Ginsburg, Ruth Bader

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Should Biden Announce That He Won’t Run Again?

      by

      More from our inbox:Solving New York City’s Housing ShortageSolace at the Beach Pool photo by Evan VucciTo the Editor:Re “Hey, Joe, Don’t Give It a Go,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Aug. 7):I can’t agree with Ms. Dowd that President Biden should declare himself a lame duck to protect his legacy. I can’t think of anything more out of his character than that. He doesn’t do things for himself. The nation’s well-being, not his legacy, is his central concern.Ms. Dowd begins by speaking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who “missed the moment to leave the stage,” and suggests that Mr. Biden’s time has come to leave. Good lord, he hasn’t even completed two full years in office yet. He has things to do and a nation to serve and protect. Just imagine how luckless he would be if he tried to do that as a lame duck.There’s time for him to leave, but this isn’t it. Maybe in the primaries, but maybe not.Roger CarlstromYakima, Wash.To the Editor:The Biden interregnum will be well remembered for bringing decency and sanity back to the Oval Office. He has come to be that “calming force for a country desperately in need of calming.” However, running for a second term at age 81 ignores the infirmities of age.If he should choose not to run again he would not become irrelevant; he would become a revered elder statesman who lived out his last hurrah on his own terms with renewed dedication and admirable resilience as manifested in his long career of public service. I am reminded of a quote from Orson Welles, who once said, “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop the story.”Precision timing turns on recognizing the arc of one’s story and heeding the foreshadowed warnings with grace and knowing acceptance.Barbara Allen KenneyPaso Robles, Calif.To the Editor:The insistent chants for President Biden to announce that he will not run for a second term because he will be too old in 2024 is ageism pure and simple.If the “old dude in the aviators has shown he can get things done, often with bipartisan support,” as Maureen Dowd states, why not let him continue trying?Even if Mr. Biden is having second thoughts about re-election, why should he declare himself a lame duck president before it is necessary to do so? Does Ms. Dowd seriously believe that if he takes himself out of the running that “over the next two years he could get more of what he wants and then step aside?” Why don’t we ask the Republicans if they will cooperate?Mr. Biden has shown patience and perseverance. It comes with age and experience. Let us not sideline an old man just yet just because the cry is for “new blood.”Let Mr. Biden decide if and when to declare his candidacy.Eleanor M. ImperatoManhasset, N.Y.To the Editor:Thank you, Maureen Dowd, for saying what needs to be said. President Biden, I have been a longtime supporter and fan. What better opportunity for you to prove you’re not driven by ego but by principle? There is much still for you to accomplish. Make the most of this time. Show the American people a president who, untainted by political aspirations, is making decisions solely based on what’s best for the country.Diane LoveNew YorkTo the Editor:OK, let’s just say for the sake of argument that Maureen Dowd is right and Joe Biden shouldn’t run again. Then who do the Democrats have? We need somebody not just competent and visionary, but electable. That was my reasoning for voting for Mr. Biden in 2020.The Republicans obviously have Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis champing at the bit. I don’t think either of them would have a problem energizing the base.So if not Joe, who do we have?Dylan TaylorPhiladelphiaTo the Editor:Maureen Dowd has written what had to be said. Joe Biden must not run again, and he now has the perfect excuse to make his exit.Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a great example of overstaying one’s welcome. If only she’d retired when she had the best excuse in the world — her failing health — we might not today be living with this dystopian Supreme Court. Dear, dear President Biden: Please remember this and think of the scary consequences of your losing in 2024.It’s time for a younger candidate to take the reins of the Democratic Party. But he or she will need a couple of years to get his message out, and that means that Mr. Biden must announce now that he plans to be a one-term president.I love you, Joe, but you’ve given your all for the party, and it’s time to go.Clare ChristiansenOak Harbor, Wash.Solving New York City’s Housing ShortageTaylor Sicko moved out of New York City during the pandemic after she lost her job and was unable to afford rent. She has a new, remote job — based in New York — but she doesn’t want to move back.Rachel Woolf for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Rising Rents, and No Cure on Horizon” (Business, Aug. 2):Your excellent story rightly diagnoses a major crisis facing the city — a decades-long failure to build enough housing to meet demand — but understates the responsibility that some local elected officials and anti-development activists bear for allowing it to spiral out of control.As noted, the city has committed a record $22 billion for housing — far more than any other city in the country. But all the money in the world won’t build the number of homes we need if local elected officials continue to block zoning changes that add additional density in their districts and NIMBY groups file frivolous lawsuits that delay new construction year after year.The City Council should work with the mayor to implement common-sense zoning changes and embrace opportunities to build new housing in their neighborhoods. Survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of New Yorkers are desperate for more affordable housing that will allow them and their children to stay in the city, and to assure we can retain the talented, diverse work force that makes the city the greatest in the world. It is time we made their wish a reality.Carl WeisbrodNew YorkThe writer is former chairman of the New York City Planning Commission.To the Editor:While elected officials are fighting tooth and nail to rezone neighborhoods, thousands of unoccupied rent-stabilized units sit vacant in New York City. Once a rent-stabilized unit becomes vacant, landlords are not required to rent out unoccupied rent-stabilized units to new tenants. Landlords are often incentivized to warehouse vacant rent-stabilized units, decreasing the availability of affordable housing in New York City.In the current housing market, applicants are entering rental bidding wars for market-rate units while vacant rent-stabilized units sprinkled across the five boroughs collect dust.Dena RosmanNew YorkSolace at the Beach To the Editor:Re “The Joys of Swimming While Fat,” by Phoebe Wahl (Op-Art, Aug. 13):Thank you so much for publishing a graphic depiction of a fat mommy who “risks” showing her body, her “redness and chafing and sweat” at the beach. She finds solace and peace swimming where she feels totally herself. Her struggles with internalized shame float away. No small feat!I can’t wait to share this with my life issues group for women who binge eat as a survival skill. Well put, Ms. Wahl. As women we need to stand up to “the burdens of patriarchy and society’s judgments” all the time!Arden Greenspan GoldbergNew YorkThe writer, a licensed clinical social worker, is a certified eating disorder specialist. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Breyer Should Retire Right Now

