The Supreme Court may be firmly in Republican ideology for a good while.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/03/republicans-just-quietly-got-some-very-good-supreme-court-news/
What kind of impact do you expect this to have?
@horgen: Sure, whatever you've got, really. It's all fair game as far as I'm concerned.
Some of the SC court cases take years to get through the system, and I'm sure some users on here are more in tune with what may or may not be coming down the pipe.
Given Gorsuch's recent opinions (and the fact that Kennedy was considered the primary swing vote in such cases) I at least consider it bad news for future social conservative/progressive cases.
Long term implications that are not good for the regular US citizen?
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
Long term implications that are not good for the regular US citizen?
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
Indeed, Scalia's idea that the constitution changes and grows over time was genius :P
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
Indeed, Scalia's idea that the constitution changes and grows over time was genius :P
Jacanuk lost any ounce of credibility he had with that post, lol
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
Indeed, Scalia's idea that the constitution changes and grows over time was genius :P
Jacanuk lost any ounce of credibility he had with that post, lol
It's amazing how much he projects onto people. If someone is disliked by the left he will love them, but when asked what he likes about them he will always reveal that he has no idea who that person even is. It's a thing of beauty.
Long term implications that are not good for the regular US citizen?
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
How would a clear rightward swing (or leftward) in the SC be positive for this country?
Are you so embroiled in party politics that this is actually good news?
Long term implications that are not good for the regular US citizen?
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
Indeed, Scalia's idea that the constitution changes and grows over time was genius :P
Ehmm, you clearly got that wrong. But nice try Toast, you planning on going on the road with that act?
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
Indeed, Scalia's idea that the constitution changes and grows over time was genius :P
Jacanuk lost any ounce of credibility he had with that post, lol
It's amazing how much he projects onto people. If someone is disliked by the left he will love them, but when asked what he likes about them he will always reveal that he has no idea who that person even is. It's a thing of beauty.
I always find it funny how you and blue loves to turn personal. It´s like debating with a 5year old kid who can´t understand candy before dinner is not good.
But at least you are save in the uk right Toast. oh no wait i guess you most be crying now the uk is going ahead with brexit.
Long term implications that are not good for the regular US citizen?
Opposite. The more conservative justices like Scalia tend to be more in tune with the letter of the law and not in favor of letting justices be lawmakers.
But good news, Kennedy and Ginsburg are both well past their prime.
How would a clear rightward swing (or leftward) in the SC be positive for this country?
Are you so embroiled in party politics that this is actually good news?
How? well opposite liberal justices , the conservatives are more in tune with the constitution and get that there is a separation of power.
Even tho Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.
Good, hopefully he minds tricks Roberts into retiring too. You are never living down that Individual Mandate ruling Roberts, never.
How would a clear rightward swing (or leftward) in the SC be positive for this country?
Are you so embroiled in party politics that this is actually good news?
How? well opposite liberal justices , the conservatives are more in tune with the constitution and get that there is a separation of power.
Even tho Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.
Can you prove this?
How would a clear rightward swing (or leftward) in the SC be positive for this country?
Are you so embroiled in party politics that this is actually good news?
How? well opposite liberal justices , the conservatives are more in tune with the constitution and get that there is a separation of power.
Even tho Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.
Can you prove this?
Is that really a question? but i would suggest you read the dissenting response to Obergefell v. Hodges
And that is not the only one, where Liberal justices Sotomayor , Ginsburg etc. tend to be of the opinion that they can be lawmakers.
Is that really a question? but i would suggest you read the dissenting response to Obergefell v. Hodges
And that is not the only one, where Liberal justices Sotomayor , Ginsburg etc. tend to be of the opinion that they can be lawmakers.
Yes, it is. Don't dodge. You made the claim, thus I want proof of your claim that "the conservatives are more in tune with the constitution and get that there is a separation of power." Which dissenting response? There was 4 written in that decision.
I'm not a partisan hack so to me there are examples of both "sides" legislating from the bench. Judicial activism isn't the liberal-only phenomenon you're making it seem.
Is that really a question? but i would suggest you read the dissenting response to Obergefell v. Hodges
And that is not the only one, where Liberal justices Sotomayor , Ginsburg etc. tend to be of the opinion that they can be lawmakers.
Yes, it is. Don't dodge. You made the claim, thus I want proof of your claim that "the conservatives are more in tune with the constitution and get that there is a separation of power." Which dissenting response? There was 4 written in that decision.
I'm not a partisan hack so to me there are examples of both "sides" legislating from the bench. Judicial activism isn't the liberal-only phenomenon you're making it seem.
There is only one you need to pay attention to.
"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)."
But this is the part you should care about. This is 4 conservative justices agreed upon dissens.
There is only one you need to pay attention to.
"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)."
But this is the part you should care about. This is 4 conservative justices agreed upon dissens.
That doesn't answer what I was asking.
I wanted to know why do you think judicial activism or "legislating from the bench" is something only liberal justices do. Because I can think of plenty of examples of conservative justices doing the exact same thing. The late Justice Scalia is known for being a hypocrite in this regard.
There is only one you need to pay attention to.
"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)."
But this is the part you should care about. This is 4 conservative justices agreed upon dissens.
That doesn't answer what I was asking.
I wanted to know why do you think judicial activism or "legislating from the bench" is something only liberal justices do. Because I can think of plenty of examples of conservative justices doing the exact same thing. The late Justice Scalia is known for being a hypocrite in this regard.
Actually you are wrong about Scalia, maybe the liberal minded laymen did not like his decisions but among his colleagues he was highly regarded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalias-remarkable-legacy/2016/02/14/a845dfc2-d337-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.559afaf483e5 (oh and look it´s the washington post, so its a source you know and love)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/19/justice-antonin-scalia-legacy/#69b23a1d13b4
And what more proof do you want? and please do provide proof of conservative justices making decisions that is going against their principals of not being lawmakers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment