SCOTUS Decisions

posted by CenterBHSFan

hah! You really do want to watch the world burn, eh?

Oh, this this time around will be epic.  Let the bra burning begin. 

Some great tweets to look back at. 

"This gridlock has not served the cause of justice ... It's undermined it." —President Obama, supporting filibuster reform in the Senate

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 22, 2013

Whoa. In 2013, Reid asked if he was worried GOP could change filibuster on #SCOTUS. His response: "Let 'em do it" https://t.co/OG3sL0QM8Z pic.twitter.com/st8g1T698I

— America Rising (@ARSquared) April 4, 2017

Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013

This one also brought the lulz.

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1012094912374943744

Trump will appoint someone in the mold of Gorsuch, (who if we’re being honest is NOT a hardcore conservative) and the democrats will pitch a minor tantrum...but in the end will be powerless to stop confirmation.

Justice Gowdy sounds good to me.  

It won't happen but I would love it.

posted by superman

Justice Gowdy sounds good to me.  

 

It won't happen but I would love it.

I actually like Trey Gowdy, so that wouldn't bother me. Some say that he's been grooming for AG, but ... either way.

posted by CenterBHSFan

For those of you who don't get on Twitter much, if ever, here's what is commonly being said right now:

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1012033875466506253

Reading through that thread was fun. This tweet in particular:

I've seen that Mike Lee is on a list as a potential justice. Wouldn't mind that.

posted by justincredible

Reading through that thread was fun. This tweet in particular:

Read thru the thread from the Reid and Obama tweets I posted.  Highly entertaining.

It's just like all of those people and celebrities who said that they were going to leave the US when/if/because Trump got elected. Their asses didn't go nowhere. It's the spastic vomitage of a disordered, ill and immature mind. 
I'm not really sure who they are trying to impress with these empty ultimatums. Even the people who like these tweets or even retweet them know that it's an empty statement and they're not going anywhere, either. Perhaps they believe that this will influence policy? I dunno...

Amazing how little people know about how the court works. They just don't say "We're going to overturn Roe v. Wade (or Heller or whatever)" out of thin air. They rule on cases. Usually with a very fine-tip pen, they don't tend to be interested in reversing course in major ways, nor should they be. The screeching over a SCOTUS change is WAY over the top.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Amazing how little people know about how the court works. They just don't say "We're going to overturn Roe v. Wade (or Heller or whatever)" out of thin air. They rule on cases. Usually with a very fine-tip pen, they don't tend to be interested in reversing course in major ways, nor should they be. The screeching over a SCOTUS change is WAY over the top.

 

 

This.  Not to mention how difficult it is to get the SCOTUS to hear your case.

posted by like_that

This.  Not to mention how difficult it is to get the SCOTUS to hear your case.

Right, and the lower courts generally need to find a legal challenge or exception to precedent, and then higher courts have to agree.  Or multiple cases that have a difference of opinion throughout different district courts.

And I don't know that there has been many cases that actually threaten Roe v. Wade to even come close to the SCOTUS.  I hope so, though, because it would finally put an end to "OLD WHITE MEN WANT TO TAKE YOUR ABORTIONS AWAY!!!!"

I read a Huffpo article that recommended the dems to stack the courts and change the amount of justices from 9 to 11 LOL.  A few reasons why this is laughable at best:

-Pick up a history book, this already was tried by FDR and he was shot down.

-This would currently favor the GOP, soooo.....

-Who is tyrannical again?

-Apparently the Huffpo hasn't learned their lesson from this current situation.  Changing the rules in your favor and benefit your agenda will eventually be used against you. 

When you are that unhinged, sound logic goes out of the window. 

posted by like_that

I read a Huffpo article that recommended the dems to stack the courts and change the amount of justices from 9 to 11 LOL.  A few reasons why this is laughable at best:

-Pick up a history book, this already was tried by FDR and he was shot down.

-This would currently favor the GOP, soooo.....

-Who is tyrannical again?

-Apparently the Huffpo hasn't learned their lesson from this current situation.  Changing the rules in your favor and benefit your agenda will eventually be used against you. 

 

When you are that unhinged, sound logic goes out of the window. 

Yeah, I heard that too and just laughed and said, "Umm FDR tried that and failed..."Come on. 

posted by gut

Right, and the lower courts generally need to find a legal challenge or exception to precedent, and then higher courts have to agree.  Or multiple cases that have a difference of opinion throughout different district courts.

And I don't know that there has been many cases that actually threaten Roe v. Wade to even come close to the SCOTUS.  I hope so, though, because it would finally put an end to "OLD WHITE MEN WANT TO TAKE YOUR ABORTIONS AWAY!!!!"

I've read more and more the end of Roe v. Wade will be death by a 1000 cuts. Roberts does not want to go down as overturning it, rather that to just not hear or uphold more and more restrictions that states pass. 

I also don't think Trump goes full anti Roe v. Wade in his nominee as he needs the two women Rs in the Senate who both back Roe v. Wade. 

On a sidenote, Kennedy retiring also pretty much kills any challenge to partisan based gerrymandering cases. He was the real driver for the court to hear them. Fivethirtyeight had a good podcast and series on the complexities of those cases. Pretty interesting as both parties use it to maintain control. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I've read more and more the end of Roe v. Wade will be death by a 1000 cuts. Roberts does not want to go down as overturning it, rather that to just not hear or uphold more and more restrictions that states pass. 

I also don't think Trump goes full anti Roe v. Wade in his nominee as he needs the two women Rs in the Senate who both back Roe v. Wade. 

 

On a sidenote, Kennedy retiring also pretty much kills any challenge to partisan based gerrymandering cases. He was the real driver for the court to hear them. Fivethirtyeight had a good podcast and series on the complexities of those cases. Pretty interesting as both parties use it to maintain control. 

This is why I can see them going with Senator Mike Lee.

Also, just speculation from what I have read, but the feeling is Kennedy retired instead of waiting it out, because Roberts gave him word he won't overturn gay marriage (his legacy) or Roe V Wade.

People still going full freak out mode over this Justice retiring. Hell, he's 81, why not retire? Damn, I'd have retired long before 81 if it were me haha!

posted by CenterBHSFan

People still going full freak out mode over this Justice retiring. Hell, he's 81, why not retire? Damn, I'd have retired long before 81 if it were me haha!

I'd be curious about examples of 1) the makeup of the court shifting politically closely followed by 2) a ruling that reversed (not tweaked at the edges, but actually reversed) a landmark decision.

As predicted, Schumer is looking pretty stupid today for filibustering Gorsuch.