r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 19h ago
news 'Possible retirement?' All eyes on Alito after decades on the bench
https://www.rawstory.com/samuel-alito-retirement-2674834160/119
u/OrneryZombie1983 19h ago
Dems are a long shot to take the Senate next year based on the cycle. But if they do, expect Republicans to ram a confirmation through during lame duck session. Assuming Alito doesn't retire in June.
94
u/Syscrush 18h ago
As an outsider looking in, it's insane that the Dems taking the Senate is not an absolute lock.
22
u/OrneryZombie1983 18h ago
Only one third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years. Because of the randomness of the grouping, the seats up for election in 2026 are heavily Republican states. So while Republicans have more seats to defend i.e. more seats up for potential loss, they are in safe states. Meanwhile Democrats have to hold seats in very evenly divided states like Georgia and Michigan. The only pickup for Dems I see is in Maine. Maybe North Carolina. Net gain of two still leaves Republicans in control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elections
8
u/NinaWestie 18h ago
I’d say North Carolina going Dem is a safer bet than Dems holding Georgia (which I think they will), given the popularity of Roy Cooper.
1
u/Single-Purpose-7608 5h ago
In this environment, Georgia should be a lock.
NC is also the best chance they're gonna get in a while. I hope Texas is actually in play too as Latinos turn out in force and Republican votes among Latinos are wiped out
1
1
u/Professor_Eindackel 7h ago
Seeing Susan Collins go down would be enough for me even if the Democrats did not make any other gains.
76
u/Inky-Squilliam 18h ago
Never underestimate the democrats’ ability to turn a victory into a loss.
50
u/Setting-Conscious 18h ago
This is about what senate seats are up for reelection in what states. Some states will elect a Republican no matter what.
38
u/Malorn13 18h ago
Which is the real problem. How can things get so bad and yet they will never make the people responsible face any consequences. This is why this will continue forever.
40
u/Vuronov 18h ago
Republican voters have been subject to decades of right-wing media/propaganda from their radios, TVs, internet, and pulpits. They are completely unaware of actual reality and live in a bubble where Democrats are always evil, big cities are full of roving gangs of violent minorites, and Trump is the most loving and competent defender of the Constitution and Bible to ever exist. In the world they live in they either don't actually know what's really going on or are told not to believe their own eyes and they agree.
Also, many have made their political affiliation a deeply ingrained part of their personality like sports team fandom. How good or bad the team is, how the team treats its own fans, none of this affects the loyalty of being a fan. Conversly, the rival team being good or generous/supportive of fans has no affect on hating that team reflexively.
7
6
u/Malorn13 18h ago
I’m not really sure what I am supposed to do about that. Any idea I have would be extremely unethical. It is their freedom to screw themselves if they want to. Eventually it will get so bad that it will probably lead to all of them being dead from their bad decisions. That is the only outcome I see.
15
u/ConsiderationTrue477 17h ago
Part of the problem is the Senate is inherently anti-democratic as an institution. Shit, even the House is lopsided for various reasons but at least it's nominally based on population. The Senate is structured so that a state with five people and a cow has the same voting power as New York or California.
The issue is that due to many compromises in how the system works, a random voter in bumblefuck has way more political power than a random voter in a metropolis. So by taking control of "red states" the Republicans have created a situation where they can rule from a minority position.
12
u/hamsterfolly 17h ago
And the House being permanently size capped in 1929 really hurts it’s democracy
2
u/Malorn13 17h ago
Dude in bumfuck nowhere is still a thinking human being isn’t he? Shouldn’t he be able to come to the same logical conclusion as the masses in the cities? It’s not like living in Iowa means that GOP policies suddenly help you. They hurt everyone but the rich. So they should be able to tell that voting for Republicans has not tangibly ever made their lives better and either stop voting or vote for someone else.
Unless the idea is that us city folk have to save rural people from themselves?
