I was not a supporter of Candidate Trump, but I believed his list of Supreme Court nominees was an outstanding one. Assuming he continues to draw names from it to replace Justice Kennedy, I’m all for a President Trump-nominated replacement for Justice Kennedy, especially in light of the no-filibuster battleground we now have. Democrats, in the minority in the Senate, have essentially no legislative options to derail a Trump-nominated replacement’s confirmation.
Here’s hoping he and Ginsberg both go on to a happy and fulfilling retirement, and Trump replaces them both with Justices who are more conservative than Gorsuch.
I was hinting that were the filibuster still present, its use against a strongly conservative replacement might well have gained political traction. But that’s debatable.
Whats to say the Republicans would not have set it aside to get their man in ala Gorsuch anyway, even if they had not decided to filibuster Gorsuch.
BTW, Bricker, from one lawyer to another, how do you decide if a nominee is “outstanding?”. Judicial Philosophy? Party affiliation? Currently, a Judge already?
I wonder what people are really asking for when they say they want “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court. I know they’ll play lip service to concepts like “judicial restraint” and respect for the constitution. But what cases would they like decided differently? Kelo? Heller? Obergefel?
Personally, I think the Justices should stop making up limits on punitive damages that appear nowhere in the Constitution. As Justice Scalia wrote:
So, to use our friend **Shodan **as an example, when he says this:
What is it that these “more conservative” justices are supposed to do to make America great again?
An unpopular decision by a conservative SCOTUS will result in a massive popular resistance movement and an overall shitstorm. We’re not going back in time. Careful what you wish for.
Decide cases based on what the Constitution says, rather than on what they think is a good idea.
Any case which was decided on what the Justices thought was a good idea, instead of what the Constitution said. Kelo is a good example - the Constitution mentions taking private property for a public purpose, and the case in question was the government forcing owners of private property to sell to another private party, not for any public purpose. Heller is not, because the Constitution mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and people are people. Obergefel is a good example, because the Court didn’t like the law that defined marriage so they made up a new one.
Roe v. Wade , of course, is the big one - the Court didn’t even pretend the Constitution addressed the issue, but made up some emanations and penumbrae and based their decision on that.
“Conservative” means, basically, “textualist”. And also “legislators make laws, not judges”.
It’s not really a question of “you don’t like the outcome so you call it judicial activism”. I am pro-choice, and have no issue with gay marriage, had either been established by legislation rather than judicial fiat.
I’ve heard this, but I’m not sure it explains the *passion *with which many seek a more conservative court. “They’re doing things I don’t mind in a way I disapprove of” isn’t much of a rallying cry. My theory is it all comes down to a fear of gun legislation being upheld, but I could be wrong. (that’s why I’m asking)
I don’t know that conservatives are more passionate about seeking a conservative Court than liberals are about seeking a liberal one. Ask a feminist about the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade or a Doper about overturning Obergefel, and you are not likely to get a uniformly dispassionate examination of the advantages and drawbacks.
No liberal judge is going to retire and allow their replacement to be selected by Donald Trump. Even if they can’t get out of their hospital bed to stagger in to court, they’re not going to retire. Sure, they won’t be there in court to legislate from the bench, but a zero is better than a minus one.
They might die, but given the stakes they’re never going to retire.
You think the Supreme Court shouldn’t be a partisan position? Tell that to Justice Garland. The fact is, that stunt by the Senate Republicans means that it’s going to be a very long time before any Democratic Senator will have to pay a price with their constituency for refusing to vote to confirm even otherwise qualified conservative Justices like Gorsuch.