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyJustice Breyer Should Retire Right NowIf he doesn’t, Democrats run the very real risk that they would be unable to replace him.Mr. Campos is a law professor who writes extensively about politics and the Constitution.March 15, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Simone NoronhaJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was widely, and deservedly, criticized for her refusal to retire from the Supreme Court at a time when a Democratic president could have chosen her replacement.Justice Stephen Breyer is making a similar and arguably even more egregious mistake.The evident indifference on the part of Democrats regarding the failure of Justice Breyer, 82, to announce his retirement is apparently a product of the assumption that he will do so at some point during the current Congress and that therefore whether he does so anytime soon is not particularly important.This is a grave mistake.Consider that because of the extremely thin nature of their Democratic Senate control, the shift of a single seat from the Democrats to the Republicans or even one vacancy in the 50 seats now controlled by the Democratic caucus would probably result in the swift reinstallation of Mitch McConnell as the majority leader.What are the odds that something like this — a senator’s death, disabling health crisis or departure from office for other reasons — will happen sometime in this Congress’s remaining 22 months?Alarmingly for Democrats, if history is any guide, the odds are quite high. Since the end of World War II, 27 of the 38 Congresses have featured a change in the party composition of the Senate during a session.The probability that such a shift may occur during this particular Congress may well be even higher than that. At the moment, no fewer than six Democratic senators over the age of 70 represent states where a Republican governor would be free to replace them with a Republican, should a vacancy occur.Five other Democratic senators represent states for which a vacancy would go unfilled for months, until a special election to fill the seat was held — which would hand the G.O.P. control of the Senate at least until that election and likely for the rest of the current Congress if a Republican wins that contest. (In the case of Wisconsin, such a vacancy might not be filled until 2023.)All things considered, the odds that Democrats will lose control of the Senate in the next 22 months are probably close to a coin flip.Under the circumstances, for Democrats to run the very real risk that they would be unable to replace Justice Breyer is unacceptable. Of course, the only person who is in a position to ensure that this does not happen is Justice Breyer himself.It is true that, under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice planning to retire generally waits until the end of a court term to do so. But these are not normal circumstances.Nothing illustrates the anti-democratic dysfunction of our political system more clearly than the current makeup of the Supreme Court. Two-thirds of the sitting justices were nominated by Republican presidents, even though Republican presidential candidates have lost the popular vote in seven of the nine elections, which determined who nominated these justices.And these justices were confirmed by a Senate that has become skewed so radically in favor of electing Republicans that the 50 senators who caucus with the Democrats represent about 41.5 million more Americans than the 50 Republican senators do.Under the circumstances, it would be a travesty if the Supreme Court seat occupied by Justice Breyer was not filled by a replacement chosen by Democrats.He should announce his retirement immediately, effective upon the confirmation of his successor. For him to continue to make the same gamble that Justice Ginsburg made and lost runs the risk of tainting his legacy as a justice and has the potential to be an anti-democratic disaster for the nation as a whole.Paul F. Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and writes about law and politics at Lawyers, Guns & Money.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More