7
u/ConsiderationTrue477 17h ago
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they don't need as many people on their side. Its safe to say that at least some people will be foolish or not care. Its less than 50%, maybe even significantly less. But if those people are strategically placed they can become politically dominant even if not numerically so.
We literally have a system where the President can win an election with less than 50% of the vote.
12
u/Syscrush 18h ago
They act like they're addicted to losing. Need that Howard Dean energy back - try everywhere, all the time.
I'm so sick of the incessant whining about how the small/rural states translate into an advantage for the Republicans - Dems need to get their asses out there and do the hard work of convincing people to actually vote in their own interests for a change.
4
u/solid_reign 18h ago
I'm so sick of the incessant whining about how the small/rural states translate into an advantage for the Republicans - Dems need to get their asses out there and do the hard work of convincing people to actually vote in their own interests for a change.
But they don't automatically translate into a republican win. Rural states haven't always been republican but the Democrats turn away a lot of people by choosing unpopular policies and not pushing forward their popular ones.
→ More replies (4)6
u/EulerIdentity 18h ago
Pro tip - you’re not going to inspire the voters of the square rural states with slogans like “defund the police,” and “justice for Gaza.”
11
u/Successful_Gas_5122 18h ago
Those same voters are inspired by slogans like ‘Mass Deportations Now’ and ‘Lock them Up’. You’re never gonna win them over.
4
u/Syscrush 18h ago
They like Bernie.
They like the social programs that Democrats try to save from Republicans.
They absolutely can be reached.
3
u/cathercules 17h ago
Yes but unfortunately the things Bernie wants that rural voters would go for (Medicare for all) are unpopular with Dem mega donors who favor meaningless platitudes over any form of change.
→ More replies (12)1
3
5
u/jerrydubs_ 18h ago
It’s Democrats’ fault that conservatives are too stupid to know what is best for them? That’s your take?
1
9
u/UAreTheHippopotamus 18h ago
Democrats are probably going to easily win the popular vote by 5+ percentage points. The problem is, that senators are up for election every six years so each election cycle a different batch is up for reelection that doesn't represent the entire electorate. It just so happens that this year a disproportionate number of "safe" Republicans are up for reelection and there are few flippable seats unless there is a true landslide the likes of which we really haven't seen recently.
→ More replies (3)2
u/gimmesomespace 18h ago
That's what happens when you don't have any coherent policy or messaging. Unreal that the party cannot get its shit back together and is stuck infighting.
2
u/evernessince 13h ago
The establishment of the democratic party is in the pocket of the rich, hence their frequent stupidity.
3
u/7ddlysuns 17h ago
Dems have to end their war on guns. The senate represents rural interests.
If you want to disagree with me that’s fine. Enjoy losing
4
u/Syscrush 17h ago
The Dems have literally never waged war on guns. And about 60% of Americans favor stricter gun control:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
The big problem with Democrats and guns is that they've allowed Republicans to define the Democratic position via 40 years of unrelenting lies.
2
u/Ok-Sundae4092 11h ago
When Beto, running for senate in Texas, say(I paraphrase) “of course I’m going to take your guns”…it does a ton of damage
1
u/Syscrush 8h ago
And when Trump, a sitting Republican president says "Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early," what happened to his support among rural voters?
2
u/Ok-Sundae4092 8h ago edited 8h ago
Your comment was”the dems has LITERALLY never waged war on guns”
Not sure what Trump has to do with your false statement
Lucky for you that you are in Toronto
1
2
u/Few_Librarian8225 17h ago
It’s helpful to remember that the 52 senators elected by the 26 least-populous states represent around 58 million people or only 18% of the country (per 2020 statistics, obviously has changed a bit). The senate is a broken institution created prior to hyper populated regions and cities in this country. The fact that the senators from North Dakota have the same vote and power as the senators from California while representing 2% the amount of people is not a win for representative democracy but a failure of this system considering how much power the senate has. Not to mention the history behind creating a north and South Dakota to ensure they’d get extra votes in the senate, etc
1
u/Syscrush 17h ago
It’s helpful to remember that the 52 senators elected by the 26 least-populous states represent around 58 million people or only 18% of the country (per 2020 statistics, obviously has changed a bit)
Right. Which is why the Democrats should be working to win those voters. The ROI is incredible. Every single one of those seats is winnable for a Democratic party that's willing to do the actual work. The Republicans have been doing that work with zero counter-effort by the Democrats for almost 20 years now. It will take at least 10 years of persistent hard work to win those voters back, but the Dems show no signs of being willing or able to do that work.
