Jump to content
the_engineer

Law And Order

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Mad Hatter2 said:

No one is fucking touching Roe vs Wade. It is possible for a conservative to be pro abortion. 

 

Just because there are pro-choice conservatives out there doesn't mean anyone like that will be getting on the Supreme Court. Trying to get rid of Roe v Wade is one of the biggest obsessions of the Court-fixated conservatives, hence the candidates spoonfed to Trump all being in that mold.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Death Impends said:

 

Just because there are pro-choice conservatives out there doesn't mean anyone like that will be getting on the Supreme Court. Trying to get rid of Roe v Wade is one of the biggest obsessions of the Court-fixated conservatives, hence the candidates spoonfed to Trump all being in that mold.

Exactly. It's impossible for a pro-choice conservative, the few of whom that exist, to be nominated by Trump, or even confirmed in our GOP Senate. If said pro-choice conservative is from a state where there is just ONE pro-life Senator, it's likely that the Senator will turn over their blue slip on the nominee.

The notion that a "pro-choice conservative" will be appointed to be a federal judge, let alone the highest court of the land, is ridiculous

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

Exactly. It's impossible for a pro-choice conservative, the few of whom that exist, to be nominated by Trump, or even confirmed in our GOP Senate. If said pro-choice conservative is from a state where there is just ONE pro-life Senator, it's likely that the Senator will turn over their blue slip on the nominee.

The notion that a "pro-choice conservative" will be appointed to be a federal judge, let alone the highest court of the land, is ridiculous

Exactly.Trump will pick someone that his base will get behind.In fact his 2020 campaign will largely be on the supreme Court as if he is reelected  he will have a huge say as Breyer and Ginsburg are unlikely to be serving still in 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

Exactly.Trump will pick someone that his base will get behind.In fact his 2020 campaign will largely be on the supreme Court as if he is reelected as Breyer and Ginsburg are unlikely to be serving still in 2024.

I hope that Kennedy can try to get into Trump's mind and ask him to nominate somebody he agrees with more, instead of somebody like Bill Pryor. This nomination goes on for so much longer than the end of Trump's term in 2021 or 2025, if the nominee is like Gorsuch and around the age of 40-50, this court will be 5-4 conservative for decades until Clarence Thomas leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best case scenario that could happen is one of Kennedy’s family members replacing him. Knowing trump though, he’s going to elect someone who only believes with his beliefs...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joey Russ said:

The best case scenario that could happen is one of Kennedy’s family members replacing him. Knowing trump though, he’s going to elect someone who only believes with his beliefs...

As I said Trump will want a solid socially conservative pick as a means of keeping his base on side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joey Russ said:

The best case scenario that could happen is one of Kennedy’s family members replacing him. Knowing trump though, he’s going to elect someone who only believes with his beliefs...

 

I don't think SCOTUS family dynasties are a thing that really happens.

 

Fully expecting another Scalia type which basically brings you from 5-4 conservative court with the once-in-a-while swing from Kennedy to a 5-4 conservative court without that (well, there've been a few surprise moments from Roberts, but much more rarely than even Kennedy).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Death Impends said:

 

I don't think SCOTUS family dynasties are a thing that really happens.

 

Fully expecting another Scalia type which basically brings you from 5-4 conservative court with the once-in-a-while swing from Kennedy to a 5-4 conservative court without that (well, there've been a few surprise moments from Roberts, but much more rarely than even Kennedy).

Yeah. Family dynasties in America are rare unless you're a Senator that dies and the Governor appoints the wife out of courtesy, the Bush's are a large scale outlier. It's unlikely any of Kennedy's family members are qualified for the job unless they're a judge themselves. 

Trump can go either way with this nomination, and neither will satisfy everybody. He can choose to win over swing voters with a Kennedy-esque moderate swing vote to honor Reagan's legacy and avoid a difficult confirmation battle. 

Or, he can choose a conservative Trumpist that would struggle to be confirmed, but excites the base. Neither of these choices matters in the grand scheme of things, Supreme Court appointments may be large achievements for an administration, but the historically Democratic white working class in the midwest won't care. Instead, Romney>Clinton voters will care as they trend Democratic and become more politically involved. These Romney-Clinton districts are primarily occupied by suburban Republicans thay are retiring and are especially vulnerable to flip in November. If Trump were smart, he would appoint a moderate to not give these voters another reason to vote Democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love if Trump nominated his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, an 81-year-old inactive federal judge. She's actually quite liberal and apparently pro-choice. Maybe she's a future DDP pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

Yeah. Family dynasties in America are rare unless you're a Senator that dies and the Governor appoints the wife out of courtesy, the Bush's are a large scale outlier. It's unlikely any of Kennedy's family members are qualified for the job unless they're a judge themselves. 

