An increasing number of Democrats and liberals are growing quite concerned over the looming possibility that Joe Biden could lose the election in November and usher in another term for Donald Trump. An unsubtle sign of progressive voices all but saying this directly can be found in suggestions on the left that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor should retire quickly and allow Joe Biden to nominate her replacement rather than taking the risk that the Bad Orange Man could inherit the task. The latest example of this trend can be found in a column this week at The Atlantic by Josh Barrow with the brief, blunt title, "Sonia Sotomayor Should Retire Now." 

Barrow begins with a walk down memory lane. He invites the reader to imagine a world where Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential election. Republicans had been holding Antonin Scalia's seat open since his death in February of that year. If the Democrats had taken the White House and the Senate majority, the court would have looked significantly different than it does today. That's when the author sets his sights on Sotomayor and implores her not to make the same mistake that Scalia very nearly made.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor will turn 70 in June. If she retires this year, President Joe Biden will nominate a young and reliably liberal judge to replace her. Republicans do not control the Senate floor and cannot force the seat to be held open like they did when Scalia died. Confirmation of the new justice will be a slam dunk, and liberals will have successfully shored up one of their seats on the Court—playing the kind of defense that is smart and prudent when your only hope of controlling the Court again relies on both the timing of the death or retirement of conservative judges and not losing your grip on the three seats you already hold.

But if Sotomayor does not retire this year, we don’t know when she will next be able to retire with a likely liberal replacement. It’s possible that Democrats will retain the presidency and the Senate in this year’s elections, in which case the insurance created by a Sotomayor retirement won’t have been necessary. But if Democrats lose the presidency or the Senate this fall—or both—she’ll need to stay on the bench until the party once again controls them. That could be just a few years, or it could be longer. Democrats have previously had to wait as long as 14 years (1995 to 2009). In other words, if Sotomayor doesn’t retire this year, she’ll be making a bet that she will remain fit to serve until possibly age 78 or even 82 or 84—and she’ll be forcing the whole Democratic Party to make that high-stakes bet with her.

I'm not going to call out Josh Barrow for stating the obvious because he's at least being transparent about his motives. But it's also worth asking a very obvious question of him. Who or what is he really hoping to benefit by offering this unsolicited career advice to a member of the highest court? Is this what's best for Sotomayor's personal career and legacy? Is it what's best for the country? Or is it what's best for the Democratic Party? The answer seems rather obvious.

Sonia Sotomayor is 69 years old. This summer she will turn 70. She's clearly no spring chicken, but she also doesn't appear to be on her last legs, either. Different people age at different rates, both physically and cognitively. We run into this reality on a regular basis when comparing Joe Biden to Donald Trump. 

I've seen no suggestions that Sotomayor is considering retiring imminently. Also, I did a bit of searching this morning and I didn't run across any instances where commentators raised concerns about the Associate Justice's sharpness in either the wording of her decisions on the court or the speeches she gives during frequent public appearances. I may not agree with her decisions in all instances, but she does still seem to be on her game. Many have served on the court to considerably older ages and accounted for themselves admirably. Why should she feel pressured to step down based solely on a fear of what might happen in one or both of the other co-equal branches of government? She's entitled to retire whenever she likes, but she's also free to sit tight and keep up the battle for the liberal view of justice.

But that's not Josh Barrow's focus, nor is it that of many other Democratic Party leaders. He confidently asserts that if Democrats lose the "bet" that he references above (implying a Biden loss in November), the conservatives' 6-3 majority "will turn into a 7–2 majority at some point within the next decade." And what reward does he see his party reaping if they win the bet? He rather snidely describes the result as, "the opportunity to read dissents written by Sotomayor instead of some other liberal justice."

Again, looking at this in the cold, harsh light of the day, I won't argue with that analysis. But I would be willing to place at least a small wager that Associate Justice Sotomayor sees the reward quite differently. I would imagine that it matters to her whether those future dissents are written by her hand or that of an unknown replacement. We only have nine justices at a time (for now) and the longer they stay, the greater the chance that they will have the opportunity to pen findings that eventually become historic in nature. If I were in Josh Barrow's position, I'm sure I would feel the same way. But I would hope that I would at least feel embarrassed to say it to her face.