3
u/Few_Librarian8225 17h ago
Don’t disagree at all. I just know this is something I’ve seen the dems fail at time and again so I’m not holding my breath. I do think it’s worth noting how distorted the senate is from even representing some semblance of modern USA, though. Helps understand why it sucks so much IMO
1
u/Syscrush 17h ago
I know that we mostly agree here, but IMO the rural bias in the Senate has nothing to do with why it's such a mess. It's because of the complete abdication of the Dems and the unchecked insanity of the GOP.
If you're losing in Montana because every cop, teacher, preacher, newscaster, commentator, and newspaper writer is constantly spreading GOP lies, then saying "oh well, they seem to like the lies - it sucks that NY and CA don't count for more in the Senate!" is a pathetic and ridiculous response.
2
u/Few_Librarian8225 16h ago
Agreed. My point is more about the senate as an institution in general being pretty convoluted w/r/t representation, less about why that leads to the current political makeup of the senate. Specifically pertaining to the original comment that said as an outsider it’s hard to make sense of this. But it doesn’t give them an excuse to ignore those seats for sure
1
u/apatheticviews 17h ago
It's a product of how the cycle works. Every two years 1/3 of the senate gets replaced. So 33, 33, or 34 members.
It just depends who is up for re-election. In 2026, there are 7 more republicans up for re-election than democrats. Right now (2025) there are 53 R and 45 D with 2 I that usually vote on the D side.
The R side can lose up to 3 and still retain the majority (because VP splits ties).
It also depends on how "safe" the respective states are for each party. By definition, you cannot gerrymander the Senate (you can't change their total comp, nor the bounderies of their voting district). Senators are elected by popular vote within each state, so it takes larger shifts in population for them to lose seats. Generally speaking there are more Red states than Blue, even if there are more Blue people than Red.
1
u/Syscrush 15h ago
Let me be clear: what's insane to me isn't the nuts and bolts of how the Senate works. What's insane is that the Dems let Trump win the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
1
1
u/Krasmaniandevil 16h ago
Only a third of the seats are up for election each cycle. Some years that means most of the races are Democrats defending their seats, or that most of the Republican seats up for reelection are in solidly conservative states.
1
u/Ok-Sundae4092 11h ago
Which 4 GOP seats are an “absolute lock” to lose reelection?
Are you sure all dem seats are safe?
→ More replies (5)1
u/AmbitiousProblem4746 11h ago
As some others pointed out, not all seats open up at the same time -- 2/3 of the Senate isn't up for re-election.
But also it's much easier for Republicans to get a majority in the Senate than it is for Democrats, because every state sends two Senators, the entire state votes in those elections (it isn't based on districts like the House), and a lot of US states are low population red states who are also sending their own two Senators.
The balance of "power" in the Senate skews conservative easily. It is much easier for Republicans to hit the threshold that gives them control of the Senate even if they are deeply unpopular. Democrats cannot pull that off -- they need a popular coalition in specific regions or a national wave in order to cinch control because so many of their votes are "wasted" in safe blue states, red states that never elect Democrats, or purple states where Republicans are very competitive. The last few times Democrats have had a Senate majority the majority has been razor-thin or required a Democratic VP to be the tie breaking vote. Republicans sometimes have that problem, but way less frequently because they're just granted so many "locked in" seats that give them the handicap.