Trump can go either way with this nomination, and neither will satisfy everybody. He can choose to win over swing voters with a Kennedy-esque moderate swing vote to honor Reagan's legacy and avoid a difficult confirmation battle. 

Or, he can choose a conservative Trumpist that would struggle to be confirmed, but excites the base. Neither of these choices matters in the grand scheme of things, Supreme Court appointments may be large achievements for an administration, but the historically Democratic white working class in the midwest won't care. Instead, Romney>Clinton voters will care as they trend Democratic and become more politically involved. These Romney-Clinton districts are primarily occupied by suburban Republicans thay are retiring and are especially vulnerable to flip in November. If Trump were smart, he would appoint a moderate to not give these voters another reason to vote Democratic.

Trump is no Ronald Reagan. He’ll pick someone just to please his voters. He doesn’t care what others think about his choice, he’s a narcissist, so he only cares about himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is worth noting Kennedy wasn't even Reagan's first choice for the seat. Kennedy was his compromise candidate after the Dem-held Senate turned down the much more extremely conservative Robert Bork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Death Impends said:

 

Just because there are pro-choice conservatives out there doesn't mean anyone like that will be getting on the Supreme Court. Trying to get rid of Roe v Wade is one of the biggest obsessions of the Court-fixated conservatives, hence the candidates spoonfed to Trump all being in that mold.

They may try at some point, but the MASSIVE social backlash that would surely follow, with all the top celebs on board and global condemnation, would make the furore over separating immigrant families pale into insignificance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

If Trump nominates another 40-something-year-old conservative, that doesn't have any extreme positions that would cause Collins and Murkowski to flip in the Senate confirmation vote, the court will be a 5-4 party line rubber stamp for Trump's GOP. Clarence Thomas isn't even 70 yet, it'll be decades before another conservative Justice retires or passes away. 

Now, more than ever, women's health is in deep jeopardy. Roe V. Wade will be gone by June 2019 if a Trumpist is confirmed. 

If this terrifies you, please email, call, and talk with Senators Lisa Murkowski, John McCain. Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, and John Neely Kennedy, because once this nominee is confirmed, there's no going back, especially since Breyer and Ginsburg are aging and Trump has shots to replace them with conservatives.

 

Nothing terrifies me more than fearmongering and melodrama. Women's health is not in deep jeopardy. The federal guarantee to have an abortion is. There's a difference, particularly as only 14.6 out of 1000 women get abortions.

 

You do realize that the majority of people on this forum aren't US citizens, right?  <_< 

 

This will be a nomination hearing that will make Robert Bork's nomination hearing look like a day at Disneyland, and the stakes are much, much higher than just abortion. Whether people like it or not, this is how this system works. Check and balance. Tenth amendment. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. No President or Congress lasts forever, and it only seems like the Supreme Court does. 

 

And yes, I hate it when people say "breaking." It's the single most overused word on the internet right now. This is a deadpooling forum, not the fucking New York Times. Besides, rumor has been swirling for months that he would retire after this term. 

 

The Supreme Court has been conservative since 1971 - basically all of my life. Nixon started it by stacking the Court with Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. The Court still rarely outright reverses itself, particularly with flashpoint issues. It is feasible that the Court may whittle it away and make abortion more difficult to obtain, but it is unlikely to completely ban it - and reversing Roe v Wade would merely punt the issue to the states. This would serve to make California and New York vacation destinations of choice. 

 

Roe v Wade was basically a cheater's way of figuring out how to tie abortion to the Constitution so the federal government could have some say without violating the 10th amendment. Linking the issue of abortion to privacy and due process and clearly indicating the the "right" to an abortion was not unlimited and that there was a compelling interest from the state merely set the stage for the years and years and years of idiocy and bullshit we have endured. The trimester framework is clumsy and was later rejected by O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy in favor of undue burden, which isn't much better. It was inevitable that Roe v Wade would face a legitimate challenge, and to be honest I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. It's time to stop kicking the can down the road. 

 

Legally and constitutionally there is a lot wrong with the decision, and Wikipedia has a good analysis of it, but you have to read it without ideological blinders on.

