jkcerda on 24/9/2018 at 06:08
Quote Posted by Starker
Maybe not ALL of the people mentioned:
Lmfao. The person you are quoting did not witness it , let me know when you have actual witnesses
Starker on 24/9/2018 at 06:29
You said, "The people mentioned are ALL saying it's not true". No, not ALL of the people who have been mentioned are saying that it's not true.
What a nice way of dismissing anything that runs counter to what you already believe -- I guess next you'll be asking for DNA evidence.
jkcerda on 24/9/2018 at 11:35
The upside if this is that ANY future nominee will be raked through the coals. Just like with Clinton I oook forward to see the hypocrisy when liberal judges go through this and they are no where near as clean as Kav :D
Nicker on 24/9/2018 at 12:03
JK, you may, eventually, be found correct about who is lying and who isn't, or not... but right now your opinion is just another opinion, mostly inspired by your overarching motive, generating liberal tears at any cost. So pardon me if I find your circular protestations of 'smear campaign', suspect.
heywood on 24/9/2018 at 13:21
Quote Posted by Starker
Appointments may always be partisan, but wouldn't regular vacancies help ensure that not every appointment is a fight to the death and increasingly polarising, thereby also lessening the chances for disruptions?
Everything in American politics is a polarizing fight to the death right now. How much difference would it make if the term was 18 years instead of potentially 30+? The Court can make a lot of big decisions in 18 years.
In general, SCOTUS nominations seem to be non-controversial when the balance of the court isn't too far from the center and the nominee's ideology and record are similar to the justice they are replacing, e.g. Roberts replacing Rehnquist or Ginsburg replacing White. Kavanaugh has people worried that he is significantly more conservative than Kennedy on social issues. The same thing happened when Alito was picked to replace O'Connor.
Quote:
As for balance, if Kennedy hadn't turned out to be a swing vote on some issues and Blackmun hadn't swung to a more liberal position, the court would have been quite a bit more conservative leaning. If balance essentially depends on luck, is it really proper balance?
I don't think it was luck. It was the fact that it took 24 years for a full turnover of the Court, and Blackmun and White were able (and willing) to hold off retirement until Bill Clinton came into office.
Kennedy hasn't been a surprise. He was center-right and a potential swing vote when he joined the Court, and he was picked to replace Powell who was the same.
Quote:
Also, is the court really independent when retirements are strategised, though? Especially when candidates are picked from a list compiled by an ideological think tank. And if the term limits were fixed, they wouldn't face pressure to retire either.
Finally, speaking of separation of powers, there's also the question of the court's legitimacy -- term limits would help reduce the chances of the court becoming sort of an unelected legislature, with nobody to able to check them. As I understand, US justices can only be impeached for "bad behaviour".
Legislating from the bench can be a problem with any court, and unfortunately there are plenty of people who are happy to see the Court usurp legislative and executive branch powers if they like the outcome. I don't see what effect term length would have. Shorter terms might tempt some justices to be more activist, "to make their mark".
The fact that the justices can choose when to be replaced is the one thing that gives them some control over the ideological composition of the Court. The practical result is that the ideological balance of the Court changes more gradually than popular political movements. Some apparently see this as a bad thing, because the Court can become out of step with the majority of popular opinion. That is not necessarily a problem as long as the Court is doing its job of interpreting and upholding law. A much bigger worry for me is knee-jerk public reaction to crises. The public can put a lot of pressure on the President and Congress to "do something now", that usually involves trampling all over somebody's rights, and then it's up to an independent judicial branch to stop it. The last time that happened was after 9/11. I'd rather the Court be as far removed from populism and political pressure as it can be.
Tocky on 24/9/2018 at 14:28
Quote Posted by jkcerda
The upside if this is that ANY future nominee will be raked through the coals. Just like with Clinton I oook forward to see the hypocrisy when liberal judges go through this and they are no where near as clean as Kav :D
Just like with Clinton? Ummm lets see... who was it wanted salacious details aired in that case... I can't quite put my finger on it. Well we can see now why he likes salacious details. Maybe he wanted to have a drunken party and whack off to them in front of women or something. LOL.
Starker on 24/9/2018 at 14:32
If long terms mean there's a potential for long-lasting balance, don't they just as well mean there's a potential for the court to be unbalanced for a long time? And if the court can make a lot of big decisions in 18 years, they can do a whole lot more in 30+ years.
Plus there's the whole idea about consent of the governed and all that jazz. If appointments are regular, then it's the people who decide what party picks the judges, rather than blind chance or political strategising. At least there's less likelihood of judges suddenly dying off, as it happened with Scalia and what precipitated the Republicans keeping the Supreme Court without a justice for a whole year.
jkcerda on 24/9/2018 at 14:37
Quote Posted by Nicker
JK, you may, eventually, be found correct about who is lying and who isn't, or not... but right now your opinion is just another opinion, mostly inspired by your overarching motive, generating liberal tears at any cost. So pardon me if I find your circular protestations of 'smear campaign', suspect.
most of you probably have the same feeling I do but are unwilling to admit it, they are taking one for the team because of Kavs seemingly extreme anti abortion views. IF Kav is nominated AND they tackle Roe VS Wade again over turning it then it will be a huge strike against women and a big win for Christians. I support a woman's right here and if the repubs go full retard here it will not be pretty, funny I see that if Kav getsa nominated then the blue wave arrives, if not then the red wave takes out the blue.
Tocky, never change
Inline Image:
https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42471440_2025293024201460_714124796421472256_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=2af4747cec7d1204abf457ae89730248&oe=5C5C057BStarker on 24/9/2018 at 14:47
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, it will just give the activists a grand cause again. And it's not just the left who want abortions to be legal and safe, it's also the overwhelming majority of independents and a majority of Republicans. You can bet there will be some big changes in the four states where abortion will be made illegal automatically, and in the rest of the states where it's quite likely to happen.
jkcerda on 24/9/2018 at 14:50
well, CAN roe vs wade be over turned?
(
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/25/could-roe-v-wade-be-overturned-and-abortion-outlawed-in-the-us)
Quote:
Is Roe v Wade actually in danger?
It depends on what you mean. Many legal experts are sceptical that the US supreme court would overturn it any time soon. For starters, it's difficult to bring a case before the supreme court that would threaten the ruling, because those cases almost always founder in a lower court. And even if Donald Trump's supreme court nominee opposes abortion rights, the current makeup of the court is such that there aren't enough votes to overturn Roe.
An alternative strategy is to poke so many holes in Roe that its protections for abortion rights become weakened. At this, anti-abortion activists have been very successful. Since Roe, some states have enacted laws requiring women seeking an abortion to attend anti-abortion counselling or to wait 24 hours or more for the procedure, laws extensively regulating abortion after 20 weeks, and laws blocking public funding for abortion. And they have picked up speed in recent years. Since 2010, lawmakers have placed 338 new restrictions on abortion
