Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[The Larch]

The Spanish Constitutional Court has had a large profile in the Catalan separatist crisis but I'll be damned if I can name any of the judges. Their mandates are short, anyway (9 years).

The court has an unwritten rule of avoiding split decisions in landmark cases, so that kinda tends to reduce political infight to dominate it.

Well, we do have an ongoing (two years at the moment, IIRC) block on the renewal of the "Consejo General del Poder Judicial", which affects the composition of the Supreme Court, because PP refuses to nominate new judges to it in order to maintain their current majority, so it's not an uniquely US thing, although our case is way less dramatic and AFAIK doesn't involve anyone dying off.

[The Larch]

So Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 when she died.

My question is, she was well in her 80s during the Obama years.  Why didn't she resign when Obama was president?

IIRC it was proposed to her that she'd resign during the Obama presidency and with the Dems in control of the Senate, but she rejected it.

From wiki:

During the presidency of Barack Obama, some progressive attorneys and activists called for Ginsburg to retire so Obama could appoint a like-minded successor, particularly while the Democratic Party held control of the U.S. Senate. They pointed to Ginsburg's age and past health issues as factors making her longevity uncertain. Ginsburg rejected these pleas. She affirmed her wish to remain a justice as long as she was mentally sharp enough to perform her duties. Moreover, Ginsburg opined that the political climate would prevent Obama from appointing a jurist like herself. At the time of her death in September 2020, Ginsburg was, at age 87, the fourth-oldest serving U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the history of the country.

It's not unheard of Supreme Court judges to resign during a like-minded presidency to keep that spot on a particular political colour. For instance Sandra Day retired during the Bush II presidency, ensuring that Republicans would nominate another favourable judge, and apparently she had been wanting to retire for several years but held off during the Clinton presidency so it wouldn't be a Democrat president the one to nominate her successor (which ended up being Alito). Other retirements are not tied to a political strategy, for instance Stevens (nominally a Republican, and nominated by Ford) retired during the Obama presidency and his replacement was Kagan, nominally a Democrat.

[Josquius]

Never ceases to annoy that the dems try their best to ow the pattern and keep the conservative /progressive balance but then the republicans just run over that.

[celedhring]

The Spanish Constitutional Court has had a large profile in the Catalan separatist crisis but I'll be damned if I can name any of the judges. Their mandates are short, anyway (9 years).

The court has an unwritten rule of avoiding split decisions in landmark cases, so that kinda tends to reduce political infight to dominate it.

Well, we do have an ongoing (two years at the moment, IIRC) block on the renewal of the "Consejo General del Poder Judicial", which affects the composition of the Supreme Court, because PP refuses to nominate new judges to it in order to maintain their current majority, so it's not an uniquely US thing, although our case is way less dramatic and AFAIK doesn't involve anyone dying off.

Yeah, but that's the Supreme Court, not the Constitutional Court. The CGPJ also appoints a couple of justices to the Constitutional Court but those don't come up for renewal until 2022 (just checked).

The Spanish system ain't perfect, but CC appointments are not nearly as controversial and divisive as in the US. I think the short-ish terms help, since there's not so much at stake with each appointment.

[The Larch]

The Spanish Constitutional Court has had a large profile in the Catalan separatist crisis but I'll be damned if I can name any of the judges. Their mandates are short, anyway (9 years).

The court has an unwritten rule of avoiding split decisions in landmark cases, so that kinda tends to reduce political infight to dominate it.

Well, we do have an ongoing (two years at the moment, IIRC) block on the renewal of the "Consejo General del Poder Judicial", which affects the composition of the Supreme Court, because PP refuses to nominate new judges to it in order to maintain their current majority, so it's not an uniquely US thing, although our case is way less dramatic and AFAIK doesn't involve anyone dying off.

Yeah, but that's the Supreme Court, not the Constitutional Court. The CGPJ also appoints a couple of justices to the Constitutional Court but those don't come up for renewal until 2022 (just checked).

The Spanish system ain't perfect, but CC appointments are not nearly as controversial and divisive as in the US. I think the short-ish terms help, since there's not so much at stake with each appointment.

