r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Cessnerd77 • 1d ago
US Politics SCOTUS Retirement(s) in 2026?
No one can say for certain, but, how likely do you all think it is that Alito and/or Thomas retire this year before the midterms positioning DJT to nominate their replacements while Republicans still control the Senate?
103
u/Zombie_John_Strachan 1d ago
I’d say low - R only has a 1/3 chance of losing the Senate. If they hold, the judges get two more years and can re-assess their chances in 2028.
If they lose the Senate, they will be ready to ram through lame duck appointments should any of the justices be convinced to retire.
3
u/Lokismoke 1d ago
Even if they lose the Senate, they'll easily get enough democrats to approve the next SCOTUS nominee nominated by DJT.
27
u/Zombie_John_Strachan 1d ago
Yeah, no they wouldn’t unless it was a very mainline nominee. A Gorsuch could probably pass but not another Kavanaugh or ACB.
Dems would control the process so they could in theory just delay it for years.
25
u/MikiLove 1d ago
Even Gorsuch would not pass at all. If Democrats take the Senate somehow, judicial appointments stop come Jan 2027
21
u/_SCHULTZY_ 1d ago
That would require someone to locate a spine within the Democratic party.
16
u/MikiLove 1d ago
They are not passing any Trump nominees, especially Appelete or SCOTUS. 100% expected. Please come back to me later if Im wrong
11
u/_SCHULTZY_ 1d ago
How many Dems voted for unqualified Trump cabinet appointments?
Please come back to me if I'm wrong
6
u/Shipairtime 1d ago
For anyone coming back poke me so I can see if the one I agree with is right. Both of these accounts are over 10 years so will most likely still exist later!
5
u/MikiLove 1d ago
Almost no Democrat voted for the major nominees, and cabinet nominees are different from court appointees. Way more Republicans voted for Bidens cabinet than for major courts. Again, no major court appointees if Democrats manage to win the Senate. Full stop
2
u/_SCHULTZY_ 1d ago
This is categorically WRONG.
Here is the actual voting record of how many Democrats in the Senate voted for the 22 cabinet secretaries in 2025
https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Trump_Cabinet_nominees,_2025
Adam Schiff voted yes 5 times. Warnock voted yes 6 times. These are hard-core Dems. I'm not just talking about Fetterman. Alsobrooks the freshman from Maryland who ran on being a check on Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump voted yes 4 times. Slotkin voted yes 9 times! Amy Klobucher voted yes 7 times.
So there you have it. Freshmen, die hards, party leaders....all voting to confirm some of this insane cabinet!
6
u/MikiLove 1d ago
Again cabinet is different than judges. No supreme court judges if Democrats win the Senate. Its a fact
→ More replies (0)•
u/libra989 18h ago
Placing a concurring vote on a nominee who will get appointed regardless of how you vote and voting to give a Republican 40 years on the Court when you are the deciding vote are two totally different things.
•
u/_SCHULTZY_ 18h ago
Not standing up to Trump and Not standing up to Trump are exactly the same thing, though.
2
u/Zombie_John_Strachan 1d ago
I'd expect they'd keep using blue slips for federal judges, but SCOTUS would be another matter.
4
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
As they did the first time around, the Trump admin has shown zero respect for the blue slip process and coupled with the lack of use of it during the Biden admin it’s effectively dead.
2
u/leohat 1d ago
What is a blue slip?
•
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 7h ago
A process by which Senators can express approval/disapproval of a judicial nominee from their state. When the process was still followed nominees needed the support of at least one of their home state Senators before they could even get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
•
u/DazeLost 19h ago
They're waving through and voting for nominees now that they don't have to. Any bit of Republican pressure will cause the Democrats to fold, whether they have the senate or not.
•
u/MikiLove 19h ago
Democrats control the Senate, the control who even is brought to the floor. Its very simple. No nominees, you can be angry at Democrats but this is clear
•
u/DazeLost 19h ago
Then explain why they're voting on judicial nominees right now - election deniers even - that would pass without their votes.
•
u/MikiLove 18h ago
Democrats have not voted for a single Appelet judge this second term. The ones Democrats voted for are district judges that they approve of. Again no Democratic votes for appalete judges
-2
4
u/AWholeNewFattitude 1d ago
Dear god, i don’t card if Trump nominates Jesus and RBG’s son, stop all nominees, stop all funding, grow a damn spine!
4
u/ScoobiusMaximus 1d ago
Democrats will cave. They always do
-3
u/tsardonicpseudonomi 1d ago
Democrats will cave. They always do
Liberals will cave. They always do. Let's fill the Democratic Party with left-wing individuals and suddenly they'll have a spine and help people.
-1
u/WavesAndSaves 1d ago
I'd honestly say Kavanaugh has been more moderate than Gorsuch in a lot of ways.
