Two Trump Justices

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:43 pm

That's the same judicial impact as Barry got.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:10 pm

Waitbutwhy had an entertaining article a while back about how every president gets two.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:42 pm

It's pretty hard to argue that the SCOTUS hasn't given conservatives the best half week they've had in a long time.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:50 pm

Yup, big day.

If I were Trump, I'd celebrate with a room full of hookers.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:08 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:50 pm Yup, big day.

If I were Trump, I'd celebrate with a room full of hookers.

The biggest winners might be Republican candidates at the state and national level and states trying to find ways to balance their budgets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/p ... labor.html

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:10 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:42 pmIt's pretty hard to argue that the SCOTUS hasn't given conservatives the best half week they've had in a long time.

Shyah.

https://washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix ... l-to-trump

This is the moment Republicans have been eyeing since they broke with long-running precedent and used bogus justifications to blockade Merrick Garland's nomination in the last year of Barack Obama's presidency.
That maneuver — however ugly and unseemly and however much damage it might have done the GOP had the chips not fallen so right — has now entirely paid off. They got to replace Garland with a more conservative nominee in Neil M. Gorsuch, keeping the court with roughly the same balance as when Antonin Scalia was on the court. Now they get to shift it to the right by replacing its regular swing vote, Kennedy, with a conservative nominee. (This assumes they can get a bare majority in the Senate, where Republicans have 51 votes.)
The result is that more-conservative chief justice John G. Roberts Jr. is likely to be the new fulcrum of the court rather than the more-moderate Kennedy.

Whatever one personally thinks about Conservative vs "Liberal" judges, I think it's clear that it's bad for the Republic that the Garland gambit paid off. I mean it's bad precedent; gives future Senates cover to decide that the opposition president just isn't "qualified" to nominate justices for the Court.

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:12 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:08 pmThe biggest winners might be Republican candidates at the state and national level and states trying to find ways to balance their budgets.

No reason to stop there. Thomas & Gursuch have already signaled their willingness to overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:37 pm

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:10 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:42 pmIt's pretty hard to argue that the SCOTUS hasn't given conservatives the best half week they've had in a long time.
Shyah.

https://washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix ... l-to-trump
This is the moment Republicans have been eyeing since they broke with long-running precedent and used bogus justifications to blockade Merrick Garland's nomination in the last year of Barack Obama's presidency.
That maneuver — however ugly and unseemly and however much damage it might have done the GOP had the chips not fallen so right — has now entirely paid off. They got to replace Garland with a more conservative nominee in Neil M. Gorsuch, keeping the court with roughly the same balance as when Antonin Scalia was on the court. Now they get to shift it to the right by replacing its regular swing vote, Kennedy, with a conservative nominee. (This assumes they can get a bare majority in the Senate, where Republicans have 51 votes.)
The result is that more-conservative chief justice John G. Roberts Jr. is likely to be the new fulcrum of the court rather than the more-moderate Kennedy.
Whatever one personally thinks about Conservative vs "Liberal" judges, I think it's clear that it's bad for the Republic that the Garland gambit paid off. I mean it's bad precedent; gives future Senates cover to decide that the opposition president just isn't "qualified" to nominate justices for the Court.

It's all part of the great dismantling of our nation. Much like Harry Reid's nuclear option.

I've been pondering the SC's most recent decision. Law is supposed to be LAW and we purportedly have the best and the brightest on the SC. Yet, there are so many 5-4 decisions.

I suspect that if we substituted the current SC system & procedures with a system where we took 4 average liberals, 4 average conservatives, and one swing voter, that the end results would be similar to what the esteemed Supremes come up with. In fact, the decisions might be better.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:37 am

And the cell tower decision-- which should be making our libertarian minded members happy-- is not insignificant either. To be honest, the last few decision seem like libertarians are the big winners here (despite not really supporting either Donald or Hillary)

Hanglow Joe · Post by **Hanglow Joe** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:48 am

I'm already tired of the Democrats whining about how it wasn't fair that Garland didn't get a hearing. Why should Trump's next appointment

Here's what the Constitution says:
Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Advice and Consent is the key piece. McConnell felt it wasn't a good appointment, and decided not to allow a hearing.

Harry Reid is to blame with the nuclear option, all McConnell did was enforce an already set precedent.

All Trump does is win. He could get a third shot as well.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:16 pm

Hanglow Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:48 amAdvice and Consent is the key piece. McConnell felt it wasn't a good appointment, and decided not to allow a hearing.

That's not McConnell's job to decide if it is a good appointment or not, neither by the rules that McConnell follows nor by the reasoning he gave us. There is a process for that. Committee then Senate.

