The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Big Red 40]

On 11/5/2018 at 3:15 AM, Ric Flair said:

If Democrats really believed Kavanaugh was a sexual predator and gang rapist, who was drugging and raping girls left and right, would they have gone silent once he was confirmed? 

 

Of course not. They know the allegations are complete BS.

your saying this 60,000 times doesnt make it true. Just sayin. 

[Ric Flair]

On 11/9/2018 at 2:10 AM, Big Red 40 said:

your saying this 60,000 times doesnt make it true. Just sayin. 

 

Then let’s see some evidence, Blasey Ford had none, told conflicting stories, and the witnesses she said were there denied that and said they had no idea what she was talking about. Ramirez didn’t remember if Kavanaugh was at the party or the person who exposed himself...and was callimg mutual friends just before she went public asking them whether they could remember, because she couldn’t. Swetnick is clearly insane and has severe psychological issues. Others who made accusations have admitting lying and never having even met Kavanaugh.

 

So let’s see some evidence. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[schriznoeder]

[schriznoeder]

Wow, this is a bit of a shocker (that's what she said).

 

 

[TGHusker]

I have always liked the idea of a 18 year term limit on justices.  Thus, a justice may potentially actually service under as few as 3 presidents or as many as 5. However, the most important thing is that the nomination of SC justices would be a more 'regular' affair.  This I think would balance the court out more make it less political.  This Vox article agrees.  The article agreed to then Gov Rick Perry's assessment that a 18 year term would better serve the country. 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/26/18155093/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-term-limits

 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court should reflect the Constitution and the country, not the quirks of longevity. Holding justices to a single, nonrenewable term would lower the stakes of any individual Supreme Court nomination as well as make the timing of fights more predictable.

An idea like this could have bipartisan support — Gov. Rick Perry proposed 18-year terms in the 2012 campaign, making an argument that I think sounds even more persuasive today:

Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.

Eighteen-year terms would also ensure the Court keeps closer touch to the country. Being a Supreme Court justice is a plum job, and it’s understandable that few want to give it up. But there are too many examples of justices serving after their faculties began to fail; Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for instance, missed 44 oral arguments in 2004 and 2005, after undergoing a tracheotomy to fight thyroid cancer. Nevertheless, he declined to step down and, shortly thereafter, died in office.

Even in less extreme cases, serving as a Supreme Court justice is the kind of job that pulls you far out of normal human context. You’re one of the most powerful people in the country, surrounded by ritual and deference, traveling in only the most rarefied circles. In an institution like that, more new blood, more often, is probably a good thing.

 

Quote

Implementing term limits for the Supreme Court would be a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that raises the stakes of vacancies beyond what our politics, or the human beings who serve on the Court, can comfortably bear.

 

[DevoHusker]

i like it...

[Danny Bateman]

18 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I have always liked the idea of a 18 year term limit on justices.  Thus, a justice may potentially actually service under as few as 3 presidents or as many as 5. However, the most important thing is that the nomination of SC justices would be a more 'regular' affair.  This I think would balance the court out more make it less political.  This Vox article agrees.  The article agreed to then Gov Rick Perry's assessment that a 18 year term would better serve the country. 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/26/18155093/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-term-limits

 

 

 

Term limits are a great idea for judges. I agree it would help de-politicize the court. For instance, you wouldn't have conservatives who find Trump moronic and morally repugnant going to the proverbial mats for him all for Supreme Court justices. And people wouldn't have to see if someone like RBG can ride out another couple years in poor health to prevent the court from skewing further to the right. Honestly RBG's health is going to be one of the most anxiety-inducing things over the next couple years.

 

Federal government employees shouldn't feel like they have to work into their late 80s or 90s due to political considerations. That makes the composition of the court inherently political. Someone like Kennedy shouldn't dictate their own replacements as they negotiate their retirement. Let alone whether or not they can continue their role competently in their advanced age. 

[Moiraine]

21 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Term limits are a great idea for judges. I agree it would help de-politicize the court. For instance, you wouldn't have conservatives who find Trump moronic and morally repugnant going to the proverbial mats for him all for Supreme Court justices. And people wouldn't have to see if someone like RBG can ride out another couple years in poor health to prevent the court from skewing further to the right. Honestly RBG's health is going to be one of the most anxiety-inducing things over the next couple years.

 

Federal government employees shouldn't feel like they have to work into their late 80s or 90s due to political considerations. That makes the composition of the court inherently political. Someone like Kennedy shouldn't dictate their own replacements as they negotiate their retirement. Let alone whether or not they can continue their role competently in their advanced age. 

 

 

My stomach drops every time I see a new headline about Ginsberg.

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Term limits are a great idea for judges. I agree it would help de-politicize the court. For instance, you wouldn't have conservatives who find Trump moronic and morally repugnant going to the proverbial mats for him all for Supreme Court justices. And people wouldn't have to see if someone like RBG can ride out another couple years in poor health to prevent the court from skewing further to the right. Honestly RBG's health is going to be one of the most anxiety-inducing things over the next couple years.

 

Federal government employees shouldn't feel like they have to work into their late 80s or 90s due to political considerations. That makes the composition of the court inherently political. Someone like Kennedy shouldn't dictate their own replacements as they negotiate their retirement. Let alone whether or not they can continue their role competently in their advanced age. 

