The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[DevoHusker]

51 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Because they're already signaling that those rights will be taken away. 

 

 

 

 

So, supposition and conjecture. Sounds like a sound foundation. 

 

My point was that even with 15 of the last 19 Justices being supposedly very "Conservative", the court has managed to pass some pretty supposedly "Liberal" actions like the 4 or 5 cases I referenced. Roberts, in particular, seems to not be pinned down by his "staunchly conservative Republican" views. Perhaps ACB will see things from the center, and not from a far right point of view. 

 

I don't like the idea of just adding Justices, whether "packing" for the left or the right. The next time the Rs are in power after this, and able to make changes, would they move the number to 17? 21? When does it stop. 

 

 I would rather see term limits of some sort worked out, but leave the number at 9.

[knapplc]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

So, supposition and conjecture. Sounds like a sound foundation. 

 

My point was that even with 15 of the last 19 Justices being supposedly very "Conservative", the court has managed to pass some pretty supposedly "Liberal" actions like the 4 or 5 cases I referenced. Roberts, in particular, seems to not be pinned down by his "staunchly conservative Republican" views. Perhaps ACB will see things from the center, and not from a far right point of view. 

 

I don't like the idea of just adding Justices, whether "packing" for the left or the right. The next time the Rs are in power after this, and able to make changes, would they move the number to 17? 21? When does it stop. 

 

 I would rather see term limits of some sort worked out, but leave the number at 9.

 

The number of Justices has fluctuated throughout history. There's no reason it needs to remain at nine, and that number has nothing to do with anything. 

 

I have very good friends who stand to lose a lot of civil liberties with a conservative supermajority. It isn't some theoretical situation to a lot of people. It's their lives. 

[RedDenver]

32 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

So, supposition and conjecture. Sounds like a sound foundation. 

 

My point was that even with 15 of the last 19 Justices being supposedly very "Conservative", the court has managed to pass some pretty supposedly "Liberal" actions like the 4 or 5 cases I referenced. Roberts, in particular, seems to not be pinned down by his "staunchly conservative Republican" views. Perhaps ACB will see things from the center, and not from a far right point of view. 

 

I don't like the idea of just adding Justices, whether "packing" for the left or the right. The next time the Rs are in power after this, and able to make changes, would they move the number to 17? 21? When does it stop. 

 

 I would rather see term limits of some sort worked out, but leave the number at 9.

If the Republicans have been packing the court for years and things haven't gotten that bad yet, doesn't that logic also extend to the Dems packing the court in return?

[TGHusker]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The number of Justices has fluctuated throughout history. There's no reason it needs to remain at nine, and that number has nothing to do with anything. 

 

I have very good friends who stand to lose a lot of civil liberties with a conservative supermajority. It isn't some theoretical situation to a lot of people. It's their lives. 

It has been 150 years since the last change in the # of justices.  FDR tried to increase the # to get some of the the New Deal proposals 'approved' by SC over the objections of congress.  Congress didn't go for it.  That was the last serious attempt to increase the # on the court.     I'm wt @DevoHusker on this -  remove the life time appointment and make it a 18 year term.  It is rare for one party to hold onto the presidency (outside of the FDR-Truman era) for longer than 12 years.  18 years would give both parties an opportunity at placing justices on the court.  18 years is long enough whereby the court won't be swayed by immediate cultural fluctuations but short enough were the justices aren't stuck in the old world.  Just my opinion - I'm no legal expert. 

 

Even with that said, if the Dems control the house/senate there are legislative remedies and also constitutional remedies.   Congress can rewrite a 'rejected' law or craft totally new legislation and Congress can take the constitutional amendment route - which, granted, is a slow process.

 

My gut feeling is that this won't be a judicial 'Armageddon' against civil liberties.  We have the 3 liberal justices and we have seen Roberts and even Kavanaugh & Gorsuch side with the liberal justices on several issues.   Some of the center right justices hold precedent  in high regard.   Thomas and Alito are the conservative core. I believe ACB will be to the left of them.  I do not believe Roberts wants his court to be known as the alt right court. 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I do not believe Roberts wants his court to be known as the alt right court. 

Roberts gets no say in that. He has no power to control who gets placed on his court or how they'll vote

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

It has been 150 years since the last change in the # of justices.  FDR tried to increase the # to get some of the the New Deal proposals 'approved' by SC over the objections of congress.  Congress didn't go for it.  That was the last serious attempt to increase the # on the court.     I'm wt @DevoHusker on this -  remove the life time appointment and make it a 18 year term.  It is rare for one party to hold onto the presidency (outside of the FDR-Truman era) for longer than 12 years.  18 years would give both parties an opportunity at placing justices on the court.  18 years is long enough whereby the court won't be swayed by immediate cultural fluctuations but short enough were the justices aren't stuck in the old world.  Just my opinion - I'm no legal expert. 

 

Even with that said, if the Dems control the house/senate there are legislative remedies and also constitutional remedies.   Congress can rewrite a 'rejected' law or craft totally new legislation and Congress can take the constitutional amendment route - which, granted, is a slow process.

 

My gut feeling is that this won't be a judicial 'Armageddon' against civil liberties.  We have the 3 liberal justices and we have seen Roberts and even Kavanaugh & Gorsuch side with the liberal justices on several issues.   Some of the center right justices hold precedent  in high regard.   Thomas and Alito are the conservative core. I believe ACB will be to the left of them.  I do not believe Roberts wants his court to be known as the alt right court. 