 

There are far more important issues that a conservative Court may decide on ideology. Gerrymandering and voting rights would have far more reaching implications than abortion. Civil rights, particularly with the law enforcement involvement lately, could reverberate far more than abortion. Personally, I'm more interested in preventing people from being killed for being black than I am for fighting for abortion rights, and I am not anti-abortion. Of course, I'm also not pro-abortion. It simply has never been my priority, and for anyone to assume all US women must be either for or against abortion, or are single issue voters, is a bit disingenuous and insulting. 

 

You want to change the conservative tide in the United States? Really? Get your words off this forum full of people who have no say in the US system and use them to change this:

 

Capture.JPG.8ac5159e18f5d0c607984f718992f4da.JPG

US Census Bureau Current Population Survey (election trends 1984 - 2016).

 

This graph is a Republican's wet dream.

 

High points are presidential elections, low are midterms. Funny that it's the midterms that really have the most impact on US citizens as individuals but are when they are least likely to get off their asses and vote. As long as that purple line is above 50% and that blue line is below 50% there ain't gonna be any young person getting what they want. They give their power away in the name of apathy and ignorance. The older you get, the more likely you are to vote - and the older you are the more conservative you get. You vote to protect your interests. It's the actual majority of voters who get the grease. Kids have never understood this. We didn't when we were young adults, but the stakes weren't quite as high then. No one in Congress is going to look out for you when you don't vote as a block. The Baby Boomers are going to walk all over all of us. Ironically, they were quite liberal as youngsters.....but not any more.

 

The number of people, mostly young but some middle aged, who have told me they didn't vote in the 2016 presidential election because "I couldn't vote for Bernie" or "Bernie got cheated" blew my mind. I just thanked them for electing Trump - because that's exactly what they did.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CarolAnn said:

 

Nothing terrifies me more than fearmongering and melodrama. Women's health is not in deep jeopardy. The federal guarantee to have an abortion is. There's a difference, particularly as only 14.6 out of 1000 women get abortions.

 

You do realize that the majority of people on this forum aren't US citizens, right?  <_< 

 

This will be a nomination hearing that will make Robert Bork's nomination hearing look like a day at Disneyland, and the stakes are much, much higher than just abortion. Whether people like it or not, this is how this system works. Check and balance. Tenth amendment. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. No President or Congress lasts forever, and it only seems like the Supreme Court does. 

 

And yes, I hate it when people say "breaking." It's the single most overused word on the internet right now. This is a deadpooling forum, not the fucking New York Times. Besides, rumor has been swirling for months that he would retire after this term. 

 

The Supreme Court has been conservative since 1971 - basically all of my life. Nixon started it by stacking the Court with Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. The Court still rarely outright reverses itself, particularly with flashpoint issues. It is feasible that the Court may whittle it away and make abortion more difficult to obtain, but it is unlikely to completely ban it - and reversing Roe v Wade would merely punt the issue to the states. This would serve to make California and New York vacation destinations of choice. 

 

Roe v Wade was basically a cheater's way of figuring out how to tie abortion to the Constitution so the federal government could have some say without violating the 10th amendment. Linking the issue of abortion to privacy and due process and clearly indicating the the "right" to an abortion was not unlimited and that there was a compelling interest from the state merely set the stage for the years and years and years of idiocy and bullshit we have endured. The trimester framework is clumsy and was later rejected by O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy in favor of undue burden, which isn't much better. It was inevitable that Roe v Wade would face a legitimate challenge, and to be honest I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. It's time to stop kicking the can down the road. 

 

Legally and constitutionally there is a lot wrong with the decision, and Wikipedia has a good analysis of it, but you have to read it without ideological blinders on.

 

There are far more important issues that a conservative Court may decide on ideology. Gerrymandering and voting rights would have far more reaching implications than abortion. Civil rights, particularly with the law enforcement involvement lately, could reverberate far more than abortion. Personally, I'm more interested in preventing people from being killed for being black than I am for fighting for abortion rights, and I am not anti-abortion. Of course, I'm also not pro-abortion. It simply has never been my priority, and for anyone to assume all US women must be either for or against abortion, or are single issue voters, is a bit disingenuous and insulting. 

 

You want to change the conservative tide in the United States? Really? Get your words off this forum full of people who have no say in the US system and use them to change this:

 

Capture.JPG.8ac5159e18f5d0c607984f718992f4da.JPG

US Census Bureau Current Population Survey (election trends 1984 - 2016).

 

This graph is a Republican's wet dream.

 

High points are presidential elections, low are midterms. Funny that it's the midterms that really have the most impact on US citizens as individuals but are when they are least likely to get off their asses and vote. As long as that purple line is above 50% and that blue line is below 50% there ain't gonna be any young person getting what they want. They give their power away in the name of apathy and ignorance. The older you get, the more likely you are to vote - and the older you are the more conservative you get. You vote to protect your interests. It's the actual majority of voters who get the grease. Kids have never understood this. We didn't when we were young adults, but the stakes weren't quite as high then. No one in Congress is going to look out for you when you don't vote as a block. The Baby Boomers are going to walk all over all of us. Ironically, they were quite liberal as youngsters.....but not any more.

 

The number of people, mostly young but some middle aged, who have told me they didn't vote in the 2016 presidential election because "I couldn't vote for Bernie" or "Bernie got cheated" blew my mind. I just thanked them for electing Trump - because that's exactly what they did.

I'll attempt to make a brief post, unlike this one.

1. Fearmongering and melodrama it is not, genuine discomfort and worry over some of the most important issues in recent history it is. This next court will make new decisions on issues that either have already been resolved by the court and are being challenged again or are just now being introduced to the court. If this ignorance over the power the Supreme Court has, especially with a more conservative bench, helps you sleep at night, then so be it.

2. Yes, I know most are British, is that relevant? Not necessarily. 

3. Rumors swirl over every Justice and their possible retirement, especially older ones like Kennedy himself, and Clarence Thomas, who was also speculated to retire this year. This retirement was ultimately not expected, if he didn't retire in 2017, some analysts said he would probably either be a lifer or hang on for a few more years. This wasn't totally expected.

4. I don't disagree with you on abortion at all. I am pro-life myself, I just care about precedent, the court's integrity, and ultimately the safety of our country. Our President promised to appoint judges that seek to reverse Roe V. Wade, and this President isn't too keen on breaking promises, no matter how outrageous or damaging they are. Roe v. Wade is definitely in jeopardy, but as I said, if it helps you sleep at night. Of course not all women are pro-choice, I don't think that's up for debate. 

5. Not sure what voting demographics has to do with the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Despite younger voters consistently having lower turnout (you can't change that, young people simply don't care to vote largely because of GOP policies targeted at younger voters and minorities to prevent them from voting their asses out), a Republican hasn't won the popular vote since 2004, and before that, the last time it happened was 1988. Ultimately, the President makes a nomination to the court, and unless they want a constitutional crisis, the Congress will likely confirm any middle of the line nominee that's not batshit like Harriet Miers or Jeanine Pirro.

This debate is interesting, and you definitely have wiser words than mine. I'd be interested in transitioning this discussion over to our messages because I do think it's important, just not in the actual death part of the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CarolAnn said:

 

Nothing terrifies me more than fearmongering and melodrama. Women's health is not in deep jeopardy. The federal guarantee to have an abortion is. There's a difference, particularly as only 14.6 out of 1000 women get abortions.

 

You do realize that the majority of people on this forum aren't US citizens, right?  <_< 

 

This will be a nomination hearing that will make Robert Bork's nomination hearing look like a day at Disneyland, and the stakes are much, much higher than just abortion. Whether people like it or not, this is how this system works. Check and balance. Tenth amendment. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. No President or Congress lasts forever, and it only seems like the Supreme Court does. 

 

And yes, I hate it when people say "breaking." It's the single most overused word on the internet right now. This is a deadpooling forum, not the fucking New York Times. Besides, rumor has been swirling for months that he would retire after this term. 

 

The Supreme Court has been conservative since 1971 - basically all of my life. Nixon started it by stacking the Court with Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. The Court still rarely outright reverses itself, particularly with flashpoint issues. It is feasible that the Court may whittle it away and make abortion more difficult to obtain, but it is unlikely to completely ban it - and reversing Roe v Wade would merely punt the issue to the states. This would serve to make California and New York vacation destinations of choice. 

 

Roe v Wade was basically a cheater's way of figuring out how to tie abortion to the Constitution so the federal government could have some say without violating the 10th amendment. Linking the issue of abortion to privacy and due process and clearly indicating the the "right" to an abortion was not unlimited and that there was a compelling interest from the state merely set the stage for the years and years and years of idiocy and bullshit we have endured. The trimester framework is clumsy and was later rejected by O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy in favor of undue burden, which isn't much better. It was inevitable that Roe v Wade would face a legitimate challenge, and to be honest I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. It's time to stop kicking the can down the road. 

 

Legally and constitutionally there is a lot wrong with the decision, and Wikipedia has a good analysis of it, but you have to read it without ideological blinders on.

 

There are far more important issues that a conservative Court may decide on ideology. Gerrymandering and voting rights would have far more reaching implications than abortion. Civil rights, particularly with the law enforcement involvement lately, could reverberate far more than abortion. Personally, I'm more interested in preventing people from being killed for being black than I am for fighting for abortion rights, and I am not anti-abortion. Of course, I'm also not pro-abortion. It simply has never been my priority, and for anyone to assume all US women must be either for or against abortion, or are single issue voters, is a bit disingenuous and insulting. 

 

You want to change the conservative tide in the United States? Really? Get your words off this forum full of people who have no say in the US system and use them to change this:

 

Capture.JPG.8ac5159e18f5d0c607984f718992f4da.JPG

US Census Bureau Current Population Survey (election trends 1984 - 2016).

 

This graph is a Republican's wet dream.

 

High points are presidential elections, low are midterms. Funny that it's the midterms that really have the most impact on US citizens as individuals but are when they are least likely to get off their asses and vote. As long as that purple line is above 50% and that blue line is below 50% there ain't gonna be any young person getting what they want. They give their power away in the name of apathy and ignorance. The older you get, the more likely you are to vote - and the older you are the more conservative you get. You vote to protect your interests. It's the actual majority of voters who get the grease. Kids have never understood this. We didn't when we were young adults, but the stakes weren't quite as high then. No one in Congress is going to look out for you when you don't vote as a block. The Baby Boomers are going to walk all over all of us. Ironically, they were quite liberal as youngsters.....but not any more.

 

The number of people, mostly young but some middle aged, who have told me they didn't vote in the 2016 presidential election because "I couldn't vote for Bernie" or "Bernie got cheated" blew my mind. I just thanked them for electing Trump - because that's exactly what they did.

I cannot pretend that I understand all of this, in context to a system that is alien to me but, fucking hell, that is probably the best post I have read on here for a fucking age and some more. An absolute fucking winner!☺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CarolAnn said:



. Gerrymandering and voting rights would have far more reaching implications than abortion. Civil rights, particularly with the law enforcement involvement lately, could reverberate far more than abortion. Personally, I'm more interested in preventing people from being killed for being black than I am for fighting for abortion rights, and I am not anti-abortion. Of course, I'm also not pro-abortion. It simply has never been my priority, and for anyone to assume all US women must be either for or against abortion, or are single issue voters, is a bit disingenuous and insulting. 

 

 

 

Capture.JPG.8ac5159e18f5d0c607984f718992f4da.JPG

US Census Bureau Current Population Survey (election trends 1984 - 2016).

 

I would've liked your post if it hadn't been for the part I just highlighted above.How are you walking away with the impression that cops are publicly executing black people when in reality blacks have killed more cops than cops killing blacks. And most of the incidents were often brought on by the criminal aggressors provoking the cops. What would you want the supreme court to do to prevent this? Rule that officers can't carry gun thus giving gangs,cartels and criminals in general a leg up over the police? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/06/2018 at 00:13, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

I'll attempt to make a brief post, unlike this one.

1. Fearmongering and melodrama it is not, genuine discomfort and worry over some of the most important issues in recent history it is. This next court will make new decisions on issues that either have already been resolved by the court and are being challenged again or are just now being introduced to the court. If this ignorance over the power the Supreme Court has, especially with a more conservative bench, helps you sleep at night, then so be it.

2. Yes, I know most are British, is that relevant? Not necessarily. 

3. Rumors swirl over every Justice and their possible retirement, especially older ones like Kennedy himself, and Clarence Thomas, who was also speculated to retire this year. This retirement was ultimately not expected, if he didn't retire in 2017, some analysts said he would probably either be a lifer or hang on for a few more years. This wasn't totally expected.

4. I don't disagree with you on abortion at all. I am pro-life myself, I just care about precedent, the court's integrity, and ultimately the safety of our country. Our President promised to appoint judges that seek to reverse Roe V. Wade, and this President isn't too keen on breaking promises, no matter how outrageous or damaging they are. Roe v. Wade is definitely in jeopardy, but as I said, if it helps you sleep at night. Of course not all women are pro-choice, I don't think that's up for debate. 

5. Not sure what voting demographics has to do with the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Despite younger voters consistently having lower turnout (you can't change that, young people simply don't care to vote largely because of GOP policies targeted at younger voters and minorities to prevent them from voting their asses out), a Republican hasn't won the popular vote since 2004, and before that, the last time it happened was 1988. Ultimately, the President makes a nomination to the court, and unless they want a constitutional crisis, the Congress will likely confirm any middle of the line nominee that's not batshit like Harriet Miers or Jeanine Pirro.

This debate is interesting, and you definitely have wiser words than mine. I'd be interested in transitioning this discussion over to our messages because I do think it's important, just not in the actual death part of the forum.

 

I don't do brief. Read it or not. No skin off my nose.

 

The Supreme Court reverses itself. Not often, but it does do so. The issue is the issue, not the precedent, if that makes any sense. Roe v Wade is a bad decision - this is why it has been challenged so much. It's like a weak animal in the middle of a pack of wild dingos. It will be overturned because the law it is rooted in is flawed. If women should be angry at anyone they should be angry at the Burger Court for being the first to bow to political pressure and render a decision that is so easily overturned. The issue will devolve to the states again and no amount of screaming about coat hanger abortions and back alleys is going to stop it. The US is based on English Common Law and that allowed abortion to the point of "quickening," or 14 - 16 weeks. There's the valid argument. Burger didn't use it. It won't matter because it isn't addressed in the Constitution, but there it is.

 

If you want to stick to precedent, we would still be under Plessy v Ferguson, the 3/5s law of the Constitution, legal slavery, no women's suffrage, League of Cities v Usery, Olmstead v United States, Betts v Brady, Baker v Nelson, and a host other really crappy, primarily political and social, decisions made by the court and the Constitutional Convention. You are not concerned with precedent per se. You are concerned with precedent on a specific issue. I understand that and I empathize, but I do not share your conviction that it is the end of the world if Roe v Wade is overturned. 

 

As far as the relevance of a primarily British audience being advised to call sitting US Senators? Most Senators have decided what to do or will decide soon after Trump announces his choice on the ninth. They are only going to pay lip service to their actual constituents. Why would you think 1) Senators are going to care a whit about people who can't vote in the US, or 2) anyone overseas is going to care about the US and its never ending self flagellation about abortion? 

 

Voting demographics have EVERYTHING to do with this. All the people who will appoint, vet, and approve or disapprove of this choice are elected. If you want things to go your way in Washington you have to put people who also want things your way in Washington. It's that simple. 

 

There are a couple of truisms here - Trump will put a conservative judge up for the court, there will be a bloodbath in the Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell will probably get his vote through by the midterm elections, and then we will see if anyone will pay a political price. My money is on no because the people who vote are getting what they want. 

 

There is something to remember about Supreme Court Justices - frequently you don't end up with what you think you are getting. I mean, Scalia wrote in the majority decision for Texas v Johnson.

 

You might want to pull back the idea of constitutional crisis if they Senate doesn't want someone and take a look at the hearings for Robert Bork. They were horrible, but there was no crisis. The Senate made it crystal clear he was unacceptable to them and Kennedy was nominated to take his place. Again, no crisis. The Senate did their job. There were similarities to today, except that Reagan was dealing with a oppositional Senate and a candidate who was tarred by Nixon.

 

Roe v Wade most likely won't be overturned next Court term - there has to be a case to overturn it on and that takes a while - but what there may be out there will be fast tracked through and I would say not this Court term but the next. Anyone who thinks it will survive needs to take a look at my property with an ocean view in Arizona. Good price. Easy terms. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I abhor the idea of a pile of elderly white males deciding what a female can/cannot do with her body or police medical procedures thereon, I wholeheartedly agree that Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but simply on the fact that the holding in that case was the judiciary creating a law that wasn't before it.  You'll need to review the case, I won't bother here.  Suffice the SCOTUS's decision violated the separation of powers, period.   I don't feel this is the place to bloviate about abortion rights or right to life.   So long as any version of SCOTUS comes to the conclusion they are overturning it on procedural/Constitutional grounds, that's fine.  The minute they say the State's interest in preserving life outweighs that of the woman's, particularly the first trimester, we part ways.  That is the job for Congress.
SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony Filosa, a retired California state judge who made multiple appearances on the TV documentary series 'Nathan For You' and who had a multi-day run as a champion on the U.S. game show 'Press Your Luck' has died.  He was 78.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert H. Traurig, the co-founder of Greenberg Traurig, the current 9th largest law firm in the United States, has died.  He was 93.

 

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/07/17/greenberg-traurig-co-founder-legal-titan-robert-h-traurig-has-died/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&slreturn=20180617165239

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use