Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-07-2018, 09:33 AM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,071
Likeliest effect of Kavanaugh?

What do Dopers think will change in the Supreme Court due to Kavanaugh's ascension. Gorsuch didn't change much merely replacing Scalia by a basically similar conservative. Here are some of the things I see as possibilities (in order of likeliness, IMHO):

Roe: Either gone or so frayed as to be nearly meaningless. Women's choice will have to fought in each state. It might have an interesting effect if women get out and fight for it.

Union shops: Barely hanging on by a thread. A strong free speech argument can be made against it and conservatives have been fighting for years.

ACA: probably gone as not authorized by any constitutional power.

Social security: The Republicans have been fighting this since the Gingrich revolution. I don't think this is a high probability, but again a court could hold (maybe did hold during the 30s?) that nothing in the constitution authorizes it.
  #2  
Old 10-07-2018, 09:49 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,127
I'd expect abortion rights to survive but in a weakened state (i.e. anti-abortion laws claimed to "protect women's health") will survive challenges).

Limitations on admissions to colleges/universities based on informal racial/ethnic quotas will be in trouble.

Environmental protection statutes are likely to be whittled back.

Re social security - really? Not going to be touched, too much political dynamite.*

*excuse me, nothing the Supreme Court does ever is influenced by politics. Kavanaugh, Kagan et al have assured us of this.
  #3  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:29 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,236
I thought the ACA survived due to Roberts, and Kennedy voted against it.

I predict Roe will go down. I also predict that Gerrymandering will be supported by the SCOTUS, but only as long as the republicans benefit from it. I also predict that the democrats will gerrymander hard starting in 2020, and only then will the 5 conservative judges overrule gerrymandering.

Any kind of voting rights act (automatic registration, mandatory voting, etc) will probably be overruled because those benefit the democrats. However massive voter purges, voter ID laws, etc that benefit republicans will stand.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 10-07-2018 at 10:30 AM.
  #4  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:55 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,407
I would be surprised if Roe went. Kavanaugh was nominated in part since he does not hold particularly extreme views on abortion, like the other possible choice Amy Bennett, who they were worried might even find a fetal protection. He criticised Roe, in speeches you say. Big fucking deal, so did Ruth Ginsberg.
  #5  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:14 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,236
I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh was nominated because both Trump and Anthony Kennedy's son were involved in Russian money laundering through Deutsche bank, and both Trump and Kennedy knew that Kavanaugh felt that a (republican) president should be above the law.

They could've nominated someone uncontroversial like another Neil Gorsuch, but they picked Kavanaugh for a reason.
  #6  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:16 AM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,820
I don't believe the Supreme Court has a problem with Federal spending programs--no matter how large. So if Medicare for All is passed along with massive increases in the Medicare tax and a new Value Added tax I think the Supreme Court will find it constitutional. It's when Congress does gimmicks like requiring the states do things (like in the ACA's mandatory state Medicaid expansion) that the Supreme Court finds problems.
  #7  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:19 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,457
Abortions will officially stay legal. It would cost the Republicans too many votes to overturn Roe. But conservatives will continue to place obstacles in the way of anyone trying to get an abortion and the SC will uphold them.

I predict the same for Social Security and the ACA. They won't be abolished because that would be too unpopular. Instead they'll just be gutted so they still exist on paper but aren't allowed to work well.

On legislative issues in general, the SC has no reason to intervene at the moment; both halves of Congress and the Presidency are Republican. So the SC will adopt a "hand off" approach and let them continue to enact conservative laws without judicial review. But if the Democrats regain power and try to shift the direction of the law, the SC will become active and begin overturning laws the Republicans don't like.

Republicans will continue to rig the elections system via things like gerrymandering and voter suppression. They now have a SC majority that will back them up.

