And certainly Ginsberg has made some of her feelings known (that can be interpreted as political) in her writing such as her dissent on Citizen's United.
And that is also why I don't think she comes out and publicly states what I'm conjecturing here, since she doesn't want to politicize her retirement either, even if she might have strong private feelings of how the SCOTUS balance is now, and how she feels she might have some degree of personal ability and responsibility to ensure that the person that replaces her reflects more of her positions on issues and decision making.
WHY do you think Warren can't carry more than one state? I do think her opinions on regulating banks are FAR MORE representative of Americans as a whole (Democrats, independents, AND many Republicans like the tea partiers that try to blame the bankster problem on Obama). I think on issues like these (though perhaps not favoring positions that would draw big corporate donors versus more corporatist contenders she has), are what would resonate a lot farther than the "far left" meme that the corporatists keep trying to throw at people like her to try and minimize their likelihood of running in 2016. It is how much visibility that she can attain without as much corporate backing that is the big question of her campaign in my book. That though has already been countered with the recent Quinnipiac poll that showed her in the top 3 in terms of visibility and favorability in 2016 race.
I respect that Ginsberg isn't public about her feelings on this, if this is what is motivating her. But as I note, perhaps Warren just running in 2016 a strong race, might help Ginsberg be persuaded to retire earlier, if Warren could affect who Obama nominates to replace her, if what I'm thinking is what is motivating Ginsberg staying on the bench.
= new reply since forum marked as read