Summary

As Donald Trump prepares for a second term, progressive groups are concerned about Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s future on the Supreme Court.

Some activists hoped she would retire to allow President Biden to appoint a successor before Republicans take control of the Senate in January.

However, with Democrats’ narrow majority and opposition from Senator Joe Manchin, any replacement would face confirmation challenges.

Legal scholars and advocacy groups now view the window for Sotomayor’s retirement as closed and are focusing on confirming Biden’s remaining judicial nominees to lower federal courts before Republicans regain the Senate majority.

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well the good news for progressives is you’ll likely see Thomas and maybe Alito retire during Trump’s next term. The bad news is they’ll be replaced by 35-year-old strict-constructionist Constitutional conservatives.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah and if Sotomayer pulls a Ginsberg, suddenly Trump gets three picks, effectively forcing a radically right-wing court for at least the next 40 years.

      The real tragedy of Trump being elected is that this effectively ends any chance of reforming the court. Gen Z will basically be in their 60s before there is any chance of balancing the court let alone swinging it left.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      They won’t be strict constructionists. The Heritage Foundation doesn’t endorse strict constructionists. They endorse whatever the hell supports their individual needs of the individual moments. They have no guiding principles or morals.

      • t_chalco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, but Trump has/had been taking legal marching orders from the Federalist Society which does support a strict read, no?

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No. We should all be aware of that by now. They claim to have a strict read, when it’s convenient for them. We’ve seen undeniable proof from this very Supreme Court, from Samuel Alito in particular, that they will completely abandon that principle whenever they feel like.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    2 months ago

    “and opposition from Senator Joe Manchin”

    The most repeated phrase ever. At least that piece of shit will be gone, but now an actual Republican took his place.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m ultimately glad, he was giving democrats a bad name. We could afford that a decade ago, but we no longer can.

      There’s a mild reshuffling of the parties happening, with the Tulsi Gabbards switching to red and the Adam Kinzingers switching to blue, and I’m fine with it. It’s about priorities. Which parts of your platform and beliefs are more important than the other parts?

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        with the Tulsi Gabbards switching to red and the Adam Kinzingers switching to blue

        Ugh, a future of having to choose between Russian agents and fucking tea partiers sounds bleak as hell, we’ve gotta be able to do better than that

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, I think we can.

          But remember, during WW2 the USSR and the US were able to cooperate to defeat fascism. We cannot be too picky when it comes to alliances when there’s bigger fish to fry. Ideological purity is not our friend, never has been. Even if that makes everything a confusing pain in the ass, which it does, that diversity of opinion is necessary if we are going to robustly pursue our goals and not get too stuck up our own asses and blinded.

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            We didn’t let the USSR decide our troop deployments for us, and we didn’t tell everybody what a great guy Stalin was to sell war bonds. When it comes to potential voters, I agree with you we can’t be picky (like, if they’ve got a problematic stance on trans people or women or people receiving welfare or whatever I’ll try to politely and succinctly tell them why what they’re saying hurts to hear and then steer the conversation back to the many many things we do agree on), but when it comes to the people we put on stages, the people we elect, and the people who advise elected officials on policy and campaigns the Manchins and Kinzingers and Cheneys of the world are poison who will only lose us votes.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I understand the sentiment, but I’m not so sure it’s actually true. We’ll have to see how many left leaning folks came out for Harris, percentage-wise. Not counting Gaza uncommitteds, they’re a different story imo.

              It’s all about the data though, nobody cares about sentiments or online complaints, it has to be hard numbers to actually convince people.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Somewhere out there is a chart showing how often a Congressman votes with their party. Manchin and Sinema were at the bottom, but they’re both leaving, so I don’t know.

        In my opinion, I don’t think we’ll have one. The Republicans will have a majority in both houses, so there’s no need for a controlled opposition.

        If they need someone to cross the aisle for theater, it’ll probably be Susan Collins.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Dude sat on his ass for 4 years and did next to nothing. You think he’ll do anything now?

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Our biggest mistake was hoping that democrats were progressive and not just another part of the oligarchs

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s a big tent, the people in charge of the party right now suck but there are lots of good lawmakers and staffers in there

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          And there could be a lot more if people didn’t sit on their ass and refuse to put in work to fix the only party we have a shot at taking over.

    • h3adphones@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      If he expanded the court now Republicans would just block his judicial appointments until he’s out of office.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s no point now. Anything they try to do will be blocked and be labeled lame duck president bullshit. It sucks but it’s reality. No point in trying to shake things up now. We can only pray the liberal judges stay alive until 2029

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hahaha AS IF. The right can stonewall and delay confirmation for 2 months without blinking an eye. Can probably do it in their sleep

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      They just have to be confirmed by the majority of the Senate. If every Democrat goes to confirm, there is nothing Republicans can do.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’d have to be one hell of a nominee to get through the process before Chirstmas break.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Coney Barrett was confirmed in 39 days. If the whole caucus was on board it could definitely be done, but Sinema would probably sell us out.

  • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think she can make it another four years. Ginsberg actively had cancer when she refused to resign. I think there’s a difference here, and she’s easily the best member of the court on pretty much every issue.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’d be an absolutely stupid thing to even attempt. And Lord knows we need her right where she is. Hang on honey.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    That institution is rotten to the core. No amount of this is going to fix it.