I don’t know if McCain’s coming back to DC. He’s doing the country the service of impeding GOP goals simply by occupying his Senate seat without showing up to vote very often at this point, though.
Just curious— is it Sotomayor, Kagan, or Breyer that you envision marching in lockstep with the conservative Justices, in this scenario?
On preview: ninja’d.
I have my doubts that Trump will be able to get another nominee confirmed before the midterms, even if he only needs 50 votes (plus the presumed Pence tiebreaker). I particularly doubt McCain is going to drag himself out of a sickbed to help him out.
Which means exactly the same thing. That’s the point of textualism. It allows you to pretend that conservative principles are the only valid means of interpreting law. There is a reason why only conservative justices adhere to it, since it leads to conservative outcomes.
It’s Biblical literalism made into a legal concept. And, just like Biblical literalism, it exists to enshrine conservative, anti-modernist values into the codex. Just like Biblical literalism, it is an entirely new way of interpreting law, and thus contradicts its own existence.
But you don’t care. Despite being Catholic and rejecting Biblical literalism, you embrace the legal version because it gives you the outcomes you want, while also allowing to absolve yourself of having made any judgement. You’re just following what the law says.
And, of course, you’ll never see or respond to this, because I dare challenge your deceitfulness at the base level, and it’s better strategy to ignore me, since you can’t prove it wrong.
Hell, you’ve said as much that you don’t argue morality. The only reason for that is that you don’t think you can make a good moral case. Because morals do not drive you.
Oh, and I assume Shodan said some stuff. I wouldn’t know. Guy crossed the line a little while back, and his occasional funny quips were no longer worth putting up with him. I discovered that we get more intelligent conversation if we just ignore what he has to say, as he’ll just snark from the kiddie table.
There’s no point in having laws if they don’t mean what they say.
And as Bricker points out, changing the law is the legislature’s job, not the judiciary’s.
Yeah, no reason to take a chance on the Senate flipping. This will get done by September, is my guess.
But the great thing is that this is the catalysts for everyone who wants to, once again, debate what judicial activism means, which side does it more, and re-litigate all the contentious court decisions with the same people that they’ve done so several times before over in the GD thread. And here, too!!
Can you explain Sessions v. Dimaya, then? Or in the alternative, identify any specific case in which you feel the text of the law clearly mandated one result but Gorsuch voted in contravention thereto?
Well, I’ll be damned.
I’m feeling a deep existential dread I haven’t felt since November 2016. On the good side I’m straight, white, relatively well off with health insurance through my employer, so I’ll probably be ok. On the bad side I have a sense of empathy and compassion for the vulnerable among us, so my emotional well being will still be affected.
McConnell’s own words at the time (2016) contain NO qualifiers: it’s the fact that an election is coming up, and nothing to do with it being a Presidential one, that matters:
Again and again and again and again: ‘the political season is underway,’ and ‘the American people deserve a voice.’
No mention whatsoever of a Presidential election.
Justice Scaramucci probably won’t order the first round-up of the vulnerable until early next year, so relax.
I can’t say I’m proud to be Canadian because being born in a civilized country isn’t really an accomplishment on my part. But holy shit am I glad to be Canadian right now. I’m sorry, decent Americans. You don’t deserve to suffer for the sake of fucks like Hurricane Ditka and Richard Spencer.
But if it’s Roy Moore instead, watch out.
(And keep your daughters hidden.)
I think people are overreacting. Yes, Kennedy was a moderate, but he wrote the majority opinion that murdered American democracy in the Citizens United case, so let’s not get carried away here. He gave himself a retirement party by severely weakening labor unions. Not that I actually disagree with the actual decision in this actual case – in theory, I don’t think employees who choose not to participate in unions should be required to support them. It wouldn’t be problematic in my mind if the law of the land didn’t equate billionaires using money to rig elections and calling it “speech” – but that he sure did. So let’s not weep at the departure of Justice Kennedy. It’s overdue, frankly.
I actually think this could be a blessing in disguise. We’re one step closer to forcing the average American to see just how badly their democracy has been corrupted, and compelling a political tidal wave. I don’t worry about losing Kennedy’s “voice of reason”. We’re no longer living in an age of reason. We’re living in an age of a clash between the billionaire class and ordinary people. Justice Kennedy may have hosed the American worker on his way out, but teachers in West Virginia and Oklahoma showed us how to respond. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez showed us how to respond. Stop crying. Get ready to fight.
Roe vs Wade is the next possible target maybe.
Or whatever one says you can’t persecute non-“Christians”. … Christian my ASS.
This is a disaster.
You took the words right out or my mouth.
I don’t agree. Roe v Wade should be overturned: the Constitution should not be read to protect first-trimester abortions. This is wholly apart from a discussion on whether or not wise social policy mandates protecting a right to first-trimester abortions. The claim that the Constitution protects them is flawed, in my view, and needs to go.
More generally, judges that rule based on that framework – “what does it say?” as opposed to “what’s best for the country?” – are, in my opinion, what’s best forthe country. I expect the President will appoint such a judge.
I bet the next nominee makes Gorsuch look moderate.
Tell me Bricker, while you seem to be so concerned about the welfare of the embryo, do you give two shits about the welfare of the mother?
What does that have to do with what he posted?