Free speech is going to be a tricky one. Conservatives like having free speech defined broadly when they're using it to push their agenda. But they hate it when people speak in opposition to them and would like to make that speech illegal. It will be interesting to see if the SC can craft some kind of standard that broadens right wing speech while limiting other forms of speech.
  #8  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:21 AM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
They could've nominated someone uncontroversial like another Neil Gorsuch, but they picked Kavanaugh for a reason.
Is this sarcasm or are you actually serious?
  #9  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:24 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Is this sarcasm or are you actually serious?
Gorsuch was never accused of being a serial rapist, nor was he too emotionally unstable to be a judge.
  #10  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:27 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
What do Dopers think will change in the Supreme Court due to Kavanaugh's ascension. ...
I expect there will be additional rulings to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
  #11  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:40 AM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Gorsuch was never accused of being a serial rapist, nor was he too emotionally unstable to be a judge.
We are working on different definitions of controversial. According to the standard use of controversial both would be considered controversial. If you are saying that because someone is more controversial, then someone less controversial in comparison is not controversial at all then your post makes some sense.

But that doesn't really get to the information known at the time. The ABA considered Kavanaugh suitable, and no rape allegations surfaced until the very end.

Your assertion in utter nonsense.
  #12  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:53 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,236
They knew Kavanaugh had skeletons, but they picked him because he would cover up Trump's crimes.

They could've picked a less controversial justice. Someone who wasn't a serial rapist, a perjurer or too emotionally unstable to be a judge. But they didn't. Trump and Kennedy picked the guy who would protect Trump and Kennedy's son from prosecution.
  #13  
Old 10-07-2018, 12:04 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
They knew Kavanaugh had skeletons, but they picked him because he would cover up Trump's crimes.

They could've picked a less controversial justice. Someone who wasn't a serial rapist, a perjurer or too emotionally unstable to be a judge. But they didn't. Trump and Kennedy picked the guy who would protect Trump and Kennedy's son from prosecution.
Who are they exactly? And can you perhaps be more specific about the skeletons that these they knew about at the time Kavanaugh was chosen?

The second part of your post is just a rehashing of the unsupported drivel you started out with that does not counter any of the factual statements I have made to rebut your nonsense claims. All you are doing is regurgitating things without backing them up with anything of substance; but that's fine for IMHO, everyone has an opinion.
  #14  
Old 10-07-2018, 12:23 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,407
What skeletons? The sexual assual allegations were a surprise to everyone. The concerns were over his time in the Bush WH. Not anything related to his personal life.
  #15  
Old 10-07-2018, 12:31 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
What skeletons? The sexual assual allegations were a surprise to everyone. The concerns were over his time in the Bush WH. Not anything related to his personal life.
That is my understanding of the situation as well.

Wesley Clark however has an opinion, surely based on something factual that he can link to with a cite from reputable source, that "they" knew all this beforehand.

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 10-07-2018 at 12:31 PM.
  #16  
Old 10-07-2018, 04:30 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
That is my understanding of the situation as well.

Wesley Clark however has an opinion, surely based on something factual that he can link to with a cite from reputable source, that "they" knew all this beforehand.
Seeing how McConnell didn't want him, and they had a ready list of 65 women who said 'hey, this guy didn't rape me', I'm sure they knew. Did Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, etc. have a ready list of 65 women willing to say 'this guy never committed a sex crime against me' to pull out and give the media? No they didn't

Also Kavanaugh was texting friends back in July about some of his sexual assault allegations, before his victims even came forward.

We need legitimate investigations into Kavanaugh for sex crimes and perjury (and possibly accepting illegal money to pay off his debts) and whatever else he may be guilty of, and if enough evidence is gathered, prosecutions.

This isn't over. You guys won't control congress forever.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 10-07-2018 at 04:34 PM.
  #17  
Old 10-07-2018, 05:38 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 40,174
Marriage equality could be in danger. My husband and I are worried that our marriage will be nullified. If that happens, I can't guarantee that my response will be civil.
  #18  
Old 10-07-2018, 05:38 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Seeing how McConnell didn't want him, and they had a ready list of 65 women who said 'hey, this guy didn't rape me', I'm sure they knew. Did Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, etc. have a ready list of 65 women willing to say 'this guy never committed a sex crime against me' to pull out and give the media? No they didn't

Also Kavanaugh was texting friends back in July about some of his sexual assault allegations, before his victims even came forward.

We need legitimate investigations into Kavanaugh for sex crimes and perjury (and possibly accepting illegal money to pay off his debts) and whatever else he may be guilty of, and if enough evidence is gathered, prosecutions.

This isn't over. You guys won't control congress forever.
What the hell do you mean by "you guys"? I am not part of any guys. Again with the "oh you disagree with me you must be some sort of right winger herr derr derr. I never voted Republican in my life.

