SCOTUS: How did we get here, and where are we going?

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I'm curious, what are your fears with Kavanaugh being voted in?

Mine are three fold. I think he will make rulings that will further degrade worker protections, the environment and further empower the imperial presidency which is part of my second fear.  He is a political strategist and his decision making will be coordinated with the GOP and will be less about rule of law.  Finally the dude is an obvious beer drinking alchy.  I disagree with the first but that is a policy bias.  The later two I believe especially the second disqualifies him from the bench.  Alcoholism is personal and goes to his credibility... the guy needs help.

Edited October 5, 2018 by North Buffalo

[Randall Flagg]

Ah yes, Nazi Germany. 

Kavanaugh stuff aside, I want to refrain from SC nominations from the political left for now, as they're the ones I view as the biggest threat to the proper role of the SC in America. It's just an extension of the legislature in their eyes, it seems. 

Trump's SC choices and their rigidly constitutionalist principles are the best thing about his presidency. 

After watching all of this, if he gets to choose RBG's replacement.. what will the reaction be to Amy Barrett? That seat's probably more critical, no? 

[Sabel79]

4 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

Mine are three fold. I think he will make rulings that will further degrade worker protections, the environment and further empower the imperial presidency which is part of my second fear.  He is a political strategist and his decision making will be coordinated with the GOP and will be less about rule of law.  Finally the dude is an obvious beer drinking alchy.  I disagree with the first but that is a policy bias.  The later two I believe especially the second disqualifies him from the bench.  Alcoholism is personal and goes to his credibility... the guy needs help.

Pretty much what NB says.  He'll reliably come down against the interests of labor, women, the environment... but Trump could have nominated any one of dozens of others who would do the same thing.  

What makes Kavanaugh dangerous is what he represents.  Dude is clearly dirty as hell in all sorts of respects.  His finances needed a better look, but whatever.  The rapey dudebro stuff is equally troubling , and the focus on it and his subsequent torrent of perjury in defense of himself was pathetic.  Normal sane people do not keep alabi calendars for almost 40 years, nor do they have prearranged lists of all sorts of women they've never raped.  But whatever.  He's Trump's guy, because he'll never vote to impose consequences on anything Trump does.  End of.  

It's bold-faced politization of the judiciary.  Once everyone is free to believe that the Supreme Court, and every other court, is simply acting upon political bias, then the inevitable march forward of fascism may continue unimpeeded.  We'll be lucky to have an election at all in 2020, and I am not kidding.  

[Sabel79]

6 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Ah yes, Nazi Germany. 

Kavanaugh stuff aside, I want to refrain from SC nominations from the political left for now, as they're the ones I view as the biggest threat to the proper role of the SC in America. It's just an extension of the legislature in their eyes, it seems. 

Trump's SC choices and their rigidly constitutionalist principles are the best thing about his presidency. 

After watching all of this, if he gets to choose RBG's replacement.. what will the reaction be to Amy Barrett? That seat's probably more critical, no? 

I mean, whatever helps you sleep at night, but the objective reality of the similarity between the two situations can not be ignored.  Or else, you know... 

Out of curiosity, what's is your idea of the proper role of the Supreme Court?  If I had either the time or energy I'd lay out why the reactionary right are actually producing the judicial activists...

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

I mean, whatever helps you sleep at night, but the objective reality of the similarity between the two situations can not be ignored.  Or else, you know... 

Out of curiosity, what's is your idea of the proper role of the Supreme Court?  If I had either the time or energy I'd lay out why the reactionary right are actually producing the judicial activists...

I don't believe America could ever turn into Nazi Germany. 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

I don't believe America could ever turn into Nazi Germany. 

I believe you think that.

I, again, thank god for civil rights attorneys and the second amendment.

 

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I believe you think that.

I, again, thank god for civil rights attorneys and the second amendment.

 

Both of which will ensure it never happens, you shouldn't be worried about it either. 

[Sabel79]

15 minutes ago, Hank said:

I don't believe America could ever turn into Nazi Germany. 

Neither did most Germans in 1930. Wait, that doesn’t make sense... they didn’t think Germany would turn into Nazi Germany, obviously... 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Sabel79

[Hank]

Just now, Sabel79 said:

Neither did most Germans in 1930. 

This isn't 1930. Different world. 

[Sabel79]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

This isn't 1930. Different world. 

And yet it looks sooooooo similar in many important respects.

[Hank]

52 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

And yet it looks sooooooo similar in many important respects.

It really doesn't. Not even a little bit. 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Sabel79 said:

Neither did most Germans in 1930. Wait, that doesn’t make sense... they didn’t think Germany would turn into Nazi Germany, obviously... 

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean. When you say Nazi Germany I think of the military going door to door looking for minority races to exterminate and invading our neighbors to the north and south in persuit of world domination. Is this what you mean or am i misunderstanding you?

[Sabel79]

25 minutes ago, Hank said:

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean. When you say Nazi Germany I think of the military going door to door looking for minority races to exterminate and invading our neighbors to the north and south in persuit of world domination. Is this what you mean or am i misunderstanding you?

You are quite dilebritely misunderstanding.  I never once said Nazis until another poster brought it up. It’s pretty well implied, but whatever. I want this fascist regime to disappear.  The electorate will not do this for us, because.  This I understand and accept, though it be evil. 

We are in for a long period of darkness, borne of the indifference of many young people but mostly gerrymandering and conserving cr attempts to limit the right to vote.   It the minority (white conservatives) will shed not a tear... 

[Eleven]

Kavanaugh's main flaw is that he will vote in favor of expanding the power of the executive branch.  That's a problem regardless of who is president.

[Hank]

54 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Kavanaugh's main flaw is that he will vote in favor of expanding the power of the executive branch.  That's a problem regardless of who is president.

Agreed. However, I don't believe Roe v Wade gets overturned, which seems to be a concern amongst the left. 

[Eleven]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

Agreed. However, I don't believe Roe v Wade gets overturned, which seems to be a concern amongst the left. 

Roe v. Wade gets way too much attention from both the right and the left.

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Roe v. Wade gets way too much attention from both the right and the left.

Again, agreed. 

[LTS]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Kavanaugh's main flaw is that he will vote in favor of expanding the power of the executive branch.  That's a problem regardless of who is president.

Couldn't it be said that the executive branch has been expanding power through the use of executive orders and that's gone unchecked for decades?

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

Couldn't it be said that the executive branch has been expanding power through the use of executive orders and that's gone unchecked for decades?

Fair point. 

[JujuFish]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Agreed. However, I don't believe Roe v Wade gets overturned, which seems to be a concern amongst the left. 

I could see it getting overturned in a manner that would leave it up to individual states to decide legality.  Aside from marijuana, conservatives tend to be pretty strong on states rights.

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, JujuFish said:

I could see it getting overturned in a manner that would leave it up to individual states to decide legality.  Aside from marijuana, conservatives tend to be pretty strong on states rights.

Possible, but I don't think Roberts would let it happen. 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

Couldn't it be said that the executive branch has been expanding power through the use of executive orders and that's gone unchecked for decades?

Absolutely.  Let's not make it even worse.

20 minutes ago, JujuFish said:

I could see it getting overturned in a manner that would leave it up to individual states to decide legality.  Aside from marijuana, conservatives tend to be pretty strong on states rights.

I've always wondered why we needed a Constitutional amendment to override states' rights on alcohol, but not on  marijuana.  One of these days, I'll do the research.  Aside from that, conservatives are "states rights" when it suits them and at no other time.  If you need other examples of conservatives trampling all over states rights, I'm happy to provide.  Maybe that's it's own thread though.

[Weave]

4 hours ago, Eleven said:

Kavanaugh's main flaw is that he will vote in favor of expanding the power of the executive branch.  That's a problem regardless of who is president.

I fear that the checks and balances role of the three branches are nearly completely eliminated at this point.  This is a continuation of consolidation of power over good governance.

[TrueBlueGED]

16 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Ah yes, Nazi Germany. 

Kavanaugh stuff aside, I want to refrain from SC nominations from the political left for now, as they're the ones I view as the biggest threat to the proper role of the SC in America. It's just an extension of the legislature in their eyes, it seems. 

Trump's SC choices and their rigidly constitutionalist principles are the best thing about his presidency. 

After watching all of this, if he gets to choose RBG's replacement.. what will the reaction be to Amy Barrett? That seat's probably more critical, no? 

I'm the 90s, Brett Kavanaugh was part of a team trying to get enough on Clinton for an indictment. When working in the Bush White House, he authored memos on why the president can't be indicted. He as asked why during his confirmation hearing. His response as to why he changed? 9/11. That's not even loosely constitutionalist, let alone rigidly. 

I think what drives me up a wall whenever the courts come up is the delusion that conservative judges don't legislate from the bench, and that somehow they are immutable robots who have a superhuman ability to keep their own political views out of their jurisprudence. 

It's important to recognize there are no textualists on the Court. Even the most conservative can best be characterized as originalists, but as soon as you move away from what the Constitution literally says, any attempt to interpret intent is filled with politics. 

[TrueBlueGED]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

Agreed. However, I don't believe Roe v Wade gets overturned, which seems to be a concern amongst the left. 

I'd be shocked if Roe is directly and explicitly overturned, a la Brown overturning Plessy. What is far more likely is that the Court just interprets "undue burden" extremely loosely and lets states restrict abortion access as to make it de facto illegal.