Is Justice Ginsberg holding off on retirement until she knows Warren's plans for 2016?

[cascadiance]

We here know that probably our best shot at getting a true progressive in the White House probably rests with Elizabeth Warren, as recent Quinnipiac polls showed her in the top 3 with Clinton and Christie which should provide a good indicator that she could make a good run of it and give us hope.

I wonder if Ginsberg observes this, and realizes that she's the strong liberal voice on this court or the time being and is needed now and until the end of Obama's term to keep it from going further to the right. Obama won't nominate a Scalia, but he likely won't nominate anyone equal or to the left of Ginsberg either.

If it looks like Warren could make a strong run or the presidency by announcing soon and getting a good campaign going, I think she holds out or the prospect of Warren winning and giving a Warren a good start for her presidency by retiring shortly after Warren wins and giving her the opportunity to get a real decent justice right at the start of her administration.

If it looks like Warren doesn't run for 2016, and we have no strong progressive running in the primaries, I wonder if Ginsberg rethinks her strategy and retires shortly after 2014 election, depending on the makeup of the Senate then.

Previous threads discussing Ginsberg saying she's going to hold out and not retire soon...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023531149

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023166794

Salon magazine pressuring her to retire now...

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/ruth_bader_ginsburg_must_go/

DKOS arguing about this topic...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219215/-Supreme-Court-decisions-show-why-we-need-Hillary-Clinton-in-2016#

----------

Ginsberg probably can't publicly state who she wants to select her replacement, even if she perhaps privately feels strong opinions on this issue. I suspect that she might be concerned about who Obama might replace her with, which is why she might be holding out. If Warren announces for 2016 soon, and looks strongly to being as much a shot at being the nominee as Hillary is, that will strengthen Ginsberg's private will to stay until after the 2016 election.

Now Democratic Party members, might be concerned about the outcome of a Republican president winning in 2016 and therefore replacing her with a far more conservative pick on SCOTUS. Warren entering the race perhaps might create an opportunity in this situation where she along with pragmatic party officials to talk with Obama now and negotiate a "deal" that Warren would have an equal say behind the scenes with the field of replacement candidates with what would be on Obama's list that would perhaps help persuade Ginsberg to retire before the 2016 election and ensure a Democrat nominates Ginsberg's replacement.

Warren could serve an instrumental means of preserving a liberal justice to replace Ginsberg by her candidacy. Another reason for her to run in 2016!

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I sure hope that you're right

If Warren runs, she will win. Americans will quickly understand why shelving Liberalism has gutted our country - they'll want it back off of the shelf.

[aquart]

2. Is this like fantasy football?

I adore Elizabeth Warren. Can she carry more than one state? And why on earth would you smear a decent, dedicated justice with politics?

[cascadiance]

4. I don't think "decent dedicated" justices are immune from having political opinions...

And certainly Ginsberg has made some of her feelings known (that can be interpreted as political) in her writing such as her dissent on Citizen's United.

And that is also why I don't think she comes out and publicly states what I'm conjecturing here, since she doesn't want to politicize her retirement either, even if she might have strong private feelings of how the SCOTUS balance is now, and how she feels she might have some degree of personal ability and responsibility to ensure that the person that replaces her reflects more of her positions on issues and decision making.

WHY do you think Warren can't carry more than one state? I do think her opinions on regulating banks are FAR MORE representative of Americans as a whole (Democrats, independents, AND many Republicans like the tea partiers that try to blame the bankster problem on Obama). I think on issues like these (though perhaps not favoring positions that would draw big corporate donors versus more corporatist contenders she has), are what would resonate a lot farther than the "far left" meme that the corporatists keep trying to throw at people like her to try and minimize their likelihood of running in 2016. It is how much visibility that she can attain without as much corporate backing that is the big question of her campaign in my book. That though has already been countered with the recent Quinnipiac poll that showed her in the top 3 in terms of visibility and favorability in 2016 race.

I respect that Ginsberg isn't public about her feelings on this, if this is what is motivating her. But as I note, perhaps Warren just running in 2016 a strong race, might help Ginsberg be persuaded to retire earlier, if Warren could affect who Obama nominates to replace her, if what I'm thinking is what is motivating Ginsberg staying on the bench.

[Lil Missy]

3. No, Ginsburg has more integrity than that.

[truebluegreen]

5. If I were her, I would.

To paraphrase The West Wing when a Justice was retiring, "I wanted to wait for a Democrat. Instead I got you."