How about some actual cites for :

(a) showing that there was a list of women they had ready before these allegations came out that is separate from a list of references used in the standard background checks for this position.

(b) Kavanaugh was texting friends back in July specifically about sexual assault allegations.

(c) McConnell did not want him because of these allegations, and he knew of these allegations before Kavanaugh was picked by Trump.

Your allegations are so far from any news I have heard on the matter that it seems like the stuff of conspiracy theory. There are plenty of reasons to be opposed to Kavanaugh, I have my own, but conspiracy nonsense is conspiracy nonsense.

If you come back with some cites, I will certainly change my view on the plausabiity of these claims.

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 10-07-2018 at 05:39 PM.
  #19  
Old 10-07-2018, 07:17 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
If you come back with some cites, I will certainly change my view on the plausabiity of these claims.
...you want cites? Great Debates is the place for you! Here in IMHO people aren't trying to change your views or engage in debate. They are merely expressing their humble opinions. You can demand a cite if you like, but don't be surprised if your demand is refused. (Disclaimer, IANAMOD, these are my humble opinions only, as one would expect in a forum called IMHO)
  #20  
Old 10-07-2018, 07:45 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you want cites? Great Debates is the place for you! Here in IMHO people aren't trying to change your views or engage in debate. They are merely expressing their humble opinions. You can demand a cite if you like, but don't be surprised if your demand is refused. (Disclaimer, IANAMOD, these are my humble opinions only, as one would expect in a forum called IMHO)
Read the end of post #13, I said nearly the exact same thing.

If Wesley Clark wants to imply that I am somehow partial to Republicans simply because I don't go along with every unfounded wild speculation the least he could do is provide one cite. Otherwise he could just say he disagrees with me without speculating that I have some sort of heavy bias.
  #21  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:12 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Marriage equality could be in danger. My husband and I are worried that our marriage will be nullified. If that happens, I can't guarantee that my response will be civil.
I don't get particularly emotional about politics, but I was thinking today about how much things have changed since when I was young. Going back 20-30 years there was very little mainstream acceptance of homosexuality - gay marriage was not even on the radar. I did not even know what a gay person was until maybe second or third grade - there were no representations of anything like that in mainstream media.

When I look back, I remember homosexuals being thought of not much differently then than pedophiles are thought of now. These political changes, however, can have huge consequences for people - consequences I would not experience. Sometimes I forget how brief a time it has been since we lived in a world where being a homosexual could land you in prison.

I wouldn't blame anyone in such a position for fighting tooth and nail against any reversion to a former time.
  #22  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:23 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Read the end of post #13, I said nearly the exact same thing.
...and yet there you are in post #18, ignoring everything you said in post #13, demanding answers and cites.

Quote:
If Wesley Clark wants to imply that I am somehow partial to Republicans simply because I don't go along with every unfounded wild speculation the least he could do is provide one cite.
Wesley isn't "wildly speculating". He's made a case. You are welcome to disagree with it. He doesn't have to provide "one cite" just because you insist that he does though.

Quote:
Otherwise he could just say he disagrees with me without speculating that I have some sort of heavy bias.
I speculate you have heavy bias as well. But that's just my opinion. What do you intend to do about that?
  #23  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:32 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...and yet there you are in post #18, ignoring everything you said in post #13, demanding answers and cites.



Wesley isn't "wildly speculating". He's made a case. You are welcome to disagree with it. He doesn't have to provide "one cite" just because you insist that he does though.



I speculate you have heavy bias as well. But that's just my opinion. What do you intend to do about that?
I guess the one of the answers to the question in the OP is that people will come up with rediculous Alex Jones type theories and accuse anyone who questions them as being too biased to see the "truth".

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 10-07-2018 at 08:36 PM.
  #24  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:55 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I guess the one of the answers to the question in the OP is that people will come up with rediculous Alex Jones type theories and accuse anyone who questions them as being too biased to see the "truth".
...thank you for sharing your opinion with the rest of us.
  #25  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:14 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,333
Truly landmark cases do not hit the court very often. Most make small changes if at all. I predict people will think the sky is falling but in reality there will be a slight shift to the right in the country due to small changes in precedent. Roe is not going away. Marriage equality is not going away. Social Security is certainly not going away. There will be some more rulings solidifying the right to refuse service on religious grounds. There will be more precedent in favor of the 2nd amendment and private gun ownership. There will not be a big shift in how people live their lives.