Yeah, the fact that appointments here are for a fixed term rather than for life make them less impactful. Then again, the CGPJ's term has expired but they keep on truckin' until there's an agreement, so there's also that.

Btw, I'd say that over here it's the Supreme Court the top dog, rather than the Constitutional Court, but I'm no law talker so who knows.

[celedhring]

I'm no law talker either, but I think it's more of a case of the Supreme Court being more involved in cases that will have a direct effect on political matters (being the court that has to judge sitting MPs and members of government, for example), than the Constitutional Court whose intervention is more exceptional.

To foreigners, the Spanish Supreme Court is the top appellate court in all matters except constitutional stuff.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure it is possible for any selection/appointment process to not be political.

Maybe, but it could be a lot less political.

I couldn't name a single one of our SC judges, and their appointment barely makes the news.

I'm not sure that is a good thing...

But then it also seems like (or at least, we never hear about it) the SC's of other nations have as much power/influence as the USSC has inside its political system.  If they did, you probably would hear more and know more about them.

While I agree that people should know more about their justice system, I think it is a positive sign that the members of the highest court are not household names.   It signifies the role of an apolitical body is WAD.

For Canada at least, it is not that our Supreme Court of Canada does not make decisions that are just as impactful or influential as yours since the creation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 80s.  For example it has ruled on abortion and any number of high profile social issues.

I think the difference is the fundamentally different way our justices are selected.  Yours go through a vetting system that is expressly political - the Senate.  Ours goes through a purposefully non political vetting system.

The results are strikingly non partisan compared to your system.  We spend a lot more time analyzing the divisions on the court regarding particular legal issues.  The government who appointed a particular justice is not a useful factor to consider in that analysis.  As an example Justice Karkastanis and Justice Brown (both appointed during the Harper years) are almost always on different sides of an issue.  The only time they seem to agree is when the Court makes a unanimous decision.

[Zanza]

The German Constitutional Court also has a very important role in their system, but I don't get the impression it's as political as the US (despite being a very political court) or that the individual members are as well known? Not sure.

It's very political and e.g. ruled multiple times and very controversially on abortion. But our constitution regulates that half are elected by the lower house, half by the upper house. And you need a 2/3 majority. You have some former politicians (governors, ministers) serving as judges. There are occasionally nominees being rejected. There is also a fixed term length of twelve years (or age 67, whichever is earlier). Some of the members, typically the president, have a higher profile, but they are not as well known as their US counterparts. And they seem to have much less clear partisan alignment.

[derspiess]

Dunno, man. Bloodbath McGrath had been amping up her radio ads.

I like the nicknames present in that race.

I'm the only one I know who calls her that. Has nothing to do with her character, and everything to do with Wild Wild West.

[Maladict]

Apparently she was planning to resign under the first female president, as she was convinced Hillary would win 

[viper37]

What about those who are fighting for their jobs? Like McSally, Gardner, and Tillis? Think any of them will flip because of the election?

EDIT: Thanks, Otto. I agree, but wanted another opinion.

I think Tillis just announce his colors, in a very (not) surprising way.

There isn't many republicans who will challenge Trump, especially if they fight tough battles.

[Tonitrus]

If the GOP and Trump were really clever...they'd appoint someone who is staunchly pro-life, but is otherwise moderate in their political appeal (e.g. someone like a Mitt Romney).  Such a person might be a unicorn...but it'd definitely push to highlight a national debate, and potentially the election...on those terms.

[chipwich]

If the GOP and Trump were really clever...they'd appoint someone who is staunchly pro-life, but is otherwise moderate in their political appeal (e.g. someone like a Mitt Romney).  Such a person might be a unicorn...but it'd definitely push to highlight a national debate, and potentially the election...on those terms.

Voters overwhelmingly care about abortion and no other judicial issue.

[Eddie Teach]

Romney isn't staunch enough to have been pro-life when he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts.

[PDH]

It's Trump, it is going be both stupid and ruthless for a pick.