So what can conservatives look forward to once RBG is replaced?

Some people seem to need it though :P

@Maroxad: Yep, people who have an invested interest in violating it.

Ah, yes, the doom and gloom takes decades to appear.

Kavanaugh so far doesnt seem to be too bad of a justice. Trump definitely could have done a lot worse than picking him.

Amy however... she concerns me.

So far Trump has picked two people that have stuck to the letter of the law, which is what a judge is supposed to do. Not legislate from the bench, not rule against things they don't like or in favor of the things they do. But look at legislation on the books, the constitution as it's intended, and determine if a law passed violates these things or not. If Barrett is the one nominated, you'll see the doom and gloom about her is just as much bullcrap as the doom and gloom about the last two.

Conservative judges do exactly that as well. Stop trying to gaslight people.

A justice that will rule on laws as they apply to the constitution. In case you forget Ginsberg had used foreign law to make several of her decisions. She publicly stated she did not like the US Constitution.

That should have seen to her impeachment right there.

Shit response and you know it.

Do you disagree that he has lots of time to make decisions conservatives likes?

Keep it classy. He has lots of time to make decisions liberals, independents, or you know Americans, will like as well. His duty is to interpret the law in accordance with the US Constitution. But I get it, the doomscrolling mantra and reach to extremes is the new norm/standard in the current digital age.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Personally I think Kavanaugh might not last 30 years.

Yup. He's always wrong.

“Conservative Activist Judge” is NOT an Oxymoron

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/conservative-activist-judge-is-not/

One of the great successes of the legal wing of the conservative movement is the widespread connection in the mind of many citizens and pundits of “liberal” judicial philosophy with “activism,” and “conservatism” with “strict constructionism.” They’d have us believe that “liberal activist” and “conservative constructionist” are basically redundancies, and that there simply is no such thing as a conservative activist. This is patently untrue.

There is a very simple explanation for why a conservative may be activist and a liberal statist–the state of the law. The Warren Court wanted to overturn precedents, and so it ruled laws passed by Congress and (especially) state legislatures unconstitutional. And as the Court of that era slowly and sometimes not-so-slowly changed the law, the justices by definition needed to be less activist as the state of the law became more amenable to their views–precisely because they had changed the law.

The whole point of the Court is to rule laws unconstitutional based on justices applying their philosophical interpretations of the Constitution, and to reverse bad precedents when they recognize them. And the point of presidents nominating justices of similar ideological ilk is to put them on the Court to do just that. If the standard really were that all precedents must be upheld, the Court might as well pack up and do nothing more than administer the judicial system and settle occasional disputes between the elected branches. (Oh, and the Chief Justice could still oversee presidential impeachments … whooopee!) And, of course, by this same logic we’d still have Plessy v. Ferguson on the books, and no state-level protections for civil rights and liberties, and so on.

Conservative posters here like to spout the same nonsense because they agrees with the political opinions of those conservative judges who were appointed by conservatives to potentially further subjective conservative decisions. He doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.

And liberals will just increase the size of the supreme court because they lost. Both sides are in the wrong on this. Also there is video of democrats saying the same thing republicans are today in 2016. Seriously we need both sides to go away and we need new parties. I am tired of this power struggle these two shitty parties have right now. None of them are doing anything at all to help America and they are only hurting America.

Honestly if this was Hilary you all would be trying to do the same thing. You just don't like it because it is in the republicans favor right now and vice versa. So seriously stop with your nonsense. I am seriously sick of both sides.

As a foreigner I cringe at this, even I know the 5 freedoms or rights protected by the first ammendment are Religion, Assembly, Petititon/Protest, Press, Speech.

She forgot Petition/Protest. How convenient she forgot the one she did.

She also revealed herself to be quite anti-science in this hearing. Thankfully her job is exclusively focused on interpretting law. And not one of scientific matters.

Edit: Iirc, the time for Thread Necromancy in this forum was 30 days, since last post. I apologize if I am wrong though.

Yeah, unlike virtually every justice who has ever sat in that seat before being confirmed, she has no notes, and is answering every question off pure memory, which is impressive. Now, how is she "anti-science" because someone not agreeing with the group of scientists that you agree with doesn't make someone anti-science. For example, if someone disagreed with Mike Brown at the IAU and said they thought Pluto was still a planet, are they a "science denier?" Because an equal, or even more relevant union of astrophysicists disagreed with Mike Browns assertion.