However, I'm not exactly famous for my psychic abilities so take it for what it's worth.
  #26  
Old 10-07-2018, 11:34 PM
Tim R. Mortiss's Avatar
Tim R. Mortiss Tim R. Mortiss is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
Posts: 6,705
Hey, if we're gonna wish, let's wish big. Maybe the new and improved SCOTUS will repeal Income Tax as being unconstitutional?
  #27  
Old 10-08-2018, 02:57 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,278
With Scalia or Gorsuch the Supreme Court was composed of nine Justices broken down as follows:
  • 2 liberals
  • 2 moderates
  • 1 right-of-center (Kennedy)
  • 1 right-winger (Roberts)
  • 3 rabid dogs

There have been many many cases in recent years that have been decided by a 5-4 vote with Kennedy casting the deciding vote. Sometimes he voted with the rabid dogs, sometimes with the liberals, as in Obergefell v. Hodges. All of those liberal decisions are now in danger of being over-turned. Any Justice whom Trump appoints will be a rabid dog, but the R's chose to "rub in" their capture of America with a particularly despicable one.

Chief Justice John Roberts will be deciding every important case now. The other eight might as well stay home.

The "good news", to use that term strangely, is that Kennedy's retirement may not matter much — he was increasingly voting with the dogs. All of the following cases were decided in 2018:
  • Husted v A Philip Randolph Institute — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS ruled that Ohio can purge its voter lists using a discriminatory procedure.
  • Abbott v Perez — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS overruled a lower court ruling that Texas gerrymandering to disenfranchise blacks and hispanics was illegal.
  • Epic Systems Corp v Lewis — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS decimated workers' rights to unionize or join class actions
  • Trump v Hawaii — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs), Trump's anti-Muslim immigration policies became the law of the land
  • Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS effectively installed "right to work" (actually the "right to scab") for the public sector.
  • National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS ruled that crisis pregnancy centers were not required to tell women seeking help that abortion was a legal option.
(Kennedy also joined the dogs in Carpenter v United States, but Roberts joined the liberals so a 5-4 decision, no thanks to Kennedy, affirmed that police need search warrant to get cell tower data.)
  #28  
Old 10-08-2018, 03:06 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
ACA: probably gone as not authorized by any constitutional power.
The five judges who upheld what remains of the ACA are still on the court. Kennedy joined a dissent arguing that the whole thing should be struck down, root and branch.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-08-2018 at 03:10 AM.
  #29  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:34 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I guess the one of the answers to the question in the OP is that people will come up with rediculous Alex Jones type theories and accuse anyone who questions them as being too biased to see the "truth".
Nothing of the sort has happened. It is a fairly standard belief that the reason Kavenaugh was chosen by Trump was his stance on the ability of the president to be prosecuted. This would also explain why, when skeletons were found, he wasn't just withdrawn and replaced with someone else who on Trump's list who was not so controversial.

He is also right that it is suspicious that Republicans already had a list of women saying that he had not raped them and was of good character within a day of reports of the issue. It is highly suggestive that they knew about the issue before the public did. Yet, he was not withdrawn.

None of that is a conspiracy theory. None of it involves an implausible number of people keeping a secret. No patchwork with even more conspiracies is needed to fix problems. All it involves are Trump acting in a manner to benefit himself and McConnell knowing about something that had been submitted in July and trying to mitigate it should something happen. And it makes a compelling case that these two things are true.

Finally, Gorsuch was relatively uncontroversial compared to Kavenaugh. There wasn't some scandal or anything. There weren't even any hidden documents. The only controversy around him was due to his judicial stances and how Garland had been shafted. As a conservative leaning judge, he was about as uncontroversial a pick as could given the environment in which he was nominated.

Even if you disagree with the reasoning, I don't see anything mockworthy about any of this.

Last edited by BigT; 10-08-2018 at 05:34 AM.
  #30  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:22 AM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Truly landmark cases do not hit the court very often. Most make small changes if at all. I predict people will think the sky is falling but in reality there will be a slight shift to the right in the country due to small changes in precedent. Roe is not going away. Marriage equality is not going away. Social Security is certainly not going away. There will be some more rulings solidifying the right to refuse service on religious grounds. There will be more precedent in favor of the 2nd amendment and private gun ownership. There will not be a big shift in how people live their lives.

However, I'm not exactly famous for my psychic abilities so take it for what it's worth.
This is about the right of it. A lot of people are talking about Kavanaugh being on the bench as if it dramatically changes things in the immediate sense. It does not.

Anthony Kennedy was a conservative justice. Liberals are highly focused on social issues and particularly Roe v. Wade, to a lesser degree Obergefell v. Hodges. Kennedy was an "ally" on those issues. But on most of the consequential supreme court decisions of his time on the court, Kennedy actually ruled as a predictable conservative jurist. He was generally very much in lock step with the other conservatives when it came to matters relating to economic regulation, corporate regulation, law & order, etc.

It seems like many people think because the GOP has 5 "movement conservatives" on the court, suddenly they're going to just blatantly issue a huge glut of decisions that basically turn America into a fascist country. They'll strike down all voting rights protections, they'll let poll taxes come back, they'll make Trump able to pardon everyone, they'll reverse the outcomes of elections, they'll impose gerrymandering on un-gerrymandered states, they'll cover up Republican crimes...

The reality is if five conservatives on the court is all it took for that to happen, it'd have happened years ago, it didn't. In theory the Supreme Court could go crazy and rule all kinds of crazy things, but that would so implode the legitimacy of the court that the first time you had Democrats controlling government again (and simple knowledge of history predicts this will happen) the court would basically be gutted, because the legislature and the executive have power they can actually enforce. The Supreme Court's power is entirely based on it being a respected deliberative body. Without that respect, it has no power.
  #31  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:51 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,572
Will from now on the selection questions focus just on their judicial career? Ex. How and why they voted on this or that case? What rulings did they overturn or have overturned?


Or will they bring up things from 36 years ago when the person was in high school?
  #32  
Old 10-08-2018, 10:25 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Truly landmark cases do not hit the court very often. Most make small changes if at all. I predict people will think the sky is falling but in reality there will be a slight shift to the right in the country due to small changes in precedent. Roe is not going away. Marriage equality is not going away. Social Security is certainly not going away. There will be some more rulings solidifying the right to refuse service on religious grounds. There will be more precedent in favor of the 2nd amendment and private gun ownership. There will not be a big shift in how people live their lives.

However, I'm not exactly famous for my psychic abilities so take it for what it's worth.
My understanding is the appellate court is where the real power is, not the district or supreme court. That is why McConnell is trying to put as many Appellate judges on the bench as possible.

Obama appointed 55 appellate judges in 8 years, while Trump has already appointed 26 appellate judges in just 2 years. McConnell is prioritizing them.
  #33  
Old 10-08-2018, 11:48 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Or will they bring up things from 36 years ago when the person was in high school?
You guys tried to turn somebody's birth into a political issue.
  #34  
Old 10-08-2018, 11:52 AM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,071
I still think the most dangerous thing they could do is outlaw the union shop. It is clear they thing the working man/woman should have no rights. As for social security, the Reps have been trying to get rid of since the early days of W. They have given up on the legislative side but if someone with standing sued over it, they could rule the entire thing unconstitutional. I think Roberts would resist, but I am not sure.

One thing for sure: if one of the liberal judges retires, all bets are off. Anything could happen. BTW, the Votemaster (in a piece signed by Zinger, a prof. of history in CA) claims that the main effect of the Dred Scott decision was to render the court irrelevant and its decisions were widely ignored until after the war.
  #35  
Old 10-08-2018, 02:43 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I still think the most dangerous thing they could do is outlaw the union shop. It is clear they thing the working man/woman should have no rights. As for social security, the Reps have been trying to get rid of since the early days of W. They have given up on the legislative side but if someone with standing sued over it, they could rule the entire thing unconstitutional. I think Roberts would resist, but I am not sure.

One thing for sure: if one of the liberal judges retires, all bets are off. Anything could happen. BTW, the Votemaster (in a piece signed by Zinger, a prof. of history in CA) claims that the main effect of the Dred Scott decision was to render the court irrelevant and its decisions were widely ignored until after the war.
I'm guessing part of that was the supreme court until then, didnt have the backing of federal troops.

