SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think Trump will go ultra conservative? He lied about everything during his campaign. Also, he is NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, a Conservative! We've already been told not to believe what he says.

He will go the way Pence wants him to go on Scalia.

That's why we need to play nice and make him have a fight with Pence.
For #2, if it comes to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think Trump will go ultra conservative? He lied about everything during his campaign. Also, he is NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, a Conservative! We've already been told not to believe what he says.

He will go the way Pence wants him to go on Scalia.

That's why we need to play nice and make him have a fight with Pence.
For #2, if it comes to that.

Ideally, we should get as many seats in Senate as possible in 2018, although it will be hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While everyone is bitching and complaining about Donald Trump being our next President do you all realize what will happen to the SC?

One seat is vacant.
RBG is 83.
Kennedy is 80.
Breyer is 78.

In 8 short years the Spureme Court of our nation will be 7 Conservative Judges against 2 single white middle aged females. Your world, as you know it, will be changed for the next 35 years.

Curious why you felt the need to remark on the 2 women's marital status.

You don't see anything unusual about intellectuals not finding a mate or willing to reproduce? How many single Presidents have you seen?

Quite common for women. Men tend not to carry the weight in marriages as far as household and familiial chores are concernned - that burden tends to fall to women. Unmarried women who are free of those same duties can likewise get ahead in their careers just like men.

I work in academia and it's remarkable to compare the difference in numbers of tenured or advanced women who are not married or don't have kids or have only one to those women who are married and have more than one child. And then look at the men, where those differences are nowhere near as pronounced. In other words, if you have a wife, then having kids doesn't seem to penalize your career much. But if you have a husband and kids, it surely seems to.

In fake resume studies white men receive a bonus for having kids while all women are penalized for having kids, woc penalized the most. It's called t he motherhood penalty ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherhood_penalty

In a situation like the SC where appointees are picked from a culmination of a number of career steps, it would be more common to find a woman with no kids than a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think Trump will go ultra conservative? He lied about everything during his campaign. Also, he is NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, a Conservative! We've already been told not to believe what he says.

His replacement for Scalia will be conservative. Any other appointments may be less so.

Maybe not. He might let nomination of Garland go forwatd to show her wants to "unite"country. Trump's has a pathological need to be loved and allowingvGarkand nomination to go foward would endear him to Dems in Senate as well as a lot of those who voted for aHillary.

Trump doesn't really give a damn. He just wants to be loved!

[Anonymous]

Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer are all very SELFISH idiots. They should have stepped down 3 years ago.
Especially Ginsburg, who has two cancers.
BTW OP, it is unlikely that all three of them will be dead or retired in 4-8 years.
So think more like 4 conservatives against 3 liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think Trump will go ultra conservative? He lied about everything during his campaign. Also, he is NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, a Conservative! We've already been told not to believe what he says.

His replacement for Scalia will be conservative. Any other appointments may be less so.

Maybe not. He might let nomination of Garland go forwatd to show her wants to "unite"country. Trump's has a pathological need to be loved and allowingvGarkand nomination to go foward would endear him to Dems in Senate as well as a lot of those who voted for aHillary.

Trump doesn't really give a damn. He just wants to be loved!

Hmm! What have you been smoking?

[Anonymous]

Not sure what the issue is. RBG has a good 25 more years and Breyer will hang on too. Trump's a one termed at most and impeachment is more likely than not. He fills one seat, tops.

[Anonymous]

Here is my idea for a compromise.

If there are three open spots (let's say RBG and another elderly justice retire plus Scalia's spot) -

then Trump should appoint two conservatives (Ted Cruz should be one) AND Obama - in order to induce the Senate to approve all three.

Now, I am conservative BUT I think being a S. Ct. Justice would truly suit Obama and if his appointment is what it would take to get Cruz on there too - maybe this would be a great compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what the issue is. RBG has a good 25 more years and Breyer will hang on too. Trump's a one termed at most and impeachment is more likely than not. He fills one seat, tops.

LOL about Ruth. Maybe she has a good 2.5 months left.

[Anonymous]

I actually tweeted @realdonaldtrump that idea.
Maybe we should all? As ha said ...
What do we have to lose? Make a fake twitter account if you want to stay anonymous.

- Some should play nice #garland #uniterinchief
- Some should be naughty and suggest that people are starting to think he is Pence Puppet #pence puppet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is my idea for a compromise.

If there are three open spots (let's say RBG and another elderly justice retire plus Scalia's spot) -

then Trump should appoint two conservatives (Ted Cruz should be one) AND Obama - in order to induce the Senate to approve all three.

Now, I am conservative BUT I think being a S. Ct. Justice would truly suit Obama and if his appointment is what it would take to get Cruz on there too - maybe this would be a great compromise.

Let's tweet PEOTUS and report back here!
Rebember be nice, make him think it's HIS idea and best interest !
Jeff, you in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is my idea for a compromise.

If there are three open spots (let's say RBG and another elderly justice retire plus Scalia's spot) -

then Trump should appoint two conservatives (Ted Cruz should be one) AND Obama - in order to induce the Senate to approve all three.

Now, I am conservative BUT I think being a S. Ct. Justice would truly suit Obama and if his appointment is what it would take to get Cruz on there too - maybe this would be a great compromise.

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. The last thing we need on the Supreme Court is career politicians. And Ted Cruz.

[Anonymous]

The balance of the SC with Scalia in it was good for the country. Some decisions made liberals mad. Some made conservatives mad. Most people were just fine with the decisions.

The last thing we want is a liberal SC. It would destroy this country.

Keeping the old balance is best, with second best being a conservative leaning court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The balance of the SC with Scalia in it was good for the country. Some decisions made liberals mad. Some made conservatives mad. Most people were just fine with the decisions.

The last thing we want is a liberal SC. It would destroy this country.

Keeping the old balance is best, with second best being a conservative leaning court.

I agree with this. But conservatives are currently frothing for activist conservative judges to overturn RvW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you think Trump will go ultra conservative? He lied about everything during his campaign. Also, he is NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, a Conservative! We've already been told not to believe what he says.

He will go the way Pence wants him to go on Scalia.

That's why we need to play nice and make him have a fight with Pence.
For #2, if it comes to that.

Ideally, we should get as many seats in Senate as possible in 2018, although it will be hard.

If the democrats can get 51 seats in the Senate after the 2018 midterms, they can follow the precedent set by the GOP and let the next president choose any replacements. So the current justices just need to hang on until Nov 2018.