [38]}   The ruling was subsequently appealed by the   U.S. Department of Justice , ^[39]   and was only resolved when, on June 4, 2021, McGahn testified behind closed doors under an agreement reached with the Biden administration. ^[40]
  
  
  en.wikipedia

Probably would help if she was a transsexual and/or lesbian.

The main requirement is that whoever it is believes in that "living constitution" the left promotes.

Bingo

Jonathan Turley says: "The timing of the Breyer retirement is telling. Assuming Breyer remains on the Court until June or July, it would allow just enough time for President Biden secure a new confirmation."

Justice Stephen Breyer has been  a target of liberal groups for months as billboards  and commentators call for his immediate resignation. It has backfired with Breyer pushing back on such pressure and reaffirming that he will stay on the Court so long as he is capable of carrying out his duties. Breyer has also opposed the same groups and a number of leading Democrats pushing for court packing.  Breyer just reaffirmed his position (and that of other justices like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg) in opposition to court packing.

Breyer was asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace in a Sunday interview about increasing the size of the Court and Breyer responded “One party could do it, I guess another party could do it. On the surface, it seems to me that you start changing these things around, and people will lose trust in the court.”

Breyer struck out at court packing in an interview on Friday with NPR, noting “What goes around comes around. And if the Democrats can do it, the Republicans can do it.”

The Court itself seemed to be  sending a message with a serious of unanimous and heavy majorities  in the last term that the claims of a rigidly divided Court are overblown. Most cases do not show such deep ideological divisions.

President Joe Biden has  refused to state his position on court packing  and has assembled a commission to make a recommendation on the subject.

Breyer previously  warned against any move to expand the Supreme Court . He also rejected the  characterization of the current Court  as “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Breyer was swiftly denounced by figures like cable news host  Mehdi Hasan who called him “naive”   and called for his retirement. Demand Justice, a liberal group calling for court packing, had a billboard truck the next day in the streets of Washington warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” (Demand Justice once employed White House press secretary Jen Psaki as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of its voting projects.)

Breyer’s warning of a retaliatory move by Republicans to engage in the same court packing has already been addressed by leading academics. Harvard professor Michael Klarman and others have not been subtle about the need to pack the court to guarantee an immediate liberal majority. Klarman has said the court must be changed to enact the Democrats’ sweeping agenda — and Democrats shouldn’t worry about Republicans responding with their own court packing if they return to power. Indeed, he explained, the point of changing the system with “democracy-entrenching legislation” is to guarantee that Republicans “will never win another election” unless they fundamentally change their views. Klarman conceded that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described,” so the court must be packed in advance to allow the desired changes to occur. [You can read Klarman’s full comments   here ]

In his interviews, Breyer has shown far greater courage and principles than Biden.  As previously discussed , Biden has not been known as a politician who is motivated by such principles. Thomas Jefferson once advised his successors that “on matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.” Breyer continues to stand like a rock in the face of a campaign to force him off the Court and then pack the Court with an immediate liberal majority. His opposition is not due to any lack of liberal credentials. He is one of the most consistently liberal justices in the history of the Court, but he remains a justice of the Court first.

jonathanturley

Charles Cooke summed up the long term implications pretty well:

. If, as seems likely, Biden chooses a bomb-throwing hack in the mold of Justice Sotomayor, he will end up further marginalizing the real talent within the “living constitution” wing, Elena Kagan, and creating more distance between her and her originalist (and originalist-adjacent) colleagues. As a practical matter, the non-originalists’ best tactic is to anchor its positions around Kagan in the hope that, from time to time, she can persuade Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh to agree to the narrowest available holding. Already, Sotomayor makes this difficult. Adding a second unmoored lunatic in Breyer’s place would make it more difficult still. Often, the progressive movement’s cynical approach toward the Constitution pays dividends. In our current 6-3 environment, however, it may not. The more space there is between John Roberts and the median progressive justice, the weaker the progressives become.

Yep. Racist and Sexist all in one neat little package. All he is doing is choosing NOT the best qualified person, but what he considers the best qualified female of color leaving out males altogether and women NOT of color.

Let's go Brandon!

I am sure there are many black women that are qualified for the post.  The fact he had to announce this was what he was going to do was just pandering for votes and virtue signaling.  This polite racism will diminish the legitimacy of anyone he chooses, were they chosen for their qualifications or their skin color.  This will especially be questioned after his choice for VP.  The country would have been much better served if he just nominated a qualified black woman and focused on her qualifications, not her skin color.  Of course I am not sure the great unifier has the best interest of the country at heart.

Biden can't count on getting ALL Democrat Senators to confirm a far left wacko nominee

What are those on the left so giddy about? Breyer is one of the liberal judges. So we get to replace a liberal with a supposed other liberal. Balance stays the same. Oh happy days are here again.

Side note, I think Mr. Biden should look for a woman of color with the last name of Baskin.......or maybe Robbins to replace Breyer............................

I think the only plus for the democrats is that this will help shift the focus from the disaster that is Biden to split the focus between trying to convince the American people that Jan 6th was almost the end of democracy and this nomination being the most important thing since the beginning of time.  You are right though, in the grand scheme of things this means nothing but I think trying to continue with Jan 6th all the time might not make it to the midterms, which is the obvious goal.  People are getting as tired hearing about Jan 6th as they are seeing Fauci on every channel as the are switching channels on their TV's

So we are going to have the first SCJ with an asterisk next to her name, annotating an Affirmative Action pick. This person will know this and now she was chosen, first and foremost, because of the color of her skin and her gender.

Now, before leftists go apoplectic because of Justice Thomas, it was never announced in advance that a black man was going to be nominated.

Let's go Brandon!!