Kennedy Retiring from SCOTUS

[puddleglum]

This is great news. Perhaps we can go back to being ruled by the constitution and the people’s elected representatives instead of one fickle judge with delusions of grandeur.
This makes me regret not voting for Trump.

[Chisquirrel]

Too close to the election. Trump has to wait until afterwards, so the people have a chance to speak.

Who’s next on the Heritage Foundation list?

[Leaper]

@SenorBeef

He could’ve held out another few months to at least allow the election to potentially moderate the candidates put before the senate. If he knew he was this close to retirement he could’ve retired under Obama, who was far likely to replace him with someone who was ideologically near him than Trump will.

Which again makes me wonder about liberals who seemed to depend on him to keep Bad Judicial Things from happening. I’m starting to think those expectations were and are wildly overblown.

Here’s a question: suppose the “worst,” according to the left, happens. Roe, gay marriage, the ACA all overturned, partisan gerrymandering enshrined as a right of the states. This Congress is, of course, likely to try to take advantage of such. If and when they do, which do you think is more likely to happen:

1. Federal laws banning abortion and gay marriage, mandating Christianity in schools, permanent partisan gerrymandering, all happen and are allowed, the entire nation is bedrock conservative for generations.

2. The above actions are mostly left up to the states, causing the separation in beliefs and lifestyles between red and blue states to get much more significant.

[Buck_Godot]

@ITR_champion

The media only pays serious attention to Supreme Court nominee battles, but Trump has nominated scores of federal judges over the past 18 months. Based on the nominations that he’s made so far, two things are clear. His nominees are solidly conservative, and solidly intellectual. He wants judges who are very capable of making thoroughly professional, logical rulings.

Really?

[iiandyiiii]

@puddleglum

This is great news. Perhaps we can go back to being ruled by the constitution and the people’s elected representatives instead of one fickle judge with delusions of grandeur.
This makes me regret not voting for Trump.

Of course. Tolerating sexual assault and violation of consent is worth it for a few years of your preferred SCOTUS!

[Slash1972]

@iiandyiiii

Of course. Tolerating sexual assault and violation of consent is worth it for a few years of your preferred SCOTUS!

And guns! Don’t forget the guns!

[Chronos]

Or 3) It’s left up to the states in every case where the Republicans find themselves unable to impose their will at the federal level, and made federal in every case where they can. You know, how they’ve consistently been governing so far.

[Shodan]

@andros

“As good as” in the sense of “Shodan agrees with his decisions?” Or “as good as” in the sense of Shodan agrees with his decision-making process?

I want a Justice who decides based on what the Constitution and the law says, not what he or she thinks it should say.

Because if it’s the latter, I would like to Discuss, and possibly Have Some Words.

Knock yourself out - it is GD, after all.

Regards,
Shodan

[andros]

@ITR_champion

The media only pays serious attention to Supreme Court nominee battles, but Trump has nominated scores of federal judges over the past 18 months. Based on the nominations that he’s made so far, two things are clear. His nominees are solidly conservative, and solidly intellectual. He wants judges who are very capable of making thoroughly professional, logical rulings. There’s no reason to believe that he’ll deviate from that pattern in his next Supreme Court pick.

I’m hoping for Don Willett, personally.

In addition to Buck Godot’s point, I’d like to take minor issue with the words I bolded in your quote above.

I’m not seeing any reason to believe that POTUS actually wants any of those things at all.

But I agree that his nominations have been largely consistent.
.

[Slash1972]

@Shodan

I want a Justice who decides based on what the Constitution and the law says, not what he or she thinks it should say.

In all fairness, when you say this, don’t you really mean “I want a Justice who decides based on what I think the Constitution and the law says”?

[Bricker]

@Shodan

I want a Justice who decides based on what the Constitution and the law says, not what he or she thinks it should say.

Concur. The text should drive the result. A good-hearted desire to help the country be better and implement new law that reflects our evolving standards is a great thing — for a legislator.

But not for a judge. A judge should not try to create wise policy. He should try to effectuate whatever policy the legislature has created, to the extent it is consistent with the text — not the penumbras or emanations — of the Constitution.

[Buck_Godot]

@FlikTheBlue

I suppose that Chief Justice Roberts will be the swing vote now. I wonder how willing he will be to not just stop progress, but turn back the clock. Will gay marriage once again return to the states, or possibly be made illegal for the entire country again? What about abortion? What about voting rights? Could we possibly be headed back to a return of things like poll taxes or literacy tests? Are there any other areas that SCOTUS is now likely to make rulings on that could affect what was previously thought to be settled case law?

I doubt that they will go back on gay marriage per se, but they will probably allow for discrimination base on sexuality

Thing we can probably expect.

Defacto overturn of Row v. Wade, where abortion is theoretically allowed by law but are unobtainable in practice in many states.
A subtler version of Jim Crow, such as race based Gerrymandering, closure of polling places in inner city neighborhoods, purging of voter etc,
Consumer, employee and union rights eliminated.
Environmental regulation largely eliminated.
Unlimited campaign fincancing/biribery.
Defacto recognition of Christianity as the state religion.
etc.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Concur. The text should drive the result. A good-hearted desire to help the country be better and implement new law that reflects our evolving standards is a great thing — for a legislator.

