Her:
I’ve never seen that woman before in my life.
1 Like
Lucky for you. I hope not to see her anymore.
#WIllett4SCOTUS
Also, just based on age, I reckon Trump could get another pick before his first term is over. Ginsberg is 85 and a cancer survivor, Breyer is 79.
If he wins a second term, I could see him green-lighting replacements for Breyer, Ginsberg, and Thomas (who, rumour has it, wants to retire).
I am also unconvinced that Roe v Wade is likely to be overturned. 2 of the conservative justices (Thomas for sure, Gorsuch maybe) are happy to ignore stare decisis, getting that to 5, though possible, is a tall order.
2 Likes
Most definitely. I should have put that term in quotes.
Agreed–I couldn’t bloody STAND Schumer’s horrific grandstanding about how this was an atrocity. I want to punch him in the face. Repeatedly. I lost it listening to his spiel on the drive back from work.
1 Like
At least she’s honest. I like my Marxists to be forthright. If you’re a Democratic Socialist, say so. Personally, I appreciate the lack of subterfuge. Politics should be less like a box of chocolates.
2 Likes
Cocaine Mitch must be on cloud nine. This is his political zenith, no question.
1 Like
I have heard speculation that Roberts might become the next ‘Kennedy’ of this court.
Quite possible. If Gorsuch is anything to go by, the balance shifts to the conservative wing for sure.
I stand by my assessment, though. A full overrule would be a significant outcome, to say the least.
Now, if Ginsberg and Breyer retire/ succumb to their age, that’s another matter entirely.
Mildly off topic. The court packing strategy is being floated by more than a few on the losing end of this retirement. I can scarcely articulate how poor an idea I think it is.
1 Like
Is it as poor an idea as, say, the Senate refusing to hold hearings (much less a vote) on a SCOTUS nominee? After all, that action actually violates the Constitution, whereas court-packing does not. Just throwing it out there.
1 Like
Not taking sides now, but 33 states now have both legislative houses controlled by Republicans which gives them control of redistricting. The S.C. is likely ultimately going to rule on gerrymandering cases. Some degree of political gerrymandering has generally been considered to be expected but certainly not in cases where it embodies racial discrimination. If the S.C. decides not to hear redistricting cases, or rules that the degree of Gerrymandering is not unconstitutional, republicans could redistrict into a political dynasty.
So what happens when the dems run on court packing, lose, and then the Republicans decide to go with 15 on the S.C? Also, by the way, amending the Constitution is up to state legislatures and 33 are Republican and I believe that 4 are split. It takes 38 to amend the Constitution at will.
I will only add that in my experience, “conservative” justices tend to rule in a constitutionally conservative manner, not legislating, or ruling pragmatically, while liberal justices tend to rule pragmatically for the subjective betterment of society. If conservative justices ruled as politically and activistically as the liberal ones we wouldn’t have ACA, or gay marriage. Conservative justices tend to leave the pragmatic solutions to congress. Not 100%, and I’d have to count up but I bet I would count more politically liberal decisions by conservative justices than I would count conservative decisions by liberal justices.
Kennedy, Scalia and Roberts have all made memorable politically liberal decisions because they felt they were ruling on the law. I also feel that at least a few times, the liberal justices have written opposing opinions that fly in the face of the sound constitutional interpretations of the majority. All in all, I would have had concerns had Scalia AND Kennedy been replaced by activist justices.
2 Likes
@Drew1411 and @EyeDentist Thought this would interest you as it is relevant to your earlier conversation.
3 Likes
I need to know which case you are referring to for ole Antonin.
There are really 4 options. 1) They rule strictly in an originalist manner that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution and the it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government/courts. 2) They rule that there is a right to privacy implied and affirmed by precedent but that that right to privacy does not weigh greater than state’s interest in the life of the unborn, 3) Or that it does weight greater than the state’s interest, 4) They rule explicitly on the personhood rights on the unborn.