The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Danny Bateman]

Let me simplify things:

 

All the GOP understands is power.

 

They will take it for themselves anytime it is available to them, no matter how scummy it is perceived.

 

We can either continue to let them have it, or take it from them. 

 

Either way at the end of the day it's all that matters to them.

 

What the rest of us choose to do is up to us.

[RedDenver]

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, in 2016 Democrats weren’t saying Obama should be able to nominate the judge and have it voted on in the senate. 

The context around these events aren't the same.

 

Scalia died Feb 13, 2016 roughly 9 months before the election. Merrick Garland was nominated a month later on Mar 16, 2016. Note that this was while the presidential primaries were still underway, so neither party had nominated a candidate yet.

 

Ginsberg died Sep. 18, 2020 less than 2 months before the election. Both parties have nominated candidates for President.

[commando]

has an impeached president ever been allowed to select a supreme court justice?

[TGHusker]

The optics on all of this is terrible for the GOP.  Moscow Mitch is worthy of such a title.  The hypocrisy is at epic levels. 

 

With all that said, I have a few  points:

 

1.  As a pro-life person, I do want to see a pro-life justice added to the court.  I really wish it wasn't due to shenanigans by the GOP.

This is ugly and ethically wrong when one considers what happened in 2016.  I'm sure there are GOPers out there that would argue that the Dems would do the same think if given the chance, --however, as pointed out in some posts above, never has an appointment been made this close to an election. 

 

2.  Will it have an immediate impact on the pro-life debate.  Hard to tell.  Amy Barrett, the leading candidate, had said previously, R v W won't be going away.   My guess is that, the court will more and more see this as a state issue and we will have pockets of states in each camp.  Jurists put a lot of stock in 'precedence' -  so I don't see a whole scale dumping of R v W. 

 

3. If Biden wins & if the Dems take over the Senate, I expect them to quickly rebalance the court by adding a couple of justices. This has been spoken about openly the last few days.

 

4.  There might be a silver lining:  It has been said, that the main reason many religious people support trump is the Supreme Court appointments.  If the President and the Senate fill this position, and if it appears the GOP will retain control of the Senate, some voters may decide that the SC is now 'safe' and "I can now vote for the candidate who is best for the country and not the nasty incumbent who only has my vote due to one issue".   Perhaps enough 'hold your nose and vote for Trump' voters will feel comfortable to take the higher road and vote Biden.    I'm not saying that will happen wide spread, but I can see some voters having that mindset.

 

Voters tend to like 'divided' govt.  Trump is not capable of working within the realm of a divided govt.  I think Biden is. As a former long term Senator, he, more than any other recent Dem nominee, could work with a GOP senate  and get things done - IF somehow Moscow Mitch is defeated in Kentucky.  If MM is still in control of the Senate, the stalemate will continue.

 

5.  This could motivate Biden's base to the effect that the Dems take the Senate and the WH.   Then the GOP game playing will be short lived as the Dems will take counter measures to this appointment as noted above. 

 

6.  I'm still voting Biden and voting against my GOP Senator who has been a Trump enabler.    As mentioned in # 1 above, pro-life SC justices are important to me, but I want to take the longer view and do what is best for the country - rid it of a trump presidency.  Besides, the real action on pro-life issues is at the local and state level.  The WH, Congress, and SC  have basically kept a status quo position on the issue over the last many decades - some changes, some clarifications but for the most part keeping R v W intact.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't want a court that's heavily weighted towards liberal OR conservative.  If Trump gets his way and gets another pick, I don't see that as good for the country.  Not because I want liberal judges, it's because the court shouldn't be screwed heavily one way or the other.

 

Looking at the current judges, it looks like Breyer would be the next one to leave the court.  He's 82 now.  He'll be 86 for the next Presidential election and 90 if the next President is in for 8 years.  You have to believe the next President will probably pick his replacement.  I'm not one who follows these things so close that I know how liberal or conservative all the judges are.  But, Clinton nominated him, so I have to believe he probably leans more liberal.

 

That leaves Thomas (conservative) 72 years old and Alito (conservative) 70 years old as the next possible ones to leave.

[Moiraine]

56 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The optics on all of this is terrible for the GOP.  Moscow Mitch is worthy of such a title.  The hypocrisy is at epic levels. 