The reality is, there's almost NOTHING that science unanimously agrees on, and to pick one side of it, and claim everyone else is "denying science" actually makes you the anti-science one in the room because science is rarely ever definitive on anything. Remember, science once thought the earth was flat, and considered "blood letting" and drilling holes in a persons head to be perfectly acceptable medical procedures.

So if you're telling me she's "anti-science" you'll need to cite some kind of evidence, because I take that assertion when I hear it with a very, very large grain of salt.

Wow, now the big scandals against ACB is she's an "originalist." Also, she said the phrase "sexual preference." That's some straight up Stretch Armstrong level reaching.

Yikes she appears to think climate change is up for debate.

A true regressive, just the way the GOP likes 'em.

She doesn’t know if separating children from their parents is a bad thing either... or she had no opinion on it.

@zaryia: Who cares? The court can’t just choose to hear something.

So... you are a post-modernist. Good to know.

First of all, I am not even American, and even I KNOW about the 5 rights guaranteed by the first amendment. She is SCOTUS nominee. She also had many other episodes where she demonstrated a lack of understanding. But that was by far the most offensive one, because even I knew that one at the top of my head.

I think you have a massive misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a system we use to acquire information about the world around us.

Why does that someone disagree with Mike Brown? What evidence does Mike Brown provide to prove it isnt a planet? If Mike Brown is appealing to authority figures (and possibly using himself) then, no that someone isnt anti-science. But if Mike Brown provided clearcut evidence for a criteria for a planet, then showed evidence of how Pluto isnt a planet, and the other someone still disagrees, then yes, he is anti-science.

Science doesnt form opinoins, it is a system we use to arrive be able to better explain and predict natural phenomena. However, some scientific phenomena are so overwhelmingly supported by evidence, pretty much everything that goes into scientific journals. Trying to undermine scientific research as if it was somehow subjective WITHOUT providing sufficient evidence to counter it, is incredibly anti-scientific. That is the issue I took with ACB, and now that is the issue I am taking with you. Evidence and entries published in scientific journals overwhelmingly support climate change.

You are also commiting the same anti-science nonsense as ACB.

But you had to go worse, even do more to try to undermine confidence in teh scientific method, and doing so dishonestly.

Science NEVER claimed the earth was flat, in fact, arithmeticians and natural philosophers were able to prove it was round CENTURIES before Science was even a thing. Science also never supported Trepanning, and bloodletting declined rapidly with the advent of medical science. Science is what ended these practices (barring a few cases).

I get where you are trying to go with this, but while questioning established knowledge is key for the scientific thinking, the questioning also has to be supported by sufficient evidence. Handwaving solid scientific theories as "contentious" or "politics" is a sign of a dishonest thinker.

Edit: Modern skepticism is not skeptical over solid scientific theories because of political, religious or ideological leanings, or personal feelings. And evidence of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses contributing to climate change is overwhelmingly supported in both chemistry, ecology and climatology.

Do you think climate change is real?

Kind of asinine for a SCOTUS nominee who will be in the court for decade to side-step something like that and called it debated upon. Fucking insane actually.

Won't be long now, since no matter how poorly the political grandstanding continues, there isn't anything they can do to prevent the inevitable.

They're putting a conservative la-dee-freaking-da Christian idealist soccer mom in.

WTF?

Her answer to everything will be:

• Jesus
• Love/God's love
• "When things get tough, I look to my family to...."

People like her are groomed and raised in a fairy tale setting. Lady has no idea what is going on, she will just parrot what the GOP tells her.

Lmao, Trump just admitted why the Republicans decided to push through ACB in the last year of the term.

Also, wtf do you have against Christians? You sound rather hateful and intolerant of those with beliefs different than your own. And I seriously doubt you can point to anything that would make her an "idealist." She's an originalist who follows the constitution and THAT is why you and the rest of the left have such a problem with her. Let's just be honest. I've watched most of her nomination process over the last few days and not once did I hear her say any of that.

I can't tell if this is really poorly done satire on a misogynist's take, or if you're actually being serious.

Neither, just a bit of hyperbole. Please excuse me.

I honestly don't think she will be that bad, I just don't like it when the lines between church and state get blurry.

But if the past four years has taught us anything, it's that truth is stranger than fiction. I fully expect she and a lot of others on the Supreme Court will blow our minds (and not in a good way).

