Did I find some justices who were too conservative for you, HurricaneDitka?
There’s really nothing Democrats can do except to start winning some elections, and I’m resigning (mentally bracing) myself for the prospect that Democrats might end up losing rigged elections for the next decade, no matter how bad the optics get for Republicans.
If there’s a strategy, it’s to start rebuilding the party from the bottom up. I’ve recently thought that perhaps the Democrats ought to find a few places in the Heartland where they might be able to use a left-leaning majority to work with right moderates and centrists to radically innovate politics and then use it as an example for others to follow. For instance, maybe ditch the idea of $15 minimum wages, which is really the radical left’s way of trying to punch the wealthy class in the face, and instead experiment with a combination of economic strategies that would be consistent with progressive values while not being abhorrent to the right either.
But this whole notion that Democrats are going to come back to power and gain momentum in the courts by impeaching Trump or just making him look bad is just more of Democrats being out of touch with reality. Attempts at obstruction would only serve to polarize, which is really what Trump and the GOP extremists want. They actually want polarization. They want controversy. It gets their names out there on TV or in Google, and it inspires the base.
It will be Trump’s court for decades if Ginsburg dies or steps down.
Justice Kennedy, the most moderate of the group is going to step down within a year. He’s just waiting for the right time to do it, which could be early 2018.
Oh, I think Trump will at least get TWO total appointments before 2020. And if he wins re-election, he might get as many a FOUR Supreme Court people in there.
Ginsberg has had some major health issues and people who have had major illness before tend to age in dog years in their mid-80’s.
The ones who made it to their mid 80’s with no major surgeries or hospitalizations are the ones that tend to live a bit longer.
But the real story is this. 2018 looks like a giant red wave in the Senate. This is the group that confirms supreme court nominations.
Dem’s will lose seats in the 2018 mid term elections…the math and geography say so. Dem’s must defend more seats and have some red state seats to defend.
It’s already Trump’s (GOP’s) court for decades. That was assured on election night. As Obama said afterward, elections have consequences. We’ll be feeling them for a long time to come.
I think opposition to Trump will drive Democrats out to vote. The states where Dems are most vulnerable are swing states, and Trump’s popularity has declined in these areas while the anti-Trump sentiments have ticked up. I would agree, however, that talk of a blue wave, as some armchair pundits have suggested, is also not likely to happen. As you correctly pointed out, Dems are the ones defending their territory this time. If any chamber is up for grabs it won’t be the Senate. The House just might be in play, but that’s hardly a given at this point. I’d be satisfied with Dems picking up enough seats to be able to occasionally block Republicans in the House.
Not always, right, Mitch?
I like to hold a higher opinion of Ginsburg than that she would retire under the Trump administration.
As for the answer to the OP: are we only counting technically legal options? Fuck-all. Nothing they can do. Illegal options present themselves, but they’re all pretty terrible.
While it’s true that they have top-notch medical care, you can’t count their good genes in their favor. All of the other people the actuarial tables are based on also had good enough genes to live that long.
That’s not at all how I feel.
I haven’t had a chance to look into it in much depth yet. At a cursory glance, it would appear that I disagree with those particular rulings, but then there are things the current conservative bloc on the Court supports that I disagree with, so I can’t really speak to those previous justice’s judicial philosophy without doing additional research.
So, still no current conservatives you think would be too far to the right for the SC?
The question is not as simple as you seem to imply:
Flag burning is protected speech.
Is that a “left” position or a “right” position? Do you, by any chance, mean is there someone out there who would push for a far-right wing political agenda, ignoring any reference to what could be called a judicial philosophy in order to do so? David Duke, for instance? Or do you mean any current justices in the lower courts who would be considered “conservative” who might be too far right for that poster? Judge Roy Moore (the former judge), for instance?
I think the way you have worded the question is too open ended to answer properly.
When asked of someone who would have no trouble with 9 identical judges that wouldn’t bother to ask questions and would have no need to spend time debating, finding out who wouldn’t be suitable for this position because their positions are generally too far to the right as that person defines the term is an easy enough question to answer…unless of course the actual answer is embarrassing because there is no current candidate that person finds too far right for the job.
With no fillibuster, the best they can do is to launch nation wide protests and pack town halls, all of which will be entirely ignored by the Republicans in congress.
So the answer is kiss good bye to all of the social progress made in the last 55 years, and accept the new order in which corporations rule an America of by and for white, male, Christians. On the good side it might serve as a reminder to those on the far left, that the two parties really aren’t the same and staying home on election day because the Democratic candidate doesn’t meet your exact specifications is not helpful.
Who knows, maybe it could serve as a reminder to those on the left that depending on nine unelected people to promote “social progress” instead of doing it the hard way through the legislative process is not that great a method.
But how? GOP only needs 50+Pence.
Can a moderator please add “If” to my thread title?
How much is that in American money?
Wait, HurricaneDitka, let me get this straight: You haven’t looked into Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson in much depth, and are only just now giving them a cursory glance? And yet you consider yourself qualified to make any statement at all about American politics?
If this is so simple, can you answer my question about flag burning? Is that a “right” issue or a “left” issue. Check only one box.