 

With all that said, I have a few  points:

 

1.  As a pro-life person, I do want to see a pro-life justice added to the court.  I really wish it wasn't due to shenanigans by the GOP.

This is ugly and ethically wrong when one considers what happened in 2016.  I'm sure there are GOPers out there that would argue that the Dems would do the same think if given the chance, --however, as pointed out in some posts above, never has an appointment been made this close to an election. 

 

2.  Will it have an immediate impact on the pro-life debate.  Hard to tell.  Amy Barrett, the leading candidate, had said previously, R v W won't be going away.   My guess is that, the court will more and more see this as a state issue and we will have pockets of states in each camp.  Jurists put a lot of stock in 'precedence' -  so I don't see a whole scale dumping of R v W. 

 

3. If Biden wins & if the Dems take over the Senate, I expect them to quickly rebalance the court by adding a couple of justices. This has been spoken about openly the last few days.

 

4.  There might be a silver lining:  It has been said, that the main reason many religious people support trump is the Supreme Court appointments.  If the President and the Senate fill this position, and if it appears the GOP will retain control of the Senate, some voters may decide that the SC is now 'safe' and "I can now vote for the candidate who is best for the country and not the nasty incumbent who only has my vote due to one issue".   Perhaps enough 'hold your nose and vote for Trump' voters will feel comfortable to take the higher road and vote Biden.    I'm not saying that will happen wide spread, but I can see some voters having that mindset.

 

Voters tend to like 'divided' govt.  Trump is not capable of working within the realm of a divided govt.  I think Biden is. As a former long term Senator, he, more than any other recent Dem nominee, could work with a GOP senate  and get things done - IF somehow Moscow Mitch is defeated in Kentucky.  If MM is still in control of the Senate, the stalemate will continue.

 

5.  This could motivate Biden's base to the effect that the Dems take the Senate and the WH.   Then the GOP game playing will be short lived as the Dems will take counter measures to this appointment as noted above. 

 

6.  I'm still voting Biden and voting against my GOP Senator who has been a Trump enabler.    As mentioned in # 1 above, pro-life SC justices are important to me, but I want to take the longer view and do what is best for the country - rid it of a trump presidency.  Besides, the real action on pro-life issues is at the local and state level.  The WH, Congress, and SC  have basically kept a status quo position on the issue over the last many decades - some changes, some clarifications but for the most part keeping R v W intact.

 

 

 

Hey @TGHusker, maybe wrong topic but what are your thoughts on abortion rates decreasing faster under Clinton and Obama? I haven't dug into it a lot but I believe it was fastest ever under Obama. Part of it is reduction in pregnancy but the rate reduced a lot faster under him than under Bush and the theory is that it's due to cheaper/free contraception. On a related note, are you against contraception? Some people are, especially Catholics, so just wondering.

Just a reminder I am pro life too but with lots of exceptions. No way in hell should a woman be forced to carry the baby of their rapist if they don't want to - they didn't have a say in the matter. And if a woman's life is in danger, she should be able to choose her life over the baby's. Lastly, Democrats have much better pro life policies than Republicans, they just happen to be for people who are out of the womb.

[BigRedBuster]

14 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Hey @TGHusker, maybe wrong topic but what are your thoughts on abortion rates decreasing faster under Clinton and Obama? I haven't dug into it a lot but I believe it was fastest ever under Obama. Part of it is reduction in pregnancy but the rate reduced a lot faster under him than under Bush and the theory is that it's due to cheaper/free contraception. On a related note, are you against contraception? Some people are, especially Catholics, so just wondering.

Just a reminder I am pro life too but with lots of exceptions. No way in hell should a woman be forced to carry the baby of their racist if they don't want to - they didn't have a say in the matter. And if a woman's life is in danger, she should be able to choose her life over the baby's. Lastly, Democrats have much better pro life policies than Republicans, they just happen to be for people who are out of the womb.

I know you asked TG, but I'm pro-life so I thought I would throw my answer in here too.

 

I am greatly encouraged by the decreasing numbers and it's a major reason why I don't make abortion a major factor in who I vote for.  I personally think that abortion is not a political subject, it's a moral/social subject.  Abortions will greatly decrease when everyone who doesn't want them would put all their efforts into actually decreasing the need for them.  

