Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has No Plans to Retire, Allowing Us All to Breathe a Sigh of Relief
Racist and anti-LGBTQ U.S. President Donald Trump has already gotten to nominate two judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. And with huge civil rights issues set to approach the court — namely, questions on whether businesses can legally refuse to serve LGBTQ people and whether presidents can be subject to criminal investigations — liberals have made a collective sigh of relief upon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying that she won’t retire for another five years (until she’s age 90). A far-off Ruth Bader Ginsburg retirement is good news because her octogenarian vote is possibly the only thing separating Americans from living in a corrupt, theocratic hellhole.
The Ruth Bader Ginsburg retirement announcement came at a New York City showing of the The Originalist, a play about deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a mouthy anti-LGBTQ troll who died in 2016.
Speaking after the show, Ginsburg reportedly said, “I’m now 85. My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years.”
Stevens is 98 years old. He retired in 2010 and was replaced by Elena Kagan, an appointee of then U.S. President Barack Obama.
Because American democracy is so screwed up — with endless amounts of “dark money” fueling political campaigns and gerrymandered maps favoring rural conservative voters far more than urban progressive ones — liberal Americans have had to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve our most divisive political issues like whether it’s okay to deny people of color their voting rights (it is, apparently).
RELATED | 3 Years After Giving Gays the Right to Marry, the U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Islamophobia
So while Trump’s most recent Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh goes through the Senate confirmation process, several consequential cases are working their way through the judicial system including ones in which yet another marriage business refused to serve a same-sex couple on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs” and a federal court case that could determine whether it’s legal to fire someone just for being gay.
