4 ms·
"We're going to have a conservative majority for decades." Not necessarily. On average, the last 10 justices to retire have done so around age 80, and that's w
by alexqgb 12y ago
"We're going to have a conservative majority for decades."
Not necessarily. On average, the last 10 justices to retire have done so around age 80, and that's with Stevens (who retired at 90) pushing the average up. Assuming (a) that this trend holds, and (b) that next President serves two terms, four of the nine justices may be replaced in that time. After all, come 2016 Breyer will be 77, Kennedy will be 79, Scalia will be 80, and Ginsburg will be 83.
Currently, the Court is 4-4-1, with Kennedy being the swing vote, though in recent years he's sided with his Conservative colleagues more frequently.
If a Republican president wins, it's possible that Breyer (who leans left) will outlast him. But it's less likely that Ginsburg will. And it's almost certain that Kennedy and Scalia would retire. With the swing and at least one left leaning vote flipping Conservative, the court would be 6-3 Conservative, if not 7-2, and likely to stay that way for another decade. But if the Democrats take the White House and Breyer and Gisnburg retire before 2024 (likely in both cases), then both Kennedy and Scalia will also need to hold out until 2024 just to preserve the 4-4-1 status quo. It's an unlikely prospect, given that they'd be 87 and 88 respectively.
If Scalia goes first, the Court would become 5-3-1 Liberal, with the importance of the swing dramatically reduced. If Kennedy goes first, taking the swing vote with him, the Court would become 5-4 Liberal, thus negating Scalia's power should he decide to linger, thereby increasing the chances that he'll retire as well. With both gone the Court would be 6-3 Liberal for a generation.
For what it's worth, Liberal voters are intensely aware of these numbers. They'll push Hillary as far to the left as they can during the primary phase of the campaign, but given the prospect of a clear and long-term advantage in the Supreme Court - and a bone-deep fear of what Conservatives would do with the same advantage - you can be absolutely sure that they'll be unified and motivated in the general election. Indeed, given how few major issues unite all Democrats, there's a good chance that reshaping the Supreme Court will become a central issue in the general election, since it's pretty much the only thing that everybody in the party can get behind without reservation.
Of course, Conservatives are looking at the same math, and they'll be just as unified and motivated for the same reason. However, the GOP is also burdened by a general lack of popularity (they trail both Democrats and Independents in terms or registered voters), structural disadvantages in the Electoral College, and the fact that voter turnout in Presidential years favors Democrats.
- apendleton 12y agoThe labeling of Kennedy as the swing vote is mostly a fairly recent narrative invention of the press in my opinion; it makes for a more exciting story to have the decision hanging in the balance with one wildcard that could go either way. But while he may be slightly less predictable than the other four conservatives when it comes to decisions that split along left-right lines, he's still pretty reliably in the conservative camp. Before O'Connor retired, she was considered the swing vote, and Kennedy was lumped in with the conservatives, for the same 4-4-1 breakdown; they just shuffle around the ostensible camps to keep it that way whenever the composition of the court changes. (Also, for what it's worth, I think lots of people who don't follow the Court closely would be surprised at how few decisions are actually decided 5-4 along left-right lines. The majority of decisions, even under the Roberts court, are unanimous, and 6-3 or 7-2 decisions are also quite common, as are 5-4 splits along some axis other than the "expected" one. Again, I think the perception of political polarization, while not entirely undeserved, is significantly overemphasized in media coverage.)
- byuu 12y agoThe problem is that the 5-4 splits are almost always on the really, really majorly important issues like Citizens United (bad), VRA (bad), DOMA (good), etc. The exact issues that absolutely should not be partisan are the ones that seemingly always are.
- alexqgb 12y agoWhat's notable about two of those cases is that they're about frustrating the power of the electorate. The value of the SCOTUS to Conservatives is that it provides the ultimate bulwark against the power of the vote, which - in a fully franchised system - would banish contemporary Conservatism from national politics completely. If our warped electoral system finally crumbles under a liberal court, it will take a lot more that a restoration of a Conservative majority to reimpose it. It's not overstating the case to say that losing the next Presidential election will mark the Conservative movement's final chapter. This is the movement that started with Barry Goldwater, came to fruition under Reagan, began to wobble badly when Gingrich became Speaker of the House, and shit the bed completely under Bush. Since then, we've been living in an interregnum. The old order is damaged beyond all repair, but still had enough residual strength and momentum to keep its replacement from solidifying. But if they lose the Court - which they are sure to do if Dems win the White House in 2016, the electoral reforms that will be the death of them have a clear path to victory. Reduced to total political impotence, the bubble of lunacy, fear, hate, and anger that keeps platforms like Fox News in business will finally deflate. Remnants will exist, to be sure, but they'll be limited to control of a shrinking number of economically backwards red states, and even that won't last for more than a generation. Whatever is left after that will be taken about as seriously as the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK.