2020 SCOTUS Nomination...

[foszoe]

In my years of court watching I have never even seen a "conservative" nominated, including Bork. They all were originalists and textualists and the left identifies them as conservative.

The left nomiates jurists that believe the constitution "grows" as we make progress as a society, in that growth they find penumbras that they say support their decisions, though no text actually exists to support that contention.


Once a justice makes it they have a lifetime appointment and can be themselves, not under anyone. It is a fact of human nature that humans often get softer and reflective the nearer they get to the end of life. I hope this trend of younger justices doesn't give them longer to become liberal...

What does a conservative who is not an originality or textualist look like?

 

[KLB]

What does a conservative who is not an originality or textualist look like?

Look at Congress.

 

[2A_Tom]

There are conservatives in Congress?

 

[jamil]

Actually she did not. She said super precedents were ones where the vast majority of Americans agreed with the decision. That was not true of Roe.

She never gave any indication that she would overturn it either.

I don't really think that is going to even come up. Where you might get wins from the anti side is on the newer smaller cases. There could very well be an end to everything getting ruled in favor of the pro-a view.

That's pretty much right. Klobuchar asked Barrett why she considered Brown "super-precedent" but not Roe. Barrett answered something to the effect that the way she was using it in the paper Klobuchar referred to, she was not using a scholarly definition, but just meaning that it's a ruling that no one is really interested in overturning. So for Brown, no one really disputes that ruling. That's what makes it "settled" because there is no real opposition to it. People widely accept it. But for Roe, the mere fact that Dems have been grilling her on Roe indicates that it's not settled, that there is a large opposition to it. So indeed Barrett says Roe is not a super-precedent under that definition. I think the "scholarly" definition is that "super-precedent" is a ruling that courts continually/consistently have a long history of upholding. Barrentt did not opine, as far as I'm aware, on that definition.

 

[jamil]

Thomas. Though he has expressed a desire to retire.

I think if Trump wins, Thomas will retire within the next year or two.

 

[2A_Tom]

I hope he doesn't pull an RBG.

 

[KG1]

I think if Trump wins, Thomas will retire within the next year or two.

I think he will too especially so if the make up of Congress is still favorable. I think it would be a done deal.

 

[KLB]

It will be really interesting to see what happens if Trump wins yet the Ds get control of the Senate if there is an opening.

 

[OakRiver]

It will be really interesting to see what happens if Trump wins yet the Ds get control of the Senate if there is an opening.

Impeachment #2

 

[Tombs]

I think if Trump wins, Thomas will retire within the next year or two.

The sad thing is, I don't know if there's anyone who could replace him.
The man is on a whole different level.

 

[foszoe]

Impeachment #2

Barret, Trump, or both?

 

[jamil]

Democrats are so unhinged I would not at all be surprised if they tried to impeach Trump and everyone he's appointed.

 

[Alpo]

Democrats - me, then.

 

[2A_Tom]

The sad thing is, I don't know if there's anyone who could replace him.
The man is on a whole different level.

It is amazing he is on a level with Scalia, yet Democrats hate him and call him an uncle Tom and a house ******.

 

[jamil]

Democrats - me, then.

You said you were an Independent.

 

[Alpo]

You said you were an Independent.

I'm taking my party back after the election. Just like you guys took yours back from the Tea Party.

But, you may be correct. It's a lot easier to be an independent nowadays than aligned with either side.

 

[foszoe]

Democrats are so unhinged I would not at all be surprised if they tried to impeach Trump and everyone he's appointed.

You're out of order! No! You're out of order!

Nonono You're out of order.

 

[Alpo]

Foz...doing his best Pacino.

 

[foszoe]

I'm taking my party back after the election. Just like you guys took yours back from the Tea Party.

But, you may be correct. It's a lot easier to be an independent nowadays than aligned with either side.

Whoa! LOL! Well at least the Republican party still believes in a balanced budget.

Bug will be along later to explain how thats true later!

 

[BugI02]

I am interested to see how Barrett votes. I’m not opposed to her. So if she good, I have no problem with it. If she goes off the rails and has a hand in striking down Roe, I’d expect there to be a serious effort to pack the court. I’m still undecided if that would be a deal breaker for me.

You know if SCOTUS struck down Roe v Wade tomorrow, that would just mean states could set their own standards. There were 21 states that allowed abortion in some form, from on demand to significant restriction, when Roe v Wade was thrust upon the nation