Oh it's not just Christians, it's more or less all religion. I'm equal opportunity :D We'd probably be on Mars now if it weren't for religion. Dark Ages lasted, what? 400 years? 400 years of not just regressivism, but lost progress as well.

And I'm not hateful. I just think religion does a lot more harm than good. It's so unnecessary; the only reason people go is because their parents made them go. Don't judge me too harshly; my best friend is a Catholic and a Trump voter :P

And originalists are idealists; they think the things the founding fathers wrote down for white males ~250 years ago are somehow magically relevant today. It's a fantasy, i.e. "idealism".

And above all else, it's lazy and it cheats Americans.

"Hey, what about blah blah blah?" someone poses

"Oh, well, let's look at this old-ass piece of paper that doesn't apply to about 65% of America. Hmmmmmm....nope, nothing about blah blah blah, take a hike" is the originalist's response.

Tell me, do you think a christian, a jew, or a muslim who believes what they believe is right and everyone else is wrong is all that different than an atheist who makes that same claim? Religious intolerance, and "dogma" as Feinstein put it is just as prevalent, if not more so amongst atheists. So it's pure hypocrisy to see the kind of seething intolerance and hatred atheists have for people of any religion because the reality is, they're in no better of a position.

This is why even though I am atheist, I do not judge people, denigrate them, belittle them, harass, or mock them for their views on the matter.

Also, originalists are not idealists, they're realists. The claim that slavery existed in the 18th century and so that must make founders hate black people, view them as unequal and want them to suffer is complete bullshit pushed by a group of people who really couldn't give a flying **** about blacks, but see them as a prop they can use to go after the founders, and the constitution itself because in that constitution are protections against things like authoritarian dictatorships. They are the protections that give people a right to an opinion, to a believe, and to protect their families. And nowhere in the constitution does it say these rights only apply to men, or white people.

The basis for that entire nonsense is the 3/5th compromise and if you know anything about the constitution you'd actually realize the 3/5th compromise was done in an effort to limit slavery. If you do not know, the number of state representatives allotted to each state is determined by the number of people living in that state. More people equal more representatives giving that state more power in federal government. Sanctuary states today are used to flood states with non citizens in order to be counted to give that state more federal power and back when the constitution was being written, states could do the same thing with slaves. More slaves meant more people counted, meaning more representatives, and more power. What the 3/5th compromise proved is that 1) the founders absolutely did see blacks as people, and 2) they wanted to disincentivize slavery as states with more free people, would get more representatives, and have more power.

I am not sure which country you actually live in, but you really do need to read up on American history instead of blindly listening to a bunch of political pundits whose only goal is to divisionary identity politics so they can trade empty promises for votes every election cycle.

@eoten: Wow man, this might be the first time you made any sort of decent argument on here :D I will need to read up on that 3/5 thing, sounds like it could be skewed either way but I can see it disincentivizing slavery.

Most of the founders were against slavery. Thomas Jefferson actually did a lot to damage the practice. He blamed King George for the slave trade situation in the colonies. One of his quotes

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.

And when the British made an offer to slaves that they'd be free if they fought for the British to kill Americans, Jefferson wrote this.

exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Thomas Jefferson, and many of the founders, were by no means fans of the slave trade. Many viewed slaves as victims of the king, just like every other American at the time. He attempted many times to abolish it outright in many areas. He's most famous for a plan, which failed to pass largely because of opposition from southern states, to end slavery over a period of time giving states the chance to adjust. Had he succeeded, there may not have even been a civil war.

So do you guys think that the new SCOTUS will strike down the ACA altogether?

Like most liberal men, i expect you to cut and run. No spine, no perserverance. Just instant gratification culture. Shameful. But unlike you, I bet liberal woman stay and fight. They have a backbone and won't give up on their country.

Maybe parts of it. But if Biden wins, then maybe we get a more thought out ACA. One in which prescriptions drug costs are addressed. One in which a single, unified medical record is created. Not this 800 pages of crap that we got. Make smart choices.

It's not harassment to express a disagreeing opinion. Stop victimizing yourself. IF you disagree, feel free to express an alternative view. Feel free to criticize my views.But you don't have the right to not be exposed to differing opinions.

I am responding to your comments on my posts. That's not attacking you.

I haven't been on these forums in 4 days. And you responded to that post that didn't involve you. As for the election, of course I'm tense. I think Trump is a terrible president. I love my country and I don't want 4 more years of him. sorry if that upsets you, but some people have passion for politics.