Increase birth control availability.

Increase support for single parents.

Force dead beat/absent Dads to provide more support.

Improve adoption options.

Raise your kids to understand personal responsibility. 

 

All those go way farther in decreasing abortions than trying to shut down Planned Parenthood or picketing outside doctor's offices.  But, the loony tune side of the Prolife movement would prefer to do those things because it makes them feel better that the world can see them standing out there protesting.

[TGHusker]

25 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Hey @TGHusker, maybe wrong topic but what are your thoughts on abortion rates decreasing faster under Clinton and Obama? I haven't dug into it a lot but I believe it was fastest ever under Obama. Part of it is reduction in pregnancy but the rate reduced a lot faster under him than under Bush and the theory is that it's due to cheaper/free contraception. On a related note, are you against contraception? Some people are, especially Catholics, so just wondering.

Just a reminder I am pro life too but with lots of exceptions. No way in hell should a woman be forced to carry the baby of their rapist if they don't want to - they didn't have a say in the matter. And if a woman's life is in danger, she should be able to choose her life over the baby's. Lastly, Democrats have much better pro life policies than Republicans, they just happen to be for people who are out of the womb.

Nope - not against contraception  - that is "Planned Parenthood" vs "Opps Parenthood".  

Not surprised by the drop in pregnancies under the Dems - as contraception does have a huge role to play in the whole debate.  Also, the GOP has done a lot of lip service to keep pro-lifers on the plantation.  

 

I see nothing wrong wt your last paragraph.  Except I would add - 3rd trimester abortion and late term abortions should only be for the physical health of the mother. 

 

And yes, I've mentioned it also - the Dems have a bigger & broad pro-life outreach to those outside of the womb  - I just wish their tent was enlarged to include those of us who feel that appropriate pro-life protection is applied to the child in the womb.  I do recognize that the Dems do lead in the area of pre-natal care issues - so they are helpful there.  

 

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I know you asked TG, but I'm pro-life so I thought I would throw my answer in here too.

 

I am greatly encouraged by the decreasing numbers and it's a major reason why I don't make abortion a major factor in who I vote for.  I personally think that abortion is not a political subject, it's a moral/social subject.  Abortions will greatly decrease when everyone who doesn't want them would put all their efforts into actually decreasing the need for them.  

Increase birth control availability.

Increase support for single parents.

Force dead beat/absent Dads to provide more support.

Improve adoption options.

Raise your kids to understand personal responsibility. 

 

All those go way farther in decreasing abortions than trying to shut down Planned Parenthood or picketing outside doctor's offices.  But, the loony tune side of the Prolife movement would prefer to do those things because it makes them feel better that the world can see them standing out there protesting.

All good points

[BigRedBuster]

Just some ideas. 
 

 

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Just some ideas. 
 

 

 

 

Sounds ok. I really just want it to have rules less susceptible to partisanship. I like the limit too. Because this is potentially a disaster for this country waiting to happen. The Democrats could compromise and say the current justices are grandfathered in. 

[FrantzHardySwag]

So Trump's probable pick belongs to a Catholic Cult where Men are referred to as "Head" and woman as "Handmaids". Men are encouraged to do the physical work and woman the cooking and childcare. That's not concerning at all.

 

[knapplc]

And Romney just announced he'll support the vote. 

 

Because of course an LDS Elder isn't going to pass up a chance to repeal Roe v. Wade.

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

So Trump's probable pick belongs to a Catholic Cult where Men are referred to as "Head" and woman as "Handmaids". Men are encouraged to do the physical work and woman the cooking and childcare. That's not concerning at all.

If she really believes that, why isn't she home cooking and cleaning?

[DevoHusker]

12 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

So Trump's probable pick belongs to a Catholic Cult where Men are referred to as "Head" and woman as "Handmaids". Men are encouraged to do the physical work and woman the cooking and childcare. That's not concerning at all.

 

 

link?

[FrantzHardySwag]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

And Romney just announced he'll support the vote. 

 

Because of course an LDS Elder isn't going to pass up a chance to repeal Roe v. Wade.

This is the reward for falling in line with Trump. Support the pu&&y grabbing, 3 time married, affair having, tax cheating President - so he can put forth a major religious influence on the court. Rules are for thee not for me.