But I wouldnt worry too much. Supreme court judges have a tendency to move to the left the longer they sit.
  #36  
Old 10-08-2018, 04:15 PM
Icerigger's Avatar
Icerigger Icerigger is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 3,391
Roe is gone and then they will go after contraception, gay marriage and approve blatant voter suppression.


Quote:
But I wouldnt worry too much. Supreme court judges have a tendency to move to the left the longer they sit.
I doubt this is still true, the Federalist Society founded in part to prevent this sort of thing

Last edited by Icerigger; 10-08-2018 at 04:20 PM.
  #37  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:00 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,458
A real gun rights case, one that ruled that so called “assault weapons” and machine guns are EXACTLY the type of arms protected by the Second Amendment, might be the one, huge, history changing case the left has been afraid Kavanaugh might help usher in.

But I don’t trust Roberts.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #38  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:14 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
A real gun rights case, one that ruled that so called “assault weapons” and machine guns are EXACTLY the type of arms protected by the Second Amendment, might be the one, huge, history changing case the left has been afraid Kavanaugh might help usher in.

But I don’t trust Roberts.
Yup, lots of fertile territory in RKBA. Ideally, we'll see SCOTUS overturn semi-auto / "assault weapon" bans and mag capacity limits struck down. I don't have much expectation that SCOTUS will overturn the machinge gun almost-complete-ban, but I do hope that they'd strike down the ATF's torturing of the english language in their attempt to reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns".
  #39  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:24 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,291
I don't think Roe will be overturned until or unless conservatives get to a 7-2 majority. Roberts and Gorsuch seem to be the types who would uphold Roe, Obergefell etc. for stare decisis' sake.
  #40  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:26 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,291
And even if Roe is overturned, it'll just be a matter of time until there is a "new" Roe. Abortion has too much support to go away permanently.
  #41  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:51 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,130
Now that Clarence Thomas will have a buddy on the court, I suspect we'll see more keggers with 70's porn being shown in meetings, along with the appropriate number of cans of Coca-Cola with pubic hairs on them. With the regimented weight lifting breaks.
  #42  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:54 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I still think the most dangerous thing they could do is outlaw the union shop. It is clear they thing the working man/woman should have no rights. As for social security, the Reps have been trying to get rid of since the early days of W. They have given up on the legislative side but if someone with standing sued over it, they could rule the entire thing unconstitutional. I think Roberts would resist, but I am not sure.
This is what worries me; I could not care less about the other nonsense surrounding the appointment.
  #43  
Old 10-08-2018, 09:20 PM
BrickBat BrickBat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
This is what worries me; I could not care less about the other nonsense surrounding the appointment.
I tend to agree. IMO, the biggest war being fought, despite the social issue smokescreens/red-herrings, is economic war against the working class. Plutocracy being installed...lubricated by god/guns/abortion/"freedumb".
  #44  
Old 10-08-2018, 10:24 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
This is about the right of it. A lot of people are talking about Kavanaugh being on the bench as if it dramatically changes things in the immediate sense. It does not.

Anthony Kennedy was a conservative justice. Liberals are highly focused on social issues and particularly Roe v. Wade, to a lesser degree Obergefell v. Hodges. Kennedy was an "ally" on those issues. But on most of the consequential supreme court decisions of his time on the court, Kennedy actually ruled as a predictable conservative jurist. He was generally very much in lock step with the other conservatives when it came to matters relating to economic regulation, corporate regulation, law & order, etc.

It seems like many people think because the GOP has 5 "movement conservatives" on the court, suddenly they're going to just blatantly issue a huge glut of decisions that basically turn America into a fascist country. They'll strike down all voting rights protections, they'll let poll taxes come back, they'll make Trump able to pardon everyone, they'll reverse the outcomes of elections, they'll impose gerrymandering on un-gerrymandered states, they'll cover up Republican crimes...

The reality is if five conservatives on the court is all it took for that to happen, it'd have happened years ago, it didn't. In theory the Supreme Court could go crazy and rule all kinds of crazy things, but that would so implode the legitimacy of the court that the first time you had Democrats controlling government again (and simple knowledge of history predicts this will happen) the court would basically be gutted, because the legislature and the executive have power they can actually enforce. The Supreme Court's power is entirely based on it being a respected deliberative body. Without that respect, it has no power.