 

I don't believe any of these things.

 

This seems a lot like the people who were hoping trump would "grow into the job" back in 2016, only to realize their mistake too late. 

 

This court is going to make believers out of people. They were picked for a reason.

 

[DevoHusker]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If the Republicans have been packing the court for years and things haven't gotten that bad yet, doesn't that logic also extend to the Dems packing the court in return?

 

Packing is not stacking. Rs may have stacked, but have not packed. Ds want to pack and stack. 

[DevoHusker]

10 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

It has been 150 years since the last change in the # of justices.  FDR tried to increase the # to get some of the the New Deal proposals 'approved' by SC over the objections of congress.  Congress didn't go for it.  That was the last serious attempt to increase the # on the court.     I'm wt @DevoHusker on this -  remove the life time appointment and make it a 18 year term.  It is rare for one party to hold onto the presidency (outside of the FDR-Truman era) for longer than 12 years.  18 years would give both parties an opportunity at placing justices on the court.  18 years is long enough whereby the court won't be swayed by immediate cultural fluctuations but short enough were the justices aren't stuck in the old world.  Just my opinion - I'm no legal expert. 

 

Even with that said, if the Dems control the house/senate there are legislative remedies and also constitutional remedies.   Congress can rewrite a 'rejected' law or craft totally new legislation and Congress can take the constitutional amendment route - which, granted, is a slow process.

 

My gut feeling is that this won't be a judicial 'Armageddon' against civil liberties.  We have the 3 liberal justices and we have seen Roberts and even Kavanaugh & Gorsuch side with the liberal justices on several issues.   Some of the center right justices hold precedent  in high regard.   Thomas and Alito are the conservative core. I believe ACB will be to the left of them.  I do not believe Roberts wants his court to be known as the alt right court. 

 

Thanks. Much more eloquent than my attempt. 

[knapplc]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

Packing is not stacking. Rs may have stacked, but have not packed. Ds want to pack and stack. 

 

You cannot say this with a straight face after what McConnell did to Obama's court nominees, both in the Supreme Court and the circuit courts.

 

Nor can you seriously think that Amy Coney Barrett, who has only been on the US Court of Appeals since 2017, was chosen to be a neutral applicant of the law rather than a partial, biased judge, especially in the presence of dozens and dozens more qualified choices.

 

There's a reason she was put on the court, there's a reason McConnell has destroyed all norms to ram her through. 

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Packing is not stacking. Rs may have stacked, but have not packed. Ds want to pack and stack. 

R's say potato, D's say potato. Might be the emptiest argument I've heard.

 

Edit: R's cannot unring the bell of Garland in 2016 and ACB in 2020.

[TGHusker]

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Roberts gets no say in that. He has no power to control who gets placed on his court or how they'll vote

I didn't say he has the power to control who is on the court or now they vote - point out where I said that.  As Chief Justice he has the procedural power.  While he is 'first among' equals' and has one vote as the others, he is the presiding officer over the court & manages its operation.  As such, his influence is greater than the other justices.  If he is a part of the majority on a decision, he chooses who writes the majority opinion - which can be very influential. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

I didn't say he has the power to control who is on the court or now they vote - point out where I said that.  As Chief Justice he has the procedural power.  While he is 'first among' equals' and has one vote as the others, he is the presiding officer over the court & manages its operation.  As such, his influence is greater than the other justices.  If he is a part of the majority on a decision, he chooses who writes the majority opinion - which can be very influential. 

Basically he can control which of the justices writes about the result, but that's small potatoes compared to the result itself. What Roberts wants his court to be is pretty meaningless.

[TGHusker]

38 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I don't believe any of these things.

 

This seems a lot like the people who were hoping trump would "grow into the job" back in 2016, only to realize their mistake too late. 

 

This court is going to make believers out of people. They were picked for a reason.

 

Sure all justices are picked 'for a reason' but not all follow that reason.  Sandra Day O' Conner, Kennedy, Souter and even Roberts were all selected by GOP presidents but all tended to be more moderate and even liberal in the case of Souter than what was expected.  The Earl Warren court was much more liberal than envisioned by Eisenhower who appointed him.  He also appointed justice Brennan who turned out to be much more liberal in his opinions.    I think once a justice gets on the court, there is a process that seems to take place where many see a bigger world and role that they have to play to.  We've seen more 'conservative' justices move towards the middle in years past.

 

By the way, I didn't vote for trump in 2016.  So my opinion on the above has nothing in common with that train of thought.

 

 

And speaking of court packing,  Ike was able to nominate 5 justices to the court during his 8 years.  That same court became one of the more liberal leaning courts of all time.  It is clearly seen in the decisions made during the 1960s.   Ike was reported to have said the two biggest mistakes of his presidency were appointing Earl Warren and William Brennan to the supreme court.

 

 

[TGHusker]

20 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Basically he can control which of the justices writes about the result, but that's small potatoes compared to the result itself. What Roberts wants his court to be is pretty meaningless.

Justices all have egos too - there is nothing meaningless in writing an opinion.  We read about it in history books decades and centuries later.  Will it persuade the ideologically pure, probably not but the center left and and center right it may have some influence on.  Just MHO.

[knapplc]

22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Justices all have egos too - there is nothing meaningless in writing an opinion.  We read about it in history books decades and centuries later.  Will it persuade the ideologically pure, probably not but the center left and and center right it may have some influence on.  Just MHO.

 

What does it matter to me who wrote the opinion when the result of the ruling takes away my civil liberties?