This is what I think. When I saw the headline I thought to myself that there is no fucking way in hell that it could be true. It doesn’t help him or his ideology at all. Him and Alito are the most conservative judges right now in a sort of quasi-liberal majority court. Even if he wanted to resign, there’s no reason for him to announce it.
He didn’t announce it and his wife denies it. For all we know an assistant just saw a tonne of RV brochures on his desk.
I believe he will quit after the election. He’s going to be in the minority on the court for the rest of his career, barring a Trump victory. What’s to look forward to, writing dissents? Time for him to go fishing.
There’s always the honor of serving on the SCOTUS, the idea of being a bulwark to liberal ideas, and having a voice even in dissension that he wouldn’t if he wasn’t on the court. Plus, the GOP might smarten up and nominate someone who can actually win in 2020, so if he can last through one more term, he might be in the majority again after RBG retires like we all think she will. I’m just saying I don’t buy the “he’s got nothing to work for” if he was in the minority. Hell, he might just do it out of spite, the man’s been holding a grudge ever since Anita Hill and he seems to be one of those self-loathing blacks who thinks Affirmative Action is actually harmful instead of helpful to themselves
The saving grace about liberal justices is that although they don’t believe we have any rights, they don’t believe in a system where people can actually get convicted of anything either, so go ahead and keep on buying your guns and running your illegal campaign ads. It’s not like you’ll go to jail, and even if you do, since mandatory minimums will also go away, you’ll get like two months.
Particularly without Antonin’s hand up his ass anymore.
That is spectacular. The chutzpah involved in such blatant strawmannery is a marvel to behold.
This is some powerful strawmanning nonsense. You may have topped yourself in your ability to read liberal minds, that just so happens to match the worst assumptions from right-wing radio fantasy land. Hannity would be so proud!
What rights do liberal justices think you don’t have, other than the right to have all the arms in your wildest Dirty Harry fantasies? Which side wants to deny the right to contraception and reproductive freedom? Which side opposed the rights of some people to marry?
That’s just the history of liberal jurisprudence: the government can do anything it wants as far as passing laws, but the obstacles to actual enforcement make getting caught and punished appropriately rather unlikely.
Remember that the mass incarceration “problem” happened as crime was going down. We didn’t have a mass incarceration problem when crime was at its height. We had a “catch and release” problem. We had a system where someone could have a dozen violent felony convictions and be walking the streets free.
It’s not an outrageous argument to make that if there is a liberal majority on the court that guns will be illegal and that guns being illegal will be almost entirely irrelevant. Because that’s exactly what gun policy was in the 60s and 70s. Back then, handguns were the boogeyman. A lot of cities banned handguns. Strangely, people with handgun convictions still roamed the street carrying handguns.
An impartial history of crime and punishment in America summed up in 3 quick paragraphs. Love it.
Wow, liberals are still in denial about why they lost during that period. Being soft on crime was one big reason.
Let’s be logical here. Liberals oppose mandatory minimums, right? They oppose three strikes laws, right? They oppose tougher gun penalties, right? They oppose making prisoners serve the bulk of their time rather than getting early release for good behavior, right?
So given all that, what do new gun laws accomplish? About what they accomplished in the 60s and 70s. Nada. Or are you going to try to make an argument that the gun control laws of that period worked?
Well I’m from Canada and our gun control worked ok in that period. Lol
But really, crime showed similar trends across multiple jurisdiction that took different approaches, which suggests a sober hindsight view that it’s not that dependent on harsh punishment or lack thereof. Public perception at the time however did probably help the “liberals” to “lose”
Right. So the problem was that liberals tried to take a reality-based approach to the problem rather than just lying out their asses about the opposition like the conservatives did.
Which side assassinated an American teenager with a Hellfire missile?
Invented/fantasy nonsense. How about some cites, or is this just more mind-reading?
This is just a bullshit omelet. I’m not even sure if it’s possible to separate the different flavors of nonsense that make this up.
FWIW, Hillary is significantly out-fundraising The Donald in the battleground state of Ohio: http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2016/06/20062016---trump-little-from-ohio.html
You want to argue that nothing has changed since then?
ENOUGH!
Gun control, pro or con, and odd beliefs regarding SCOTUS is not really pertinent to this discussion as it was posted. Stick to a discussion regarding the way(s) in which Clinton should manage her campaign and take the other stuff to a new thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to Ford and Bush the Elder, has endorsed Hillary: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/hillary-clinton-brent-scowcroft-endorsement/index.html