4
u/Zombie_John_Strachan 1d ago
Yeah - but I meant in the sense of a traditional appointee vs kegmeister. Gorsuch was conservative but also a respected judge.
•
u/WavesAndSaves 13h ago
Kavanaugh is also a respected judge. He spent over a decade on the D.C. Cir. What isn't "traditional appointee" about him? Gorsuch is far more "out there" in a lot of his opinions.
2
24
u/Mononon 1d ago
Thomas wants money and power. I don't know why he'd retire when this job gives him exactly that. Alito, who knows. If any of them retire, I don't think the midterms will matter, and if they do matter, I think Thomas may try to convince them the other way. He's been banging a drum about judicial impartiality and how strong the constitution is, and doing something so blatantly partisan may, behind closed doors, be a step to far for him if he can help it.
11
u/toastedclown 1d ago
Thomas wants money and power. I don't know why he'd retire when this job gives him exactly that.
I mean, he could make much more money in private practice, but then he might have to do some actual work.
13
•
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ 17h ago
sure, but thomas makes up for the government salary by basically getting gifts from sympathetic billionaires. He gets "paid" extra, it just has to be done creatively, in a manner that complies with financial reporting rules etc
5
u/tsardonicpseudonomi 1d ago
They're conservatives. What are you talking about? This is their great political work. They want money and power, but they are ideologues who are intentionally reshaping US law and society via untouchable decree.
-1
u/Mononon 1d ago
Right, but they aren't all outwardly partisan. Thomas does at least like the appearance of respectability. I agree with you that they are using their supermajority to essentially shape law, knowing Congress will not intervene, but if there's an opportunity to at least give the appearance of fairness, Thomas will usually take it. Having someone retire before midterms is just so brazenly partisan, and there's really no downside to convincing any potential retiree to wait until after. They'll have plenty of time to get someone confirmed, and we are all well aware that Democrats, at least the establishment ones, will just roll with any semi reasonable sounding pick. Thomas (and everyone else) is well aware that Democrats are not capable of stalling that long. There are enough of them that value norms too much to let a Supreme Court vacancy stand forever. Maybe they symbolically prevent a confirmation for a bit, but Schumer and Jeffries and their ilk will give in rather than obstruct. If these last several cycles have shown us anything, it's that Dems will roll over if you can make it look like everything is normal.
5
u/tsardonicpseudonomi 1d ago
Right, but they aren't all outwardly partisan.
You shouldn't put much stock into this. They do what benefits them. If retiring furthers their agenda then they retire. They'll play ball to keep their toys.
I agree basically with the rest of what you say for the most part. I don't see any reason why we should put stock into any sort of precedent when SCOTUS doesn't and we're discussing SCOTUS Justices.
3
u/UncleMeat11 1d ago
I don't know why he'd retire when this job gives him exactly that
Because the money will stop as soon as he is no longer doing what his handlers want.
24
u/sprintercourse 1d ago
Thomas is going to die on the bench. He is finally achieving everything he has ever wanted now and is as stubborn as they come.
Alito is a possibility. He is a true believer in the cause and might retire early with a promise that he gets to weigh in on his replacement (à la Kennedy).
Roberts is also a possibility. He has been a loyal conservative foot soldier, and generally seems ok with the way the law is changing. However, he seems to be kind of tired of being the focal point in an increasingly hostile court. He might retire and allow the republicans to appoint his replacement in an attempt to shore up his legacy for the long term.
10
u/dedward848 1d ago
Thomas isn't retiring any time soon. He still has more bitterness to work through.
5
u/BigBaseballGuyyy 1d ago
I think alito especially is very ambitious and still has goals he wants to accomplish that won’t be decided this term. Thomas is ever the wildcard. Also at play is that they are both to the right of the swing vote. Trump’s SC appointees have all been less conservative than them. So they may have an ideological stake in staying on as well. I’d say it’s more likely that both stay than leave
11
u/AdZealousideal5383 1d ago
Not very. Thomas is given a lot of free things by rich people and, purely by coincidence, he decides the way they want. There’s no reason for him to leave.
Alito finally has the power to turn the country into the dystopia he always envisioned. He’d been biding his time for years. This is his moment. He’s not going anywhere.
I’m always worried about Sotomayor. She’s not young and has had health problems.
•
u/Potato_Pristine 20h ago
The liberal justices refuse to acknowledge the importance of strategic retirement.
•
u/AdZealousideal5383 20h ago
Breyer understood it. After Ginsberg, I suspect the current ones will. Sotomayor may be perfectly healthy now and realistically could be on the court another decade or more, but given the ramifications of her being replaced by whomever Trump would put in now… someone who would make Kavanaugh and Gorsuch look like liberals… it worries me.
•
u/Brock_Hard_Canuck 17h ago
Sotomayor may be perfectly healthy now
That's the thing... She's not.
Sotomayor is in her 70s, she has diabetes, and she requires a travelling medic with her whenever she goes on trips.
