SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Tyche]

Pretty grim. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-supreme-court

This is a hastily written hot take. They don’t have the votes to overturn Roe.

[archibaldcrane]

This is a hastily written hot take. They don’t have the votes to overturn Roe.

UC Berkeley law dean and constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees with you.

“There almost certainly will be a majority to overrule Roe v. Wade and allow states to prohibit abortions.”

[Andalusian girls]

admitting it as a possibility is worrying enough but i think 'almost certainly' overblown and panicky (which isn't surprising coming from Berkely). Gorsuch has yet to rule on abortion and could theoretically surprise everyone the way he did in Sessions v. Dimaya and Carpenter v. United States, the unknown Kennedy replacement will have a very difficult time getting Collins and Murkowski's votes if they are adamantly opposed to Roe v Wade, and while personally hostile to abortion Roberts has both said Roe v. Wade is settled precedent and temperamentally is a man strongly predisposed to stare decisis, hitherto having only ruled against past decisions when he felt legislation violated amendment rights (as opposed to Roe which is seen by its critics as an overly generous interpretation of amendment rights).

more likely i think we'll see heavy restrictions on abortion access such as those defended by Texas in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, only with Kennedy gone SCOTUS will side with the states over women's liberty. even so not a great time to be a lady of reproductive age in America. a hell of a lot rides on how hard Collins and Murkowski demand a justice that won't vote to overturn.

[Andalusian girls]

I'm not going to hand-wring about shattering precedent and norms because have no doubt in my mind that the second the Dems got a 5-4 majority that the next Republican President would expand to 11 Justices.

i do like the argument that gutting one of the branches of government's independence and agency to increase the influence of the executive is necessary because the other party will surely do it if we don't even though we are the only party that has ever attempted it tho

[Gredival]

i do like the argument that gutting one of the branches of government's independence and agency to increase the influence of the executive is necessary because the other party will surely do it if we don't even though we are the only party that has ever attempted it tho

I mean it used to take 60 votes to confirm a Justice, which party changed that?

[Zealot]

i do like the argument that gutting one of the branches of government's independence and agency to increase the influence of the executive is necessary because the other party will surely do it if we don't even though we are the only party that has ever attempted it tho

That's not true, Congress shrank the size of the Supreme Court once to prevent Andrew Johnson from being able to make picks.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

PEDANTIC MAN, AWAAAAYYYYY

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

ah yes the Congressional measure against Andrew Johnson that Andrew Johnson signed

I mean it used to take 60 votes to confirm a Justice, which party changed that?

Republicans in 2017, after Democrats nuked the 60-vote supermajority for circuit + district judges and all cabinet appointments in 2013.

[Tyche]

I mean it used to take 60 votes to confirm a Justice, which party changed that?

Both parties. Obama changed it for federal/district appointees, then the GOP changed it for SCOTUS. Both parties are to blame. Although it's a fine argument to make that it was ultimately changed because of GOP stonewalling.



I look at it like no-fault divorces. One party can say they did this because the other party did this. Then that party will say they did that because the other party did this. This goes back and forth ad infinitum until the issue is convoluted and both parties simply have to accept some blame.

[Tyche]

UC Berkeley law dean and constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees with you.

Do you think Vox could have found someone's opinion that didn't support their own?



I think Roberts has been pretty clear on how he felt about Roe V Wade and the issue of the doctrine of stare decisis

[Tymon]

I mean it used to take 60 votes to confirm a Justice, which party changed that?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...nuclear-option

[dasva]

That's not true, Congress shrank the size of the Supreme Court once to prevent Andrew Johnson from being able to make picks.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Ancient history man!

[Quicklet]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...nuclear-option

Schumer can fuck right off with this nonsense. McConnell would have gotten rid of the filibuster anyway.

[Andalusian girls]

Both parties. Obama changed it for federal/district appointees, then the GOP changed it for SCOTUS. Both parties are to blame. Although it's a fine argument to make that it was ultimately changed because of GOP stonewalling.



I look at it like no-fault divorces. One party can say they did this because the other party did this. Then that party will say they did that because the other party did this. This goes back and forth ad infinitum until the issue is convoluted and both parties simply have to accept some blame.

hell i'd let them avoid taking blame if they would both just stop eroding institutional safeguards for short-term gain when they are the party in power.

but that may be a dream. both parties seem to be in an escalating arm's race to get their way no matter the cost, and justify it by saying the other side will do worse if we don't do bad.

[Zealot]

ah yes the Congressional measure against Andrew Johnson that Andrew Johnson signed



Republicans in 2017, after Democrats nuked the 60-vote supermajority for circuit + district judges and all cabinet appointments in 2013.

You may remember Prince John signed the Magna Carta.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

Justice refers only to SCOTUS (well state Supremes count but Congress has no role there) so in my question fault lays solely with the GOP.

We can get into the slippery slope where the GOP will finger point at the Dems for removing it for lower courts, and the Dems can finger point to historical levels of obstruction.

Which proves my point that it's not about the precedent shattering nature of what we do, it's an arms race where we make moves based on gains first and justify it later.

And given that it is an arms race, being the one hand wringing is disadvantageous. Mitch doesn't hesitate. Like fulfilling a constitutional duty to fill a SCOTUS seat in 2018 before the elections when the GOP has power but not in 2016.

[Andalusian girls]

You may remember Prince John signed the Magna Carta.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

look pal you don't step into my fucking house and throw history at me kapeesh

Prince John signed the magna carta to delay the incipient rebellion fomenting amongst his disloyal barons following his campaigning failures to hold together the Angevin Empire in France only in a bid to gain time to recover from his losses and gather his own forces, after which he promptly declared war on said barons.

conversely the Judicial Circuits Act was legislation that prevented SCOTUS Justices from being replaced upon retirement, partially because Congress hated Johnson yes, but mostly because Reconstructionist Republicans were attempting to stamp out the South's disproportionate impact on national affairs. Justices used to be appointed from each circuit (which is why their number ticked up as additional circuits were added), and 5 of the 9 circuits were composed entirely of slave states enabling southern domination of SCOTUS in the prebellum years. and also very amusingly because the Chief Justice at the time thought having fewer seats would lead Congress to paying the sitting Justices more so he wrote to many legislators arguing for the reduction.

[Tymon]

The growing political landscape where the preferred path to success is to change the rules to make it easier for your guys to consolidate power is terrifying. I can only hope I'm dead or rich enough to move before it goes completely ass up.

[Zealot]

All that is true but the original contention was that Johnson signed legislation that actively limited his powers as if he were happy to do so and not because it was one of many concessions made during his term to a disdainful Congress in order to maintain power.

[Andalusian girls]

no the original contention was that making the Johnson-approved Judicial Circuits Act analogous to 'gutting one of the branches of government's independence and agency to increase the influence of the executive' was flippant and ahistorical