The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Ratt Mhule]

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm not going to argue in favor of any of the people you mentioned. I'm no fan, either. 

 

I don't know of any legal avenue the Dems had to block ACB. If you know of one, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

I get your frustration at the way the Dem party is today. If there's any consolation, your generation is likely to grow up with a far more progressive Democrat party than any in recent history. It's moving in the direction you want, just not as fast as you want. But it'll get there. Enough Americans are waking up to the reality of today's world that it can't not.

Kyle talks about some of the ways they could have held it up and also what having a 6-3 conservative court means for future liberal or progressive policies. But thank you for the pep talk knapp, im being serious. Just pisses me off when I see someone like Feinstein, who os suppose to be on our side, hugging and complimenting an evil POS like Lindsay Graham as he and his ilk try and take my brothers preexisiting condition protections away. 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

 

Give me a break. Trump turns the event into a commercial. The swearing in is a normal event for any justice.  The trump campaign turned it into a commercial and not ACB.  Stop being so petty for goodness sake. 

[RedDenver]

23 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Give me a break. Trump turns the event into a commercial. The swearing in is a normal event for any justice.  The trump campaign turned it into a commercial and not ACB.  Stop being so petty for goodness sake. 

Stop being so naive for goodness sake.

[TGHusker]

52 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Stop being so naive for goodness sake.

Stop being so paranoid. 

[Ulty]

59 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Stop being so naive for goodness sake.

 

5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Stop being so paranoid. 

[TGHusker]

5 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

Party on my friend and you too RedDenver   -

[RedDenver]

 

[TGHusker]

16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

OK, so what happens if....   Trump is lagging behind in  a key swing state on election night and  that key state or states  hold the election in the balance?   Will the Kav rule flip once again ... to keep on opening up mail in ballots and counting them after the election date???? 

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

OK, so what happens if....   Trump is lagging behind in  a key swing state on election night and  that key state or states  hold the election in the balance?   Will the Kav rule flip once again ... to keep on opening up mail in ballots and counting them after the election date???? 

Kav will flip and flop to whatever helps his "side" win.

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Kav will flip and flop to whatever helps his "side" win.

 

And claim it's strictly constitutional.

[RedDenver]

 

[TGHusker]

Wall Street journal OPED supporting my contention (I'm sure they read my post and decided to chip in) that the chief justice does have a heavier influence on a ruling through the writing of the majority opinion.  In this case, they talk about how Judge Clarence Thomas will end up writing or assign the writing of the majority opinion if Thomas is in the majority and Roberts is in the minority. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-may-get-a-conservative-chief-justice-11603749647

 

Quote

 

Chief Justice Thomas” was the headline of an article I wrote in the Journal late in 2004. I urged President George W. Bush to elevate Justice Clarence Thomas if Chief Justice William Rehnquist retired the following year. Mr. Bush didn’t follow my advice when Rehnquist died in September 2005. But as Amy Coney Barrett dons her high-court robe, Justice Thomas may find himself filling an unaccustomed leadership role.

Over the past decade Chief Justice John Roberts emerged as a frequent swing vote when the associate justices divided 4-4 along familiar liberal-conservative lines. In numerous cases—most famously National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), which upheld ObamaCare—he cast his vote with the four Democratic appointees, although his opinions were sometimes less sweeping than theirs. In June Medical Services v. Russo (2020), the court voted 5-4 to strike down Louisiana abortion restrictions, but Chief Justice Roberts pointedly declined to join Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion repudiating the rules. Instead the chief justice made clear in concurrence that he was only adhering to a four-year-old precedent, from which he had dissented and with which he still professes to disagree.

A charitable observer would say that Chief Justice Roberts is concerned about the court’s legitimacy and independence—that he wishes above all to avoid the perception that it responds to political pressure. An uncharitable one would say that in pursuit of that objective, he is creating not only the appearance but the reality of a political court. Either way, with a Republican-appointed majority of associate justices, the chief justice has lost this tie-breaking power.

That’s where Justice Thomas comes in. The chief justice is an especially potent swing voter, because he also has the power to assign authorship of the majority opinion, including to himself. That can help shape a decision’s scope and direction—usually, in Chief Justice Roberts’s case, by making it more tentative.

If the chief justice is in dissent, however, the assignment power falls to the most senior associate justice in the majority. Clarence Thomas is now the most senior justice, so he will assign authorship any time he is in the majority and Chief Justice Roberts dissents.

Justice Thomas is something of an anti-Roberts. His lone concurrences and dissents are usually not incremental but adventurous, urging colleagues to break new legal ground or rethink old precedents. In June Medical Services, he argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned—a position no other sitting justice has endorsed since Antonin Scalia died in 2016.

So what does Chief Justice Roberts do when the associate justices split 5-3 along familiar lines? If he joins the liberals and makes it 5-4, Justice Thomas gets to assign the majority opinion and perhaps induce the court to a bolder conclusion. If the chief justice joins the majority, he makes the assignment. The resulting 6-3 decision will likely be less sweeping, but it won’t be liberal. Those who hoped for a conservative chief justice 15 years ago may finally get one.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I haven't followed this thread hardly at all.  I'm upset that the Republicans handled the three nominations over the last 4 years the way they did.  If they aren't going to allow Obama's to go forward, then they shouldn't have allowed this one....or visa versa.  

 

I'm also uncomfortable with one President (whomever it is) picking a third of the SC.  

 

But, it is what it is.  I'm not really upset with who he nominated.  I think she handled herself very well in the proceedings and in her speech during Trump's campaign rally.  

 

The real test is how she handles decisions moving forward.  I believe that MOST of the time (there's exceptions) judges move to the center after they are on the court.  

 

Let's hope she rules as she says she is going to rule...by law and not her own personal feelings.

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I haven't followed this thread hardly at all.  I'm upset that the Republicans handled the three nominations over the last 4 years the way they did.  If they aren't going to allow Obama's to go forward, then they shouldn't have allowed this one....or visa versa.  

 

I'm also uncomfortable with one President (whomever it is) picking a third of the SC.  

 

But, it is what it is.  I'm not really upset with who he nominated.  I think she handled herself very well in the proceedings and in her speech during Trump's campaign rally.  

 

The real test is how she handles decisions moving forward.  I believe that MOST of the time (there's exceptions) judges move to the center after they are on the court.  

 

Let's hope she rules as she says she is going to rule...by law and not her own personal feelings.

 

Kavanaugh said the same s#!t when he wasn't crying and accusing people of trying to destroy him during his hearing and he just released one of the worst, least factual, most explicitly partisan opinions this week nerfing absentee voting in WI because it's bad for his team.

 

You have a lot more faith than in these people, friend. They were put on the Court for a reason.

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Kavanaugh said the same s#!t when he wasn't crying and accusing people of trying to destroy him during his hearing and he just released one of the worst, least factual, most explicitly partisan opinions this week nerfing absentee voting in WI because it's bad for his team.

 

You have a lot more faith than in these people, friend. They were put on the Court for a reason.

Everyone is an individual.  Just because Kavanaugh did something, doesn't mean she will.

 

Hey....here we are.  I might as well sit back and watch before I get my panties in a wad.