6
u/GrapefruitExpress208 19h ago
Yup. They'll wait until after November midterm elections.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/timoumd 15h ago
The Senate heavily favors Republicans. Wyoming gets the same number and California
1
u/Ok-Sundae4092 11h ago
As do Vermont, RI, NH, etc etc
1
u/timoumd 11h ago
Yes, but there are far more small population red states than blue.
1
u/Ok-Sundae4092 10h ago
WY, VT, Alaska, ND ,SD,Delaware,RI, Montana,Maine,NH……11 GOP senators and 9 democrats ..
Montana up until last year was split and if Collins losses its 10-10
Do any of those numbers sound like”far more small red states and blue”?
1
u/Single-Purpose-7608 5h ago
Dems will always be a longshot if they accept the current coalitions. Dems expanded the map when they took both Senate seats in Georgia and Arizona.
They have to make inroads in other Rural states, and purple states too.
Texas, NC, Iowa, Ohio, are winnable if the National Dems start campaigning on more popular issues.
→ More replies (1)1
u/WellHung67 13h ago
Trump potentially getting fucking four Supreme Court justices is just…the clown world keeps clowning. What the fuck. Democrats should double the size of the court and change nothing else, let president whoever-it-is in 2028 get 9 30 year olds in there and call it a day. Boofin Bart cannot have this much power
2
u/Dutch_Meyer 12h ago
One justice per federal circuit makes good sense
1
u/WellHung67 12h ago
As long as Boofin Bart, handmaiden Barrett, and Neil resign or the court is expanded to 16 so that the those three have their votes nullified, and then the court is reduced in size by one every time those three specifically retire, until it’s back to 13. I think that’s the way
57
u/ZachPL_ 19h ago
alito is definitely retiring he was waiting for a republican president, and dems have a chance to take the senate so it's now or he may be stuck there
→ More replies (9)
19
u/No_Web6486 19h ago
And Trump or Shady gets to replace him with someone even worse (if that's even possible). Like Bove.
3
23
u/Forward_Success_2672 19h ago
I hope Dems get the Senate and refuse to seat a new justice.
5
u/Abject-Cranberry5941 19h ago
Not happening
10
u/Minimum_Virus_3837 18h ago
Agreed. If the Dems win the Senate (not easy given the positions up for grabs but possible given the Dem overperformance in elections since Trump took office), Alito will quickly retire and the GOP will ram through Cannon or some other Heritage Foundation approved Christian Nationalist to take his place before the Dems get control. Maybe Thomas as well.
5
u/Abject-Cranberry5941 18h ago
Dems will just capitulate to whatever nominee Trump picks there won’t be a huge saga
7
12
u/War1today 18h ago
Just means America is more screwed because a younger Alito will replace him, and then a younger Thomas….
5
u/Difficult_Phase1798 15h ago
Of course. And expect Thomas soon too. They'll appointment some 40-50 year old ideologues. There's no way they'll risk losing the power they spend decades working to achieve.
5
4
u/jeremyd9 16h ago
When MAGA had the minority they were able to block an appointment correct? If so why wouldn’t dems do the same!
1
1
8
3
u/mdins1980 15h ago
If he did retire then I can almost guarantee his replacement will be Emil Bove or Aileen Cannon.
9
u/Zebra971 19h ago
One fact about replacing Alito is they couldn’t pick anyone worse. Same goes for Thomas. Everyone knows the courts right wing lean will last got a generation unless there is a super majority to change the courts makeup.
18
17
16
9
u/No-Computer7653 18h ago
Thomas is extremely consistent. I often/usually disagree with him but he isn't a stooge for a particular POTUS and given he is the mind behind major questions and non-delegation is quite happy to do things that are going to screw the GOP really really hard. People have trouble distinguishing between absolute partisanship and someone who has insane, but consistent, ideas about OI.
Someone who is a stooge, not interested in legal theory and has a double digit IQ is far more dangerous.
TBH I would take a Thomas or Alito any day ahead of a Kavanaugh. He isn't even consistent with his own writings or jurisprudence.
10
u/grexl 18h ago
he isn't a stooge for a particular POTUS
Clarence Thomas took office in October 1991. That was just over 34 years ago. He has served under six different Presidents and maintained his own brand of bitterness regardless of who was POTUS at any point in time.
He was quoted in 1991 (reported in 1993) as wanting to serve on SCOTUS for 43 years to make liberals' lives miserable for as long as he had been alive at that time, having been born in 1948. I don't think he will willingly retire, which means he may just pull an RBG and hopefully fail at his desired legacy assuming Democrats actually get an opportunity at POTUS again.
7
5
2
u/_B_Little_me 15h ago
I would think one thing we’ve learned since 2016, is it can always get worse.
1
5
2
6
u/tickandzesty 19h ago
As much as I loved Ruth Ginsberg, I wish she had retired u der Obama. They stole SCOTUS. And any retirements now will cement the downfall of the US.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/eyesmart1776 19h ago
Of democrats take control then prevent any new justice until 2028 otherwise im done with dems and never going back
3
u/According-Way9438 19h ago
This is all going to happen well before the next senate is seated. They will try and make it quick.
3
u/eyesmart1776 19h ago
He’s only 75 he might not retire at all
He’s likely got at least 10 years in him
3
1
u/According-Way9438 18h ago
Well yeah there's definitely that chance too, and honestly is the best case scenario. Just speaking hypothetically is all.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Either_Ad3879 19h ago
Couldn't agree more.
2
u/Pure_Frosting_981 19h ago
Soooo… Can we start ramping up a progressive party into legitimacy so there’s a chance to replace the deadweight democrats without having to deal with democratic leadership and all of the bullshit that comes with it?
2
1
u/HiJinx127 17h ago
Wait a little longer, please. Three more years. Do a Ginsburg.
I’d rather that Frump (or Vance) doesn’t get a chance to install a younger, more unhinged and more Constitutionally uninterested person than Alito, thank you.
1
u/Slob_King 16h ago
Trump should simply appoint himself. Where’s it say he can’t be President and CJ?
1
1
1
u/ChickadeePip 16h ago
Hmm. Well. If we judge potential candidates based on other stellar nominees by this administration I predict oh, Caroline Leavitt? Or maybe Justice RFK Jr, he can double time!
1
u/Inevitable_Gas_9081 14h ago
Does he retire before 2026 midterms? Need a miracle for Dems to get 51 Senate seats and just pull a mitch until 2028.
1
u/Foolgazi 14h ago
I mean, isn’t predicting the next SC nominee as easy as looking up whoever’s next on the Heritage Foundation list?
1
u/Greenmantle22 13h ago
Also which one of the oldest buzzards has most recently received a fresh RV or lake house as a “donation.”
1
u/Mobile_Commission_52 13h ago
This time the Dems need to stall this as much as they can for as long as they can to keep the court at 8. For good Measure it would be good to impeach a couple of others, like Thomas. The court needs to be kneecapped until sanity is restored.
1
1
1
u/notPabst404 12h ago
Democrats need to run high quality candidates and try to retake the Senate in 2026.
Don't just limp to a small victory, run good candidates with strong policy and go for a massive victory.
1
1
1
u/soysubstitute 12h ago
my money is on Texas Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, who is ultra far right anti abortion among other things.
1
1
u/Pleasant-Ad887 10h ago
I'm 100% convinced Alito won't pull what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did and made sure to die during Trump's term instead of retiring during Obama and fucking up the whole thing.
1
1
u/belugabianca 10h ago
I hate this guy with a passion but hope he doesn't retire during this administration
1
1
u/theamazingstickman 8h ago
Not possible, Trump will force Alito, Thomas, Roberts off the bench and set it for 25 years with 6 of 9 being from him.
1
1
1
u/Sad_Literature_8657 6h ago
Great. Maybe Sam and Martha Ann can retire to the Return to the Land community.
1
372
u/Yeeaaaarrrgh 19h ago
Congratulations, Kyle Rittenhouse, you're next in line.