Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

See also: Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. She threw her whole legacy into the garbage disposal just so she could cling to power for two more years.

View on HN

I don't believe she threw away her WHOLE legacy, but she did not in fact end on a high note like the OP asked and sadly become a cautionary tale.

> ... and sadly become a cautionary tale.

I'm not convinced anyone in Congress has read that tale.

This is a rewrite of history.

She was basically trapped in the job when the Senate refused to appoint Obama's pick to fill the vacant seat of Scalia. If she had retired it would have just been two empty seats for Trump to fill quicker. People were actively asking her to stay in the job.

Feinstein was a democratic senator in a democratic state with a democratic governor. She was actively being told she was unfit. She should have just retired.

There were people quietly pressuring RBG to retire back in 2013, when the Democrats had a fragile majority in the senate and knew they might not get another chance to keep that seat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/rbg-retiremen...

You understand that there were years before 2016, right? In some of them, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in Congress.

I still remember the plethora of articles about RBG's supercool workout regimen dating back to the early 2010s because she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. The fixation on her health was largely because everyone knew this woman was getting ready to kick the bucket at some point, but she refused to make her exit before the Republicans took control over Congress.

Just some examples of what I'm talking about as evidence:

* https://www.yahoo.com/shine/healthy-living/ruth-bader-ginsbu...

* https://abovethelaw.com/2013/03/meet-the-personal-trainer-to...

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/personal-trainer-bryant...

* https://time.com/4804007/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-workout-book/ (a bit later but you get the idea)

This is true, but the same time, she was 79 in 2012, which was also the AVERAGE life expectancy at the time. And you would think the wealthy well connected 'important' members of society have a noticeably longer life expectancy.

Life expectancy is irrelevant given you are already 79. That number bakes in a considerable probability that you will die before then.

What's the life-expectancy of a 79-year-old survivor of colon cancer and pancreatic cancer (which also had to be removed from her lungs)?

This, in turn is a rewrite of history. There was a call for her to resign well before the end of Obama’s second term. In fact, it was a hot topic leading up to the 2014 midterms, since Obama had the Senate votes at that time to nominate whoever he wanted.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-gins...

> This is a rewrite of history

Obama met her when Democrats had a majority, and IIRC obliquely inquired/suggested that she retire and she brushed it off.

If I understand correctly, court tradition is that only a Supreme Court justice can suggest to another that it is time for them to retire.

Obama may well have been right. But the suggestion should have come from one of the other liberals on the court. (And it may well have, for all we know. But we wouldn't hear about it one way or the other.)

I wonder if the Justices themselves have accepted that they hold a de-facto partisan position and should act as such. I mean, the system clearly was not designed like it was one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com