But not for a judge. A judge should not try to create wise policy. He should try to effectuate whatever policy the legislature has created, to the extent it is consistent with the text — not the penumbras or emanations — of the Constitution.

Sounds fine to me. Unfortunately there’s a lot of disagreement as to what this sentiment actually means

[Huey_Freeman]

@Buck_Godot

I doubt that they will go back on gay marriage per se, but they will probably allow for discrimination base on sexuality

Thing we can probably expect.

Defacto overturn of Row v. Wade, where abortion is theoretically allowed by law but are unobtainable in practice in many states.
A subtler version of Jim Crow, such as race based Gerrymandering, closure of polling places in inner city neighborhoods, purging of voter etc,
Consumer, employee and union rights eliminated.
Environmental regulation largely eliminated.
Unlimited campaign fincancing/biribery.
Defacto recognition of Christianity as the state religion.
etc.

Blessed Be the Fruit.

[Leaper]

@Chronos

Or 3) It’s left up to the states in every case where the Republicans find themselves unable to impose their will at the federal level, and made federal in every case where they can. You know, how they’ve consistently been governing so far.

Okay, so where do the hot button topics fall on that scale, then?

[Czarcasm]

Usually Trump picks someone who will either tear down, or profit greatly from, the institution he appoints them to. This one’s got me stumped.

[VinylTurnip]

@Shodan

Here’s hoping for another Justice as good as Gorsuch.

From what we’ve seen thusfar, that shouldn’t be too hard.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

Sounds fine to me. Unfortunately there’s a lot of disagreement as to what this sentiment actually means

I doubt there is much disagreement on what the sentiment means - only whether or not it ought to control the rulings of the Supreme Court.

That is the basis of the whole disagreement over Roe v. Wade. There is no reference to abortion in the text, there is no reference to privacy in the text. There is definite reference to who has the power to enumerate new rights in the text. But the Court didn’t rule on the text - they based it on penumbrae and emanations, not the text.

If someone disagrees with the sentiment

He should try to effectuate whatever policy the legislature has created, to the extent it is consistent with the text — not the penumbras or emanations — of the Constitution.

by claiming that it might mean they should base their rulings on “penumbrae and emanations”, he or she is simply wrong. “Shall not” does not mean “may”; “the states, or the people” does not mean “the Supreme Court”, etc.

Regards,
Shodan

[Miller]

@Leaper

Which again makes me wonder about liberals who seemed to depend on him to keep Bad Judicial Things from happening. I’m starting to think those expectations were and are wildly overblown.

Here’s a question: suppose the “worst,” according to the left, happens. Roe, gay marriage, the ACA all overturned, partisan gerrymandering enshrined as a right of the states. This Congress is, of course, likely to try to take advantage of such. If and when they do, which do you think is more likely to happen:

1. Federal laws banning abortion and gay marriage, mandating Christianity in schools, permanent partisan gerrymandering, all happen and are allowed, the entire nation is bedrock conservative for generations.

2. The above actions are mostly left up to the states, causing the separation in beliefs and lifestyles between red and blue states to get much more significant.

The Republican party is absolutely going to follow up on any court victories with attempts to put their agenda into place on a federal level. They’ll absolutely start trying to chip away at gay rights at a federal level, with explicit legislation exempting people with “religious objections” from having to comply with equal protection laws, and almost certainly a reinstatement of the marriage ban. Equal rights and voting rights laws in general will be rolled back - they’re already doing this, it’ll just speed up. Federal abortion bans will come pretty quick, too, or barring that, heavy restrictions on it at the federal level while they work towards a total ban. The popularity of any of these positions won’t matter - the Republican gerrymander is going to get tighter and tighter, which, along with the voting rights rollbacks and the implementation of the most regressive, unfair versions of voter ID laws will ensure the disenfranchisement of enough liberal voters that it won’t really be feasible for Democrats to hold on to more than just a remnant of Congressional seats. As Republicans use their hegemony to pass more and more legislation that’s favorable to their base and their cronies, and devastating to the majority of Americans, trust in the concept of Democracy as a guarantor of freedom and equality will erode until the only people with any investment in the political system are the small minority of people who control it to their own benefit, while the majority of the rest of the country view it as a tool of oppression. At which point, the entire country breaks down Rwanda-style and we start hacking our neighbors to death in the streets with machetes.

So, I figure sometime around September?

[Shodan]

@Leaper

Okay, so where do the hot button topics fall on that scale, then?

Certainly not on gay marriage - the Dems were the ones making a federal case out of it because they had already lost on referenda at the state level in most cases.

@Czarcasm

Usually Trump picks someone who will either tear down, or profit greatly from, the institution he appoints them to. This one’s got me stumped.

That’s not what happened with his first Supreme Court pick, so I don’t see why it would stump you.

Regards,
Shodan