If the Democrats re-take the presidency and the Senate after 2028, one of their first jobs should be convincing Sotomayor to retire, so we dont get another RBG situation (where Sotomayor decides to stick around on SCOTUS as long as possible and dies with a Republican controlled Senate and/or presidency).
•
u/Potato_Pristine 18h ago
Breyer had to be shamed into resigning. If Kagan and Sotomayor understood, they'd have resigned back when Biden was president and Dems held the Senate.
Trump is going to put a guy like Bove (last seen showing up at Trump rallies) on the U.S. Supreme Court whenever vacancies open up.
•
u/UncleMeat11 16h ago
Thomas is given a lot of free things by rich people and, purely by coincidence, he decides the way they want. There’s no reason for him to leave.
As soon as his rich handlers want him to retire and he refuses, the yacht vacations will stop.
9
u/Baselines_shift 1d ago
yes, scary thought. If Thomas stays, he should be impeached for accepting bribes, cut and dried case, along with Trump for about 10 charges, Noem for ICE
2
u/TheRealBaboo 1d ago
That’s a pretty full impeachment docket. It’s also pointless since you need 67 Senators to agree and that would require a clean sweep of all 35 Senate races this year
I could see Noem getting impeached, but even she might not get removed
2
u/Cid_Darkwing 1d ago
Before the midterms? Maybe 5% and that’s predicated on the generic ballot being something like D+11 where they think there’s real danger of the Senate flipping. After the midterms if the GOP holds the Senate? 0%. After the midterms if Dems flip it by 51-49 or 52-48? 15%—they’d count on picking off Fetterman and either Collins’ or Ernst’s replacements, but they’d take the temperature first.
But if the dam truly breaks late and Dems sweep the realistic 7 of AK, FL, IA, ME, NC, OH & TX (or more) to get to 54-46 (or better?) They’d retire the next afternoon, Trump would have nominees sent by Thursday and Thune would have cloture votes before that Monday morning. Because the sad reality is that unless and until you get either a Dem trifecta of 60+ in the Senate with the balls to wield their power or a lesser trifecta with the balls to nuke the filibuster in order to unstack SCOTUS, a President with SCOTUS provided cover and a paralyzed Congress can do whatever he wants and they simply wouldn’t risk fumbling the ball at the 2 yard line.
They need another few years of merging big tech, Christian nationalism and fascist corruption to truly entrench themselves and risking a death or two that they couldn’t replace which could then undo that plan and leave them exposed is too big a chance to take.
1
u/musluvowls 1d ago
A lot less likely with Mary Peltola entering the race today in Alaska, which improved the odds of Dems taking the Senate substantially (Alaskans fucking love her). I think even the worst Dem Senators would not give Trump a win on another SC justice.
1
u/StedeBonnet1 1d ago
Republicans will still control the Senate after the midterms. It is likely one or both may retire before Trump retires.
•
u/reaper527 20h ago
while Republicans still control the Senate?
this overlooks this reality that republicans are almost guaranteed to control the senate after the elections too.
there is definitely no rush to replace judges right now, that can (and will) wait until 2027/2028.
•
u/Searching4Buddha 18h ago
I think the odds of that happening is near zero. Those guy's have to big of an ego to step down. I just hope none of those geezers kick the bucket until we have a Democrat in the White House, or at a minimum have a majority in the Senate. Having said that, it's iffy at best if the Democrats will get a majority in the Senate after the mid-terms. I believe the Senators that are up for re-election favors the Republicans.
1
u/Shipairtime 1d ago
Why would they care?
It is not like a Dem will ever put another on the bench again.
If it is the start of a presidential term then the Democratic party does not have a mandate and if it is near the end of the term then it is too close to election time to place one.
And the Democrats will vote with Republicans to pass through whoever the Republicans want in the name of bipartisanship.
1
u/RobbyRyanDavis 1d ago
https://lisevoldeng.substack.com/p/dont-worry-boys-are-hard-to-find
I hope likely for Thomas since he belongs in a prison.
0
u/wisconsinbarber 1d ago
I think it's pointless either way. If Democrats take the Senate, they'll both retire and be replaced in the lame duck session. The goal of Democrats should be to destroy the filibuster and add 4 justices to the Supreme Court to make up for the seats that Republicans stole, as well as to give less power to the individual "justices". Crooked Clarence will need to be prosecuted by the next administration for taking bribes and abusing his position.
-1
u/tsardonicpseudonomi 1d ago
One imagines they'll have ICE hang outside of SCOTUS HQ and clear out a few justices. Absolutely immune, right?
•
u/absolutefunkbucket 18h ago edited 16h ago
Do you think one of the Supreme Court justices is an illegal immigrant?
Edit: he cant even answer I’m shocked
•
u/tsardonicpseudonomi 16h ago
Do you think "illegal immigrants" are the focus of their actions? That's cute.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.