Yeah, it feels a bit like a real-life re-enactment of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
To be fair, liberals have more to lose from a Supreme Court nomination of a textualist/conservative, because they have pinned so much more of their hopes on getting things enacted thru judicial activism than conservatives have.
A conservative Justice doesn’t make law, and therefore cannot be relied on to implement policies and make up laws that cannot be passed by a majority of legislators. This is especially true of hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage. It is much easier to persuade five liberal Justices than the voters and legislatures of Texas and Utah and states like that.
They were holding onto a majority on the Court by four and a half fingers, and one finger just slipped off.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s going to be very interesting 10 years from now, when gays will still be marrying, Roe v Wade isn’t overturned, affirmative action still exists, etc. If I am wrong, I will come back here and say so. Will any of you come back here and say you were?
If affirmative action is struck down by the Supreme Court, I doubt I’ll still be here, because I’ll presumably have gotten myself banned right quick for celebrating so exuberantly and excessively that it’s taken for trolling.
Well, the half did.
But your suggestion that judicial activism is the province of the left is deeply flawed.
It was notoriously inconsistent (in his application of originalism and textualism) Antonin Scalia (PBUH) who noted in 1991 that the 11th Amendment “stand[s] not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms.”
Unless you’re arguing that “both sides do it,” but that it’s ok when it gets result you support, any argument based in the shibboleth of “liberal judicial activism” is entirely bankrupt.
.
I don’t think saying that the Eleventh presupposes the rest of the Constitution is a non-textual approach. You will note that Scalia goes on in the same opinion to quote the text it supports.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, go on. What specific ruling appears in that decision that has no support in the text?
You’ve quoted a rhetorical flourish – but let’s hear the meat. What was decided that wasn’t grounded in text, specifically?
You do know that Justice Gorsuch has already raised this concept as having validity, right? :rolleyes:
Roe v. Wade being overturned is the left’s panic button like guns getting grabbed is on the right, except that I think there actually is a greater chance of guns being confiscated.
I doubt the Democrats will be able to stop the confirmation of a conservative justice, so they need to use the upcoming battle for long-term political purposes. Repealing Roe v Wade is deeply unpopularso they need to hammer into the public mind that Roe V Wade is now in danger. Much of the Roberts corporate agenda is unpopular too and they need to run against that.
Ultimately public opinion and election victories matter more than the SC. Democrats need to reconcile themselves to the fact that there will be a conservative SC majority for one maybe two decades. It will do some damage but most of its agenda is unpopular and it will be a useful target which will help Democrats win elections.
Jeffrey Toobin – a respected legal analyst at CNN and regular contributor to the New Yorker – is on record as stating that Roe v Wade is doomed.
I’d be interested in learning more. Answer: no, was not aware.
In 2012, Jeffrey Toobin went went on record confidently asserting that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s oral arguments had lost the case for the ACA. He later announced that he was wrong and was “eating crow.” He was probably even more “respected,” then, I expect?
I guess at some point he decided to get back in the business of making predictions?
Here (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/trump-supreme-court-names/index.html) is CNN’s list of who they think Trump will pick from. Don’t know most of these names or what the pros or cons are for them, but just figured I’d link to it and see if anyone here knows any more details about them.
Nothing would be more damaging to the Republicans as currently constituted than overturning Roe v. Wade. Not to say it may not happen, but if it does I expect the Republican strategists to rue the day in all but the reddest of red states. Abortion is equivalent to gun-control on the Democrat side - it has enormous grassroots appeal to the party loyalists, while hamstringing them with many single-issue centrists.
Nominating Lee would put the GOP at yet another electoral vulnerability by opening up his Senate seat, even though Utah is deep red.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but here’s a conservative’s take on them:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32411/run-down-heres-what-you-need-know-about-trumps-top-ben-shapiro
Scalia was echoing the Hans decision which essentially said that the plain text of the Eleventh was not its plain text, but was instead contextualized–and thereby clarified–by other portions of the Constitution.
My point is only that Scalia recognized and acknowledged that the role of a SCOTUS Justice is not the application of pure logic and reason to the specific words in a specific order, but instead to contextualize the law. So doing supports a particular mode of judicial decisionmaking–all judgment is inherently subjective.
Scalia, as with every Justice, advocated for his own philosophical bent through his decisions and his process for arriving at those decisions. When one agrees with that bent, it is Prudent. When one does not agree, it is Activism.
(And seriously, be fair: the rhetorical flourishes were one of the man’s most infuriating and redeeming qualities.)
.
Roe v Wade being overturned is simply not going to happen, I don’t care how hysterical anybody gets about it, or what some TV pundit thinks. The fact of the matter is, Republican lawmakers are all talk about abortion because they can afford to be, just like they were all talk about repeal and replacing the ACA, which they couldn’t even controlling the legislative and executive branch. They had to scramble shitty bills in after YEARS of bitching about the ACA because they never thought they’d have to. They don’t want it overturned anymore than anybody else because they will have to face a real reckoning. I’m not saying they wouldn’t go for it if somehow magically there wouldn’t be any blowback, but we all know that’s not true. It seriously would be on the level of repealing the 2nd amendment. Sure, you can chip at it a bit by passing laws, but abolishing it? No way.
Well, sure, they pander to their base from the safety of impotence. But what happens when they get a clear shot and don’t take it?
“Sure, we wanted to outlaw abortion, but we didn’t have enough…ahhh, we couldn’t get the…it was Tuesday!”.