That is what's been on my mind too - SCOTUS is ultimately just 9 people wearing robes on a bench. If they make too outrageous a ruling, everyone can just say F*** it. They have no true enforcing power.
  #45  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:04 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I do hope that they'd strike down the ATF's torturing of the english language in their attempt to reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns".
I'm furious that Trump is on board with this after the NRA and GOA worked hard to get him elected.

The absurdness of these bans is that with practice one does not even need a special stock to bump fire. Hence the stock bans will not prevent bump firing a semi auto in the least.

Another important issue is right to carry. Places like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and most of California leave their law abiding citizens completely defenseless in public while the criminal element is still armed to the teeth.
  #46  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:48 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I'm furious that Trump is on board with this after the NRA and GOA worked hard to get him elected.

The absurdness of these bans is that with practice one does not even need a special stock to bump fire. Hence the stock bans will not prevent bump firing a semi auto in the least.
Why does anyone need a bump stock? Seriously, it's pretty much good for exactly one purpose - indescriminately firing into a crowd.

Quote:
Another important issue is right to carry. Places like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and most of California leave their law abiding citizens completely defenseless in public while the criminal element is still armed to the teeth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/stat...stacks-up.html

All four of those states listed have among the bottom 10 firearm deaths in the nation. Also up there: Rhode Island, which despite the low number of laws is actually extremely strict, Connecticut, which the Washington Post calls the strictest after California, and Massachusetts, which also has strict regulations. Rounding out the top 10, we have Maine, Minnesota, and Washington. So 8 of the top 10 states for gun safety are liberal strongholds with very strong gun control regulation.

Yes, I'm sure that people in NY, NJ, HI, and CA are just begging to be able to protect themselves from criminals. How armed to the teeth are those criminals, anyways? Well, according to a short look through this chart, there were no armed robberies or assaults in Hawaii for the time frame given. Connecticut, California, New York, and New Jersey are not near the top of the list.

So basically everything you just said was really really wrong.
  #47  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:56 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why does anyone need a bump stock? Seriously, it's pretty much good for exactly one purpose - indescriminately firing into a crowd.



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/stat...stacks-up.html

All four of those states listed have among the bottom 10 firearm deaths in the nation. Also up there: Rhode Island, which despite the low number of laws is actually extremely strict, Connecticut, which the Washington Post calls the strictest after California, and Massachusetts, which also has strict regulations. Rounding out the top 10, we have Maine, Minnesota, and Washington. So 8 of the top 10 states for gun safety are liberal strongholds with very strong gun control regulation.

Yes, I'm sure that people in NY, NJ, HI, and CA are just begging to be able to protect themselves from criminals. How armed to the teeth are those criminals, anyways? Well, according to a short look through this chart, there were no armed robberies or assaults in Hawaii for the time frame given. Connecticut, California, New York, and New Jersey are not near the top of the list.

So basically everything you just said was really really wrong.
Your post doesn't have a thing to do with what some of the likeliest effects of Kavanaugh on the court.

Kavanaugh is believed to be a strong supporter of individual gun rights. Me mentioning that some states have very limited to non-existent carry laws is related to his effect on the court.
  #48  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:04 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Kavanaugh is believed to be a strong supporter of individual gun rights. Me mentioning that some states have very limited to non-existent carry laws is related to his effect on the court.
You said a fair bit more than that... Or, at the absolute minimum, implied a fair bit more than that. Did you not mean to imply that these gun laws make people invthose states less safe or more likely to be the victim of gun crime?
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-09-2018 at 06:08 AM.
  #49  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:17 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
You said a fair bit more than that... Or, at the absolute minimum, implied a fair bit more than that. Did you not mean to imply that these gun laws make people invthose states less safe or more likely to be the victim of gun crime?
These are the positions someone of his political bend are going take. Justice Thomas also seems to be of that mind.

None of this is relevant if the court doesn't take a 2nd Amendment case. They have been skirting the issue for almost a decade now.
  #50  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:31 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
These are the positions someone of his political bend are going take.
...So you don't think that, you just think that Kavanaugh does? 🤔
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017