SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just let each state decide how to deal with abortions.

It would end all the ruckus on the issue. Why should the federal government compel individual states to allow abortions or if R v W is overturned then preventing states from allowing abortions if they choose to do so?

Does it really make sense to allow some states to condone murder while others do not?

[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.

Every so called conservative judge eventually votes like a progressive. Its only a matter of time. Nothing will change LGBTQ marriage or Row vs Wade. There maybe small changes around the margins. The country marches to the tune of the progressives. Nothing will change that.

Nothing will change that? The SC has already ruled that States can place "reasonable" restrictions on abortion.

This week the Ohio legislature passed a "heartbeat" bill that was vetoed by Kasic on the grounds that a legal battle would be too costly to defend. With a 7-2 SC the court would surely uphold that law from a lower decision. Don't say nothing will change that.

There will be a revolution and GOP will lose everything if Roe vs Wade is over turned. The population as a whole is more liberal since the 70s.It is very difficult to revisit the past. So it won't happen.

Not true on this particular issue. Thankfully, the tide is turning on the number of Americans who support the concept of abortion, particularly among younger voters who have grown up knowing the technology available to know and save human life from its earliest days.

[Anonymous]

Look those three should have retired the day Obama took office. RBG(much like RG3) has little self awareness and said she would never step down because Obama would not appoint someone as great as herself.
Obama and the Dems should have pressure those three to step down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I agree with you in concept, OP, Trump is a one-term president. He is already 70 himself.

Replacing Scalia should happen immediately, if not 9 months ago. Replacing the others will probably happen sometime in the next 3 years. The Republicans started a dumb precedent, though, of writing off the last year of the president's term.

And, to be contrarian, "liberal" or "conservative" picks rarely work out as intended. Pick a wise justice and leave the rest up to them.

This is so true. Many Presidents have seen justices rule in ways the Prez never imagined. Chief Justice Roberts on the ACA is an example.

Brennan is a better example. Appointed by a Republican as a "conservative" jurist. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I agree with you in concept, OP, Trump is a one-term president. He is already 70 himself.

Replacing Scalia should happen immediately, if not 9 months ago. Replacing the others will probably happen sometime in the next 3 years. The Republicans started a dumb precedent, though, of writing off the last year of the president's term.

And, to be contrarian, "liberal" or "conservative" picks rarely work out as intended. Pick a wise justice and leave the rest up to them.

This is so true. Many Presidents have seen justices rule in ways the Prez never imagined. Chief Justice Roberts on the ACA is an example.

Brennan is a better example. Appointed by a Republican as a "conservative" jurist. LOL

Yes. More recently, Justice Kennedy has been a real wild card (on sodomy laws and gay marriage) for a Reagan appointee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every so called conservative judge eventually votes like a progressive. Its only a matter of time. Nothing will change LGBTQ marriage or Row vs Wade. There maybe small changes around the margins. The country marches to the tune of the progressives. Nothing will change that.

Nothing will change that? The SC has already ruled that States can place "reasonable" restrictions on abortion.

This week the Ohio legislature passed a "heartbeat" bill that was vetoed by Kasic on the grounds that a legal battle would be too costly to defend. With a 7-2 SC the court would surely uphold that law from a lower decision. Don't say nothing will change that.

There will be a revolution and GOP will lose everything if Roe vs Wade is over turned. The population as a whole is more liberal since the 70s.It is very difficult to revisit the past. So it won't happen.

Not true on this particular issue. Thankfully, the tide is turning on the number of Americans who support the concept of abortion, particularly among younger voters who have grown up knowing the technology available to know and save human life from its earliest days.

The majority of Americans recognize that the state has no right to force a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I agree with you in concept, OP, Trump is a one-term president. He is already 70 himself.

Replacing Scalia should happen immediately, if not 9 months ago. Replacing the others will probably happen sometime in the next 3 years. The Republicans started a dumb precedent, though, of writing off the last year of the president's term.

And, to be contrarian, "liberal" or "conservative" picks rarely work out as intended. Pick a wise justice and leave the rest up to them.

This is so true. Many Presidents have seen justices rule in ways the Prez never imagined. Chief Justice Roberts on the ACA is an example.

Brennan is a better example. Appointed by a Republican as a "conservative" jurist. LOL

I've come to realize that conservatives respect freedom of thought and speech, so Brennan's evolution shouldn't be a major surprise.

The more conservatives we get, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think RGB could easily serve well into her 90s and she's sharp as a tack.

She's senile. She can't control her mouth. If she had her wits about her she'd never have embarrassed herself the way she did by attacking Trump, for which she had to apologize.

I agree that she is not mentally all there compared to a few years ago. She also made some dumb remarks about not standing for the national anthem and had to back down.

It is probably a good argument for mandatory retirement by say 80 years of age.

At that age, and this isn't just Ginsburg, it applies to all those old farts of whatever political stripe--she's not actually doing any of the legal work at all. The brilliant law clerks write all the opinions. The doddering old justices may generally shape the opinions, or tell the clerks what outcome they want, but all the nitty gritty legal analysis is done by the laws clerks.

It is absolutely impossible for people who are that old to keep up with the amount and complexity of legal work required. It's like any other high level job. There's a reason corporations have mandatory retirement ages and most state judges have mandatory retirement at age 70 if not before.

It's staggering to think that we have 3 or 4 literally senile people in charge of such an important institution. Fortunately, most of what the Supreme Court does, most of its caseload, deals with very obscure issues that don't usually have very much impact on our day to day lives. Maybe 3 or 4 cases a term, if that. Most of their cases are pretty stupid like some issue of antitrust law or securities law or civil procedure and most people don't give a shit about that unless their business is directly impacted by it. Then you have the odd gay marriage or abortion case and everyone gets interested. But those don't come down the pike too often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think RGB could easily serve well into her 90s and she's sharp as a tack.

She's senile. She can't control her mouth. If she had her wits about her she'd never have embarrassed herself the way she did by attacking Trump, for which she had to apologize.

I agree that she is not mentally all there compared to a few years ago. She also made some dumb remarks about not standing for the national anthem and had to back down.

It is probably a good argument for mandatory retirement by say 80 years of age.

At that age, and this isn't just Ginsburg, it applies to all those old farts of whatever political stripe--she's not actually doing any of the legal work at all. The brilliant law clerks write all the opinions. The doddering old justices may generally shape the opinions, or tell the clerks what outcome they want, but all the nitty gritty legal analysis is done by the laws clerks.

It is absolutely impossible for people who are that old to keep up with the amount and complexity of legal work required. It's like any other high level job. There's a reason corporations have mandatory retirement ages and most state judges have mandatory retirement at age 70 if not before.

It's staggering to think that we have 3 or 4 literally senile people in charge of such an important institution. Fortunately, most of what the Supreme Court does, most of its caseload, deals with very obscure issues that don't usually have very much impact on our day to day lives. Maybe 3 or 4 cases a term, if that. Most of their cases are pretty stupid like some issue of antitrust law or securities law or civil procedure and most people don't give a shit about that unless their business is directly impacted by it. Then you have the odd gay marriage or abortion case and everyone gets interested. But those don't come down the pike too often.

The law clerks do all of the nitty gritty work for all of the justices, even the younger ones. You sound naïve. You really think that Roberts is researching on Westlaw? Besides, all of the relevant law is in the appellate record and briefing anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think RGB could easily serve well into her 90s and she's sharp as a tack.

She's senile. She can't control her mouth. If she had her wits about her she'd never have embarrassed herself the way she did by attacking Trump, for which she had to apologize.

I agree that she is not mentally all there compared to a few years ago. She also made some dumb remarks about not standing for the national anthem and had to back down.

It is probably a good argument for mandatory retirement by say 80 years of age.

At that age, and this isn't just Ginsburg, it applies to all those old farts of whatever political stripe--she's not actually doing any of the legal work at all. The brilliant law clerks write all the opinions. The doddering old justices may generally shape the opinions, or tell the clerks what outcome they want, but all the nitty gritty legal analysis is done by the laws clerks.

It is absolutely impossible for people who are that old to keep up with the amount and complexity of legal work required. It's like any other high level job. There's a reason corporations have mandatory retirement ages and most state judges have mandatory retirement at age 70 if not before.

It's staggering to think that we have 3 or 4 literally senile people in charge of such an important institution. Fortunately, most of what the Supreme Court does, most of its caseload, deals with very obscure issues that don't usually have very much impact on our day to day lives. Maybe 3 or 4 cases a term, if that. Most of their cases are pretty stupid like some issue of antitrust law or securities law or civil procedure and most people don't give a shit about that unless their business is directly impacted by it. Then you have the odd gay marriage or abortion case and everyone gets interested. But those don't come down the pike too often.

If you feel that way about someone who is one of nine votes on SCOTUS, how about one who is the sole voice as POTUS? Eisenhower was the first president to reach 70, and that was just for his last three months. The only other was Reagan, who hit 70 shortly after his inauguration. I'm sure we have differing opinions about him, but the fact that he had Alzheimer's for part of his tenure is sobering. Trump, who was already 70 when elected, sets a new record. But I don't know whether his fact-free petulance is more a symptom of Alzheimer's or second childhood.

[Anonymous]

BTW, if Obama's nominee did not deserve a vote because it was three years since Obama had won his last election, shouldn't we wait for a president with a clear mandate, rather than one who lost the popular vote by millions and only got in because of about 100,000 votes in MI, PA, and WI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if Obama's nominee did not deserve a vote because it was three years since Obama had won his last election, shouldn't we wait for a president with a clear mandate, rather than one who lost the popular vote by millions and only got in because of about 100,000 votes in MI, PA, and WI?

Makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just let each state decide how to deal with abortions.

It would end all the ruckus on the issue. Why should the federal government compel individual states to allow abortions or if R v W is overturned then preventing states from allowing abortions if they choose to do so?

Does it really make sense to allow some states to condone murder while others do not?

Some states condone the death penalty while others do not.

p.s. Abortion is not murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. More recently, Justice Kennedy has been a real wild card (on sodomy laws and gay marriage) for a Reagan appointee

I would like a Supreme Court with justices like Kennedy. We need justices who are not ideological. At the moment we have four justices who are consistently liberal and three who are consistently conservative and Kennedy who is more conservative than liberal but is not ideological for the most part. Before Scalia's death, he was also in the consistently conservative camp.

Imagine a court consisting of nine justices like Kennedy so that we don't have just one swing justice - namely Kennedy - whose vote often decides controversial cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. More recently, Justice Kennedy has been a real wild card (on sodomy laws and gay marriage) for a Reagan appointee

I would like a Supreme Court with justices like Kennedy. We need justices who are not ideological. At the moment we have four justices who are consistently liberal and three who are consistently conservative and Kennedy who is more conservative than liberal but is not ideological for the most part. Before Scalia's death, he was also in the consistently conservative camp.

Imagine a court consisting of nine justices like Kennedy so that we don't have just one swing justice - namely Kennedy - whose vote often decides controversial cases.

I would describe Breyer as PP described Kennedy, he leans liberal but is not ideological.