SCOTUS Vacancy

January 28th, 2022 at 10:07:59 AM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 51
Posts: 4944
Quote: ams288
Sounds like a good argument for expanding the court!


I think both sides would be okay with expanding the court as long as they get to make the appointments.
At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a detrrent.
January 28th, 2022 at 10:33:00 AM permalink
terapined
Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 73
Posts: 11786
Quote: DRich
I think both sides would be okay with expanding the court as long as they get to make the appointments.

I'm ok with 9 judges as long as they aren't religious nuts regarding abortion
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World"
January 28th, 2022 at 11:16:40 AM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
Quote: terapined
We need a diverse court
When the Supreme Court was made of just White men
They made some of the worst decisions courts have ever made in the history of mankind
How can you deny Black people the vote for over a 100 years.
How can you deny Women the right to vote for over a hundred years
The history of the Supreme Court has been awful due to lack of diversity.


Not due to "lack of diversity."

It's just the way it was back then, fundamentally.

USSC should, logically, reflect the will of the people and until fairly recently around most of the world there has been desegregation and lack or women's suffrage; heck, slavery was common as well.

"Just the way it was."

Life was physically harder, and without birth control families were bigger: dad worked, mom raised the kids.

As our society evolves over time things change, and much like a flower after the blush of morning light it slowly opens up its petals.
January 28th, 2022 at 11:30:25 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: missedhervee


USSC should, logically, reflect the will of the people and until fairly recently around most of the world there has been desegregation and lack or women's suffrage; heck, slavery was common as well.


No, no, no, no, no.

The court should rule ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CASE. "Will of the people" has nothing to do with it.

I do not know that it ever ruled on slavery in general but if slavery was allowed by the Constitution, or not prohibited by it, then it would have to uphold it. Same as any court.

Ever see "The Star Chamber?" Might be before your time but you might want to watch. Michael Douglas is a judge and has to make rulings he does not like but they are in line with what the higher courts ruled.

We have too many judges making law from the bench in the USA. Last thing we need is activist judges on SCOTUS.
The President is a fink.
January 28th, 2022 at 11:53:46 AM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
AZD, oddly enough I agree that the court SHOULD rule on the constitutionality of the case, but alas and alack that is not how it works in reality.

"Stare decisis" or "follow legal precedent" is but a weak theme in law today.

Oh sure, for "cookie cutter" situations it is easy enough to follow the beaten path, but simple cases such as divorce or trover are not what the USSC typically hears.

Many of the cases they choose to consider are very political in nature and as such the courts feel they have carte blanche to call it the way they see it, stare decisis be damned.

For a current example of such spotty thinking consider the upcoming abortion case: it is quite likely that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade based on the republicans packing the court with republican jurists.

Their vote will reflect current republican thinking that abortion is bad and should be limited; the reason it was allowed in Roe v. Wade is because the liberal majority felt it was time for political change.

Nothing has "changed" in the USA since Roe v Wade came out except the political landscape: there is no basis in fact to warrant change, but it can and probably will happen due solely to political, not legal concerns.

This is probably not what the Founding Fathers envisioned but too bad: the judges on the USSC realize that there is no appeal from their decision, and they've been put in power by a political party that expects them to tow the line, and most do.

The term "constitutional law" has become a polite euphaeism for toilet paper.
January 28th, 2022 at 12:20:01 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: missedhervee
AZD, oddly enough I agree that the court SHOULD rule on the constitutionality of the case, but alas and alack that is not how it works in reality.


Yes, the gay marriage decision shows this.

Many of the cases they choose to consider are very political in nature and as such the courts feel they have carte blanche to call it the way they see it, stare decisis be damned.

For a current example of such spotty thinking consider the upcoming abortion case: it is quite likely that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade based on the republicans packing the court with republican jurists.

First, the court was not "packed with Republican jurists." There is no party on the court. GOP appointees tend to more strictly rule and not "invent" rights the way justices appointed by Democrats do. Second, the people whining that Roe cannot be overturned ignore that if that was the standard we would not have a SCOTUS rule that school segregation was unconstitutional.

Quote:
Their vote will reflect current republican thinking that abortion is bad and should be limited; the reason it was allowed in Roe v. Wade is because the liberal majority felt it was time for political change.

Nothing has "changed" in the USA since Roe v Wade came out except the political landscape: there is no basis in fact to warrant change, but it can and probably will happen due solely to political, not legal concerns.


And that is a sign of a bad ruling. The ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, not the court saying, "abortion is more acceptable so lets say it needs to be legal." The court needs to rule based on the Constitution. If the ruling does not "fit the politics" then the court has to say, "This is what the law is, you do not like it then go legislate!"

Brown v Board of Education was around 50 years after Plessy v Fergusson. Roe has been the ruling that drives everything else for......about 50 years! Might very well be time to revisit if the court ruled right back then.
The President is a fink.
January 28th, 2022 at 4:54:46 PM permalink
JCW09
Member since: Aug 27, 2018
Threads: 12
Posts: 847
Quote: missedhervee
For a current example of such spotty thinking consider the upcoming abortion case: it is quite likely that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade based on the republicans packing the court with republican jurists.

Their vote will reflect current republican thinking that abortion is bad and should be limited; the reason it was allowed in Roe v. Wade is because the liberal majority felt it was time for political change.

Nothing has "changed" in the USA since Roe v Wade came out except the political landscape: there is no basis in fact to warrant change, but it can and probably will happen due solely to political, not legal concerns.

Could it be that the original decision in Roe v. Wade lacked Constitutional basis?
The fact that the liberal majority decided it was "time for a change" doesn't really hold up under the law?
If by Roe v. Wade being overturned, you mean putting the decision back in the hands of the State Legislatures,
I think that is possible and probably the right answer.

I don't think there is a massive public support to outright ban abortions.
Sure news organizations predict that X number of states would ban, but even the Texas law has a 6 week timeframe.
I think that is too short a fuse & my guess is even states like Texas back away from that and install 10-15 week limits.

Mississippi Law provides for 15 weeks to terminate the pregnancy, not sure too many women need more than that.
At 15 weeks that "clump of cells" looks a hell of a lot like a baby human being.
I think Roe is based on survivability outside the womb, which is more like 20-22 weeks.
Anyone that believes in terminating a pregnancy after 22 weeks is out of their f'ing minds.
Or on daily meds for anxiety, you know the type?
They think they are the authority on who needs to "get some help".
When they're the ones relying on daily pharmaceuticals to hold their own $hit together, what a joke, but I digress.

Like vaccine mandates, I struggle to find authority for the feds to get involved in abortion laws.
This is another state issue that the feds decided under a weak ass privacy argument that they had authority to legislate.
A bad SCOTUS decision in the 70's agreed with them.
The SCOTUS has gone against Stare Decisis before when bad opinions were made by previous benches.
Unless you think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided, you know full well Stare Decisis is not the end all be all.
But that doesn't mean you disregard the text of The Constitution when making your decision.
Interestingly enough, there was 54 years between the Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. BOE decisions.
It has been 50 years since that bad decision in Roe v. Wade back in 1972. Coincidence?

We'll find out what the SCOTUS decides over the summer.
Along with deciding that certain state gun regulations infringe on 2A and rolling them back.
Ten round magazines, when the "common use" Glock 17 was designed to hold 17+1, give it up already!
It is going to be a great year for an American rejection of big government & The Dems Socialism Agenda.
SCOTUS wins over the summer followed by a Democratic shellacking come November.
Probably drive the weak minded to have to "get some help" & likley some stronger Rx's. LMAO
Def. of Liar - "A Person Who Tells Lies" / "I lied. Deal with it" - ams288
January 28th, 2022 at 4:57:34 PM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
Roe v Wade is a perfect example of politics trumping established law.

The Supremes felt a change was necessary to reflect the then prevailing mood of the people and acted accordingly.

Just as abortion was therein blessed, so may that blessing be taken away.

It's all politics masquerading as law.

I'd say "There ougthta be a law" but ...
January 28th, 2022 at 5:23:16 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
I wonder if this conservative court will get back to putting religion, prayer back into government and schools, and erecting ten commandment monuments on government property?
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
January 28th, 2022 at 5:50:12 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: missedhervee
Roe v Wade is a perfect example of politics trumping established law.

The Supremes felt a change was necessary to reflect the then prevailing mood of the people and acted accordingly.

Just as abortion was therein blessed, so may that blessing be taken away.

It's all politics masquerading as law.

I'd say "There ougthta be a law" but ...


Abortion is literally a one issue vote for quite a few. In other words, some people will vote on that over whatever issues they support. I expect the Republicans to be punished if the court overturns abortion. Whether it's enough to change outcomes of any elections though, I don't know.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?