Eh, after watching 63 million people vote for Trump, I don’t really have faith in a grassroots backlash.
We will probably lose the court, but the Supreme Court isn’t that powerful. Most cases are decided by lower courts.
Pretty much, yeah. Pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-voter-ID, anti-SSM, etc. About schools, probably more homeschooling and private schooling, less public schooling.
Edit: Forgot to add, conservatives probably want most affirmative-action struck down.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Kennedy retires. I doubt he’s a big Trump fan, but I’m sure he’s just fine with the Federalist Society’s list.
I suspect the only thing holding him back is that he loves being the swing vote. Since there’s little chance of the Dems taking the Senate in 2018, I suspect Kennedy will hold on until 2019 or so.
My prediction on the jurisprudence is that putting another Alito on the Court is not going to cause the revolution some conservatives want and some liberals fear. Abortion rights are here to stay, to name one example. They’ll be watered down. Poor women won’t be able to jump through all the time and distance hurdles that are set up to stop it. But that’s fixable. The long march toward complete immunity for police officers will continue unabated. But it’ll be much more that kind of thing–20 more years of death by a thousand cuts to the Warren Court jurisprudence–rather than the kind of revolutions of popular imagination. It’ll be interesting to see what that does to the politics of it.
Out of curiosity, how would you classify “yeah, there’s no federal right to an abortion, and so the states can do as they please: Kentucky can ban it, but New York can keep it legal; maybe forty of the states will keep it legal? Look, it’s none of my business; what are you asking me for?” Would that count as the sort of revolution you figure won’t happen, or the sort of watering-down you figure could?
You realize that the Constitution itself explicitly prohibits that sort of interpretation of the Constitution. If you don’t like it, don’t complain about the evils of judicial activism; repeal the Ninth Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment says nothing of the sort.
This is the kind of thing conservatives object to - making it up as they go along.
Regards,
Shodan
The sort of revolution I figure won’t happen.
The last time conservatives faced a major abortion case with a majority on the court, in Casey, they blinked. That’s now looked at as proof that O’Connor and Kennedy (and of course Souter) were big squishes. But I think it has at least as much to do with genuine respect for stare decisis and not wanting the devastating political backlash that would follow overturning Roe (or Casey).
I’m not saying to be sanguine at all. They can still hollow out the right pretty effectively without killing it outright. But it will (1) take longer and therefore risk Thomas or others retiring; and (2) be mostly focused on preventing poor women from getting abortions.
Not always. Remember Lochner.
If the judges were playing the long game, and thought it was of supreme importance to preserve their rulings, you’d think Kennedy and Thomas would strike a deal with Trump so that he would nominate a person to their liking and they would both retire.
How would that work given [cynic]Trump’s usual “Art of the Deal” mendaciousness in deal-making, and [/cynic] the fact that the President’s power to appoint whoever he wants to the courts cannot be bound by enforcible agreement?
The only way I could picture it working is a double-shuffle two-or-none deal between Kennedy and Thomas, whereby Thomas resigns first and Trump appoints a moderate or liberal Justice, and only then does Kennedy retire and Trump appoints who he really wants. But (1) Thomas would have to really trust Kennedy, and more importantly (2) I can’t see Trump agreeing to such humiliating/embarrasing terms.
Then maybe you shouldn’t, either.
Cigars,
CaptMurdock
That’s not what the Ninth Amendment says.
“The Ninth Amendment’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."
- some law talking guy
A Sorkin-esque solution ;). (It actually appeared in some West Wing episode.)
I’m no expert, but my impression is that Thomas is one of the most independent justices on the court. (I’m mostly aware of this because of all the vaguely racist-smelling stuff you used to hear about him being a ventriloquist’s dummy in Scalia’s lap; I can find some cites but not right now.)
If that’s accurate, I think he’s one of the unlikeliest justices to agree to such an unlikely scenario, because Trump (or President X) is not going to find another Thomas.
If others have counterexamples or counter arguments, post them - like I said, I’m a layman on this stuff.
I don’t. Either cite where the Ninth Amendment tells Justices that they should base their rulings on what they want and not on the Constitution, or simply read Bricker’s post.
Regards,
Shodan
Also pro-school prayer and pro-teaching of intelligent design.
I’m inclined to agree. It didn’t hurt that Gorsuch is a former clerk of his.
Right you are: The Supremes | West Wing Wiki | Fandom
I’ve admitted many times I live in a bubble, but are there really people left in this country that are upset that school-sponsored prayer is prohibited?
I’m related to some. (Like, by marriage, but, still.)
It’s not so much that people are upset that school-sponsored prayer is prohibited (though, yes, there are those folks too), as that they think that the prohibition is against all prayer in schools.