SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Zealot]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckkkk

[Andalusian girls]

Well, we're fucked now boys.

we'll see what comes to pass, but Gorsuch actually had a more liberal-leaning swing voting record than Kennedy this past term when it came to being the deciding factor on 5-4 splits, and with the Republicans burning in Alabama Collins + Murkowski can sink any nomination on their own, and both are moderate pro-choicers. while Justices surprise many of the presidents that appoint them and the people that observe them i doubt Donald can jam through an arch-conservative. either way it's going to be a wretched partisan fight, can't wait for the circus.

[Quicklet]

So now we'll have 2 illegitimate justices instead of 1. Terrific.

[dasva]

Because he'll say this is why you need to keep him to put more prolife Justices to keep stuff like this.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Yeah but the case was less about abortions and more about speech. I mean sure a lot of people might not get that far into learning about it

[tyven]

Should help Tyven's dream of eliminating public sector fixed benefit pensions though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I am too busy yearning for the sweet release of death to go down this road

[Dantrag]

Lets say Muller finds all that he needs to take Trump down, could his Justices be taken down as well?

[archibaldcrane]

They'd have to be impeached, and you'd have a very hard time convincing a supermajority of the Senate that they are guilty of "high crimes or misdemeanors".

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

If I'm Trump I nominate Merrick Garland.

Seriously. A new SCOTUS pick is a polarizing political move in today's climate and if Democrats face the possibility of being able to slow-walk any nomination through November. Making this an issue now could serve as a fresh wave of energy for Democrats heading into the mid-terms. Nominating Garland is practically a demoralizing move. If I'm trying to dig a trench in front of a blue wave, that's a big shovel to use.

[archibaldcrane]

Are we ready for abortion to become illegal?

Get ready.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Quicklet]

Logically you would think that conspiring with a foreign power to win a presidential election would be a strong legal argument challenging the authority of all the decisions and appointments that follow. Unfortunately, I think it would be an uphill climb because the Constitution doesn't specify any remedy for cheating to win an election (besides impeachment), which is why court packing in 5-10 years is the most realistic alternative to several decades of abortion being illegal in half the country.

[archibaldcrane]

If I'm Trump I nominate Merrick Garland.

Seriously. A new SCOTUS pick is a polarizing political move in today's climate and if Democrats face the possibility of being able to slow-walk any nomination through November. Making this an issue now could serve as a fresh wave of energy for Democrats heading into the mid-terms. Nominating Garland is practically a demoralizing move. If I'm trying to dig a trench in front of a blue wave, that's a big shovel to use.

He's going to want a loyal ideologue on the bench for his impeachment trial, not Merrick Garland.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

[Yuri-G]

Well, the next few decades should be... interesting?


I'm not ready to freak out yet. Having an anxiety disorder will teach you that. But... yeah, this does not look good at first blush, does it?


I'm not saying it will all go well - it won't - but keep in mind that, for example, John Roberts was the swing vote on gay marriage. This ain't the end of America.

[Gredival]

I'm not saying it will all go well - it won't - but keep in mind that, for example, John Roberts was the swing vote on gay marriage. This ain't the end of America.

Roberts was the swing on the ACA. Kennedy wrote the marriage decision.

[Tyche]

Even if trump appoints a pro life ideologue, they don’t have the votes to overturn Roe v Wade. They could def dull the teeth of the decision by upholding state laws that make abortion difficult, but they can’t and won’t overturn it.

[Yuri-G]

Roberts was the swing on the ACA. Kennedy wrote the marriage decision.

Ah, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

[archibaldcrane]

RGB is 85 years old. Steven Breyer is 79.

[tyven]

Even if trump appoints a pro life ideologue, they don’t have the votes to overturn Roe v Wade. They could def dull the teeth of the decision by upholding state laws that make abortion difficult, but they can’t and won’t overturn it.

Couldn't they effectively dull it to the point where its almost arbitrary.

[Gredival]

McConnell: "The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role ... to fill this vacancy. We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor this fall."

[Tyche]

Couldn't they effectively dull it to the point where its almost arbitrary.

They could, but it’ll be difficult. Stare decisis matters a great deal to justices and I don’t see Roberts overturning settled decisions that have been reaffirmed (pp v Casey).