My same thoughts.  Yes as a conservative leaning guy - I like conservative judges but trying to pack the court will come around and bite just as we have bitten before.  And besides, I prefer balance than just one side (even my "side") ruling the court for decades.  Then I think we get what is best for the country as a whole.  I think this would level the playing field, reducing the stress level and if the electorate is voting more liberal or conservative then the appointments and the court would be more in line with current social/political thought. 

[sho]

To help mitigate the power of lobbyists, coupled with term limits, maybe they should have their offices in the area they represent.   90% of their business in DC can be handled via skype (or similar and more secure) and other electronic communications.   Major votes, like SCJ votes they can go to DC, but for the most part they live where they represent.    Lobbyists won't have as much access, and it's a lot harder to sell out those you represent when you live with and see them on a daily basis.   I've also thought the pay should be the median income of the area they represent as well, but that's another tangent for another day.

[TGHusker]

35 minutes ago, sho said:

To help mitigate the power of lobbyists, coupled with term limits, maybe they should have their offices in the area they represent.   90% of their business in DC can be handled via skype (or similar and more secure) and other electronic communications.   Major votes, like SCJ votes they can go to DC, but for the most part they live where they represent.    Lobbyists won't have as much access, and it's a lot harder to sell out those you represent when you live with and see them on a daily basis.   I've also thought the pay should be the median income of the area they represent as well, but that's another tangent for another day.

Modern day tech should not required Congress to be meeting in DC all the time - except on major votes and sensitive areas.  However, this is where the power is and 'flocking' together only increases their sense of power and entitlement.  Colleges and Univ brick and mortar is becoming less needed as more and more classes are held on line.  The same should be true of govt. But we've had admin after admin promising to reform, streamline govt yet it only gets worse.  

[ZRod]

TG's post 3 up from this one made me think that there is literally only one issue that supposedly defines a conservative judge from a liberal one. Abortion (which, as Bert would say, is decided law). Literally every other issue conservative judges side with isn't a true conservative ideal. It gives power to the corporations and the government, and marginalizes the people (voter rights, campaign contributions, class action law suites, etc.) Those aren't conservative ideals. Maybe someone can show me where I'm missing something...

[Moiraine]

45 minutes ago, ZRod said:

TG's post 3 up from this one made me think that there is literally only one issue that supposedly defines a conservative judge from a liberal one. Abortion (which, as Bert would say, is decided law). Literally every other issue conservative judges side with isn't a true conservative ideal. It gives power to the corporations and the government, and marginalizes the people (voter rights, campaign contributions, class action law suites, etc.) Those aren't conservative ideals. Maybe someone can show me where I'm missing something...

 

 

Hey, you're missing gerrym... oh you mentioned that already.

Anyway, that's the way I see it too. Let's let the mega corporations run roughshod over everyone as long as the government's small.

[TGHusker]

28 minutes ago, ZRod said:

TG's post 3 up from this one made me think that there is literally only one issue that supposedly defines a conservative judge from a liberal one. Abortion (which, as Bert would say, is decided law). Literally every other issue conservative judges side with isn't a true conservative ideal. It gives power to the corporations and the government, and marginalizes the people (voter rights, campaign contributions, class action law suites, etc.) Those aren't conservative ideals. Maybe someone can show me where I'm missing something...

 

We have to look at conservative as it relates to the judicial vs conservative as it relates to the political.

I think we need to define conservative here.  A true judicial conservative will look at original intent.  Original intent interpretation of the constitution is a conservative concept - thus evaluating laws, cases based on an understanding of the framer's original intent.    So as a purist, I would argue that many conservative rulings on the court are more politically based

than judicial/law/original intent based.  This is the dynamics of the politicization of the courts.  I do agree that the 1973 Roe v Wade abortion ruling was a liberal overreach - constructing a right from the 16th amendment out of thin air. However, as a conservative, I would say that the right to abortion does exist IF provided for in state law - that the matter is a matter of state interpretation and not the federal govt.  A conservative SC should not overrule a state given right for abortion based on the constitution (my personal religious belief on abortion not withstanding - as this is a state issue unless resolved by Constitutional amendment).

 

 

I think you can throw in limited govt versus expansionist govt issues.

State rights issues vs Fed Govt rights  (10th Amendment)

The SC decision (Janus v American Federation of State, County and Muni Employees) in which the court ruled that public sector employees cannot be forced to join a workers' union & pay its dues - can be seen as a conservative 'right of association/free speech' issue. 

 

I think original intent interpretation can be very dynamic and supporting the rights of the individual over the rights of the govt and corporations.  That is what the Bill of Rights is all about.

Original intent should rightfully uphold the rights of individuals over govt, corp, unions, etc. This is both a conservative view point but also a very liberal (classical liberal) view point - which held the rights of the individual as supreme vs more recently defined liberalism that places govt as the center of life and any rights given are given as a 'grace of govt' vs inherent in the human condition as 'God given' rights - equally given to all.  This is why I think a true conservative judge who believes in original intent should strike down discriminatory voting laws, unequal representation due to gerrymandering and other related cases. 

 

 

I can think of items that conservatives on the court have voted for that aren't necessarily conservative items but more likely political.  Upholding the travel ban, gerrymandering, voting rights issues.  I say some of these are political because I think they were interpreted with a political filter versus a conservative constitutional filter.      I don't think one can make a blanket statement that a conservative is all about giving power to corporations and the govt any more than anyone can say liberals give power to corporations and govt.   There are power brokers on the left and the right and both work against individual rights way too often.  Expansionist govt, long a liberal idea until recently as the supposedly conservatives in Congress have learned to expand with the best of them, can be very burdensome to individual rights.