What do Dopers think will change in the Supreme Court due to Kavanaugh’s ascension. Gorsuch didn’t change much merely replacing Scalia by a basically similar conservative. Here are some of the things I see as possibilities (in order of likeliness, IMHO):
Roe: Either gone or so frayed as to be nearly meaningless. Women’s choice will have to fought in each state. It might have an interesting effect if women get out and fight for it.
Union shops: Barely hanging on by a thread. A strong free speech argument can be made against it and conservatives have been fighting for years.
ACA: probably gone as not authorized by any constitutional power.
Social security: The Republicans have been fighting this since the Gingrich revolution. I don’t think this is a high probability, but again a court could hold (maybe did hold during the 30s?) that nothing in the constitution authorizes it.
I thought the ACA survived due to Roberts, and Kennedy voted against it.
I predict Roe will go down. I also predict that Gerrymandering will be supported by the SCOTUS, but only as long as the republicans benefit from it. I also predict that the democrats will gerrymander hard starting in 2020, and only then will the 5 conservative judges overrule gerrymandering.
Any kind of voting rights act (automatic registration, mandatory voting, etc) will probably be overruled because those benefit the democrats. However massive voter purges, voter ID laws, etc that benefit republicans will stand.
I would be surprised if Roe went. Kavanaugh was nominated in part since he does not hold particularly extreme views on abortion, like the other possible choice Amy Bennett, who they were worried might even find a fetal protection. He criticised Roe, in speeches you say. Big fucking deal, so did Ruth Ginsberg.
I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh was nominated because both Trump and Anthony Kennedy’s son were involved in Russian money laundering through Deutsche bank, and both Trump and Kennedy knew that Kavanaugh felt that a (republican) president should be above the law.
They could’ve nominated someone uncontroversial like another Neil Gorsuch, but they picked Kavanaugh for a reason.
I don’t believe the Supreme Court has a problem with Federal spending programs–no matter how large. So if Medicare for All is passed along with massive increases in the Medicare tax and a new Value Added tax I think the Supreme Court will find it constitutional. It’s when Congress does gimmicks like requiring the states do things (like in the ACA’s mandatory state Medicaid expansion) that the Supreme Court finds problems.
Abortions will officially stay legal. It would cost the Republicans too many votes to overturn Roe. But conservatives will continue to place obstacles in the way of anyone trying to get an abortion and the SC will uphold them.
I predict the same for Social Security and the ACA. They won’t be abolished because that would be too unpopular. Instead they’ll just be gutted so they still exist on paper but aren’t allowed to work well.
On legislative issues in general, the SC has no reason to intervene at the moment; both halves of Congress and the Presidency are Republican. So the SC will adopt a “hand off” approach and let them continue to enact conservative laws without judicial review. But if the Democrats regain power and try to shift the direction of the law, the SC will become active and begin overturning laws the Republicans don’t like.
Republicans will continue to rig the elections system via things like gerrymandering and voter suppression. They now have a SC majority that will back them up.
Free speech is going to be a tricky one. Conservatives like having free speech defined broadly when they’re using it to push their agenda. But they hate it when people speak in opposition to them and would like to make that speech illegal. It will be interesting to see if the SC can craft some kind of standard that broadens right wing speech while limiting other forms of speech.
We are working on different definitions of controversial. According to the standard use of controversial both would be considered controversial. If you are saying that because someone is more controversial, then someone less controversial in comparison is not controversial at all then your post makes some sense.
But that doesn’t really get to the information known at the time. The ABA considered Kavanaugh suitable, and no rape allegations surfaced until the very end.
They knew Kavanaugh had skeletons, but they picked him because he would cover up Trump’s crimes.
They could’ve picked a less controversial justice. Someone who wasn’t a serial rapist, a perjurer or too emotionally unstable to be a judge. But they didn’t. Trump and Kennedy picked the guy who would protect Trump and Kennedy’s son from prosecution.
Who are they exactly? And can you perhaps be more specific about the skeletons that these they knew about at the time Kavanaugh was chosen?
The second part of your post is just a rehashing of the unsupported drivel you started out with that does not counter any of the factual statements I have made to rebut your nonsense claims. All you are doing is regurgitating things without backing them up with anything of substance; but that’s fine for IMHO, everyone has an opinion.
What skeletons? The sexual assual allegations were a surprise to everyone. The concerns were over his time in the Bush WH. Not anything related to his personal life.
That is my understanding of the situation as well.
Wesley Clark however has an opinion, surely based on something factual that he can link to with a cite from reputable source, that “they” knew all this beforehand.
Seeing how McConnell didn’t want him, and they had a ready list of 65 women who said ‘hey, this guy didn’t rape me’, I’m sure they knew. Did Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, etc. have a ready list of 65 women willing to say ‘this guy never committed a sex crime against me’ to pull out and give the media? No they didn’t
Also Kavanaugh was texting friends back in July about some of his sexual assault allegations, before his victims even came forward.
We need legitimate investigations into Kavanaugh for sex crimes and perjury (and possibly accepting illegal money to pay off his debts) and whatever else he may be guilty of, and if enough evidence is gathered, prosecutions.
This isn’t over. You guys won’t control congress forever.
Marriage equality could be in danger. My husband and I are worried that our marriage will be nullified. If that happens, I can’t guarantee that my response will be civil.
What the hell do you mean by “you guys”? I am not part of any guys. Again with the "oh you disagree with me you must be some sort of right winger herr derr derr. I never voted Republican in my life.
How about some actual cites for :
(a) showing that there was a list of women they had ready before these allegations came out that is separate from a list of references used in the standard background checks for this position.
(b) Kavanaugh was texting friends back in July specifically about sexual assault allegations.
(c) McConnell did not want him because of these allegations, and he knew of these allegations before Kavanaugh was picked by Trump.
Your allegations are so far from any news I have heard on the matter that it seems like the stuff of conspiracy theory. There are plenty of reasons to be opposed to Kavanaugh, I have my own, but conspiracy nonsense is conspiracy nonsense.
If you come back with some cites, I will certainly change my view on the plausabiity of these claims.
…you want cites? Great Debates is the place for you! Here in IMHO people aren’t trying to change your views or engage in debate. They are merely expressing their humble opinions. You can demand a cite if you like, but don’t be surprised if your demand is refused. (Disclaimer, IANAMOD, these are my humble opinions only, as one would expect in a forum called IMHO)
Read the end of post #13, I said nearly the exact same thing.
If Wesley Clark wants to imply that I am somehow partial to Republicans simply because I don’t go along with every unfounded wild speculation the least he could do is provide one cite. Otherwise he could just say he disagrees with me without speculating that I have some sort of heavy bias.