I get it. It was just raw politics with a veneer of correctness laid on top. Just don't bullshit a bullshitter, so to speak.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:25 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:16 pm
Hanglow Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:48 amAdvice and Consent is the key piece. McConnell felt it wasn't a good appointment, and decided not to allow a hearing.
That's not McConnell's job to decide if it is a good appointment or not, neither by the rules that McConnell follows nor by the reasoning he gave us. There is a process for that. Committee then Senate.

I get it. It was just raw politics with a veneer of correctness laid on top. Just don't bullshit a bullshitter, so to speak.

Actually it is his responsibility, although it is also raw politics-- it was a pretty massive bet (considering Hillary was expected to win the election and Dems had a good chance of taking the Senate) that could have gone very badly for Republicans. At least they didn't bork Garland.

Dems messed up by not packing the benches during 2008-2010, and they know it. Republicans are trying not to make the same mistake.

powerlifter54 · Post by **powerlifter54** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:01 pm

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:22 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:25 pm
nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:16 pm
Hanglow Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:48 amAdvice and Consent is the key piece. McConnell felt it wasn't a good appointment, and decided not to allow a hearing.
That's not McConnell's job to decide if it is a good appointment or not, neither by the rules that McConnell follows nor by the reasoning he gave us. There is a process for that. Committee then Senate.

I get it. It was just raw politics with a veneer of correctness laid on top. Just don't bullshit a bullshitter, so to speak.
Actually it is his responsibility, although it is also raw politics

It's not. This is new and it's obviously not good unless you are a pure partisan. When the power balance tips the other way, there will be arguments to immediately add 2-4 more Justices to the court, which will be raw politics but hey here we are.

Hanglow Joe · Post by **Hanglow Joe** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:16 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:22 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:25 pm
nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:16 pm
Hanglow Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:48 amAdvice and Consent is the key piece. McConnell felt it wasn't a good appointment, and decided not to allow a hearing.
That's not McConnell's job to decide if it is a good appointment or not, neither by the rules that McConnell follows nor by the reasoning he gave us. There is a process for that. Committee then Senate.

I get it. It was just raw politics with a veneer of correctness laid on top. Just don't bullshit a bullshitter, so to speak.
Actually it is his responsibility, although it is also raw politics
It's not. This is new and it's obviously not good unless you are a pure partisan. When the power balance tips the other way, there will be arguments to immediately add 2-4 more Justices to the court, which will be raw politics but hey here we are.

I agree there should be some balance. However, both sides don't see it that way. So because it is so partisan and on strict lines, everyone suffers. As a Republican and Trump fan, it's working toward my benefit. But that doesn't mean I don't agree on balance. The day you stop listening or trying to understand someone else's values and belief systems, is the day you get dumber.

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:22 pmWhen the power balance tips the other way, there will be arguments to immediately add 2-4 more Justices to the court

My wife suggested that yesterday. I had no counterargument.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:46 pm

We only need one...

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:59 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:22 pm
Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:25 pm
nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:16 pm
Hanglow Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:48 amAdvice and Consent is the key piece. McConnell felt it wasn't a good appointment, and decided not to allow a hearing.
That's not McConnell's job to decide if it is a good appointment or not, neither by the rules that McConnell follows nor by the reasoning he gave us. There is a process for that. Committee then Senate.

I get it. It was just raw politics with a veneer of correctness laid on top. Just don't bullshit a bullshitter, so to speak.
Actually it is his responsibility, although it is also raw politics
It's not. This is new and it's obviously not good unless you are a pure partisan. When the power balance tips the other way, there will be arguments to immediately add 2-4 more Justices to the court, which will be raw politics but hey here we are.

Actually it is. The legislative branch's influence has been declining since FDR; their influence over the composition of the judiciary is probably their greatest weapon (as Reagan, Teddy, and Teddy's handler [Andropov] most likely recognized).

I find it interesting that, during the probably most consequential week of the Trump presidency, a SCOTUS ruling on the travel ban might be the least important thing that happened.

The Ginger Beard Man · Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:52 pm

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:33 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:22 pmWhen the power balance tips the other way, there will be arguments to immediately add 2-4 more Justices to the court
My wife suggested that yesterday. I had no counterargument.

It was a bad idea in 1937 and it’s a bad idea now.
But these days, naked power grabs seem more acceptable all around.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:16 pm

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:52 pm
JimZipCode wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:33 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:22 pmWhen the power balance tips the other way, there will be arguments to immediately add 2-4 more Justices to the court
My wife suggested that yesterday. I had no counterargument.
It was a bad idea in 1937 and it’s a bad idea now.
But these days, naked power grabs seem more acceptable all around.

It's like our brilliant legislators, and many pundits, can't think beyond the next election cycle. Maybe they just have to pander to the base at all times to keep from getting primaried out of a job.

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:39 pm

He'll probably find someone who resonates with his fascist thinking. Confiscate guns first, "due process later", that sort of thing.

IGX

Two Trump Justices

Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices

Re: Two Trump Justices