Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump can nominate them, but that does not mean they will become appointed.
The Senate still decides that one. The past 8 years of Republican obstruction could well come back to haunt them in the near future, and there is nothing Trump can do about it but tweet.
How long will his tweets have any power? Not long, I expect. Chicken Little did pretty good for a little while, but false alarms never last for very long, nor do they stick when shown false. Trump can't straddle both sides of any issue for long.
Any petulant child grows tiresome quickly. He's no exception to that.
In 2018, GOP will have a super Senate majority. 5 Dems run where BO lost twice, 19 more run, 10 in states Trump won.
Trump can nominate them, but that does not mean they will become appointed.
The Senate still decides that one. The past 8 years of Republican obstruction could well come back to haunt them in the near future, and there is nothing Trump can do about it but tweet.
How long will his tweets have any power? Not long, I expect. Chicken Little did pretty good for a little while, but false alarms never last for very long, nor do they stick when shown false. Trump can't straddle both sides of any issue for long.
Any petulant child grows tiresome quickly. He's no exception to that.
What Republican obstructionism? Republicans easily confirmed Obama's nominations to replace Liberal justices.
Look, abortion and gay marriage probably never should have been decided by the courts anyway. Those were issues that should have been legislated on. Still, it would be extremely radical for the court to overturn precedent on those issues.
If they do though, that is good for democrats. They will have an issue to run on and those issues will be passed by a legislature like they probably should have been to begin with.
Abortion and gay marriage will never get overturned. The "worst" thing to happen would be further restrictions on abortion, but it is too ingrained in law to completely overturn.
And I have to say, Democrats are about to love Susan Collins. If only Olympia Snowe were still in the Senate as well. We desperately need her right now. Moderate Republicans saved us from Bush's worst impulses and I don't know if there are enough of them left to save us from Trump's.
That's assuming that votes are that close. There are quite a few Red-state Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018, so I doubt those senators will be strong opposition.
There is one empty seat now. And three are 78 or older. 2 of those were nominated by a Democratic president.
Now its 4 conservative judges and 4 liberal. So this will allow for the Supreme court to lean conservative for the next 20 years, with Trump leaving office with 7 conservative judges and 2 liberal judges.
What will this mean for the US for the next generation? I can see at least it affecting affirmative action, gun control and immigration. I would think think this could have the largest impact of Trump winning the presidency than anything else.
You have to remember that Ginsberg promised to leave the country if Trump won. And unlike most Hollywood wind bags, I think we can expect the word of a SCOTUS justice to mean something. Expect her to be gone by Christmas.
Sadly this prediction was incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchoc
People living well into their 90s is not uncommon these days. I seriously doubt Trump will serve more than 4 years, if he makes it that far.
While I agree he could only serve one term, what does the "make it that far" comment mean
Quote:
Originally Posted by duster1979
I could be wrong, but I tend to think Trump will maintain the balance on the court.
I am not sure what you mean by that?
Sadly, Republicans have nominated moderates far too often, while Democrats always seem to appoint litmus tested liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim
SIDE NOTE: Has anyone taken a look at the 21 people who are being considered?
I did a quick 3 minute search on each one...just checking pedigree, age on each one etc etc.
Without knowing of their relationships to Trump...I could see Larsen, Thapar, Mike Lee, or Canady getting the nod.
Joan Larsen would be my first guess tho...a strict Constitutionalist...she clerked for Scalia, she's 47, a woman (optics matter) ... with an all around strong pedigree
I don't see the Judiciary Committee blocking her either.
I hope optics do not matter, and Trump not being afflicted with PC is less likely to choose someone based on gender/race, than your typical Democrat or RINO would.
Furthermore, we have more women justices serving now (3) than ever in our history. It was not all that long ago Sandra Day O'Connor was the first female. She was nominated by Reagan, NOT because of her gender, rather her qualifications. Unlike the self proclaimed "wise Latina", O'Connor graduated 2nd or 3rd in her class, behind William Rehnquist who graduated 1st.
The point being that Trump need not worry about choosing a woman, even if he was infected by PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You mean 4 activist judges. You can kiss gay marriage, abortion and legal pot good bye.
You have that very backwards. It was liberal activist judges that mysteriously "found the right to abortion" in the Constitution. The same can be said for homosexual marriage, with Kennedy going along with 4 liberal activists. So just because liberals (activists by their very nature) created something not found in the Constitution, does not mean that conservatives correcting the mistake, makes them "activists".
As to pot, it is not legal, and conservative justices are unlikely to find any legal text to justify making is so. That is up to the individual state legislatures. The only way it would become legal nationally would be for the legislature to do their job, not look to the un-elected judges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soup Not See
Why don't we toss birthright citizenship into the mix ?
I think this will also need Congress to get involved. However, strict constructionist judges could find that the 14th Amendment applied only to slaves (which was obviously it's intent). That would go a long way to eliminating the anchor baby phenomenon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FelixTheCat
Birthright citizenship is not really controversial given that is is the norm in most of the world, even in most of the developed countries. It really should be reviewed by the supreme court. I don't think the Constitution was written to allow for anyone from any part of the world to get a tourist visa and take a few hour flight, that their offspring has the right to be an American citizen. How does that make any sense and what purpose does that serve?
While we agree on most of what you posted, I think you might have misspoken or be mistaken. I think citizens having a child within their country are granted citizenship. That however is much different than a non citizen purposely traveling to their country to have the baby, to have citizenship bestowed upon them.
I doubt that is the norm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
How many federal judges will be up for replacement?
We aren't going to restore law and order in this country until we get rid of so many liberal judges in our court system.
I think about 100, which is a good start, but a far cry from the 300+ Obama nominated over the last 8 years.
Trump would need two terms and a lot of retirements/deaths for the balance sheet to even be balanced, much less tilted right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Trump can nominate them, but that does not mean they will become appointed.
The Senate still decides that one. The past 8 years of Republican obstruction could well come back to haunt them in the near future, and there is nothing Trump can do about it but tweet.
Two problems with your notion. For starters, most Republicans during previous Democratic presidencies approved even the radical leftist judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They played by the rules that a potus gets his nominees to the scotus, provided they are qualified. So despite their liberal activist tendencies, they met the criteria.
Secondly, Harry Reid and the Democrats hypocritically created the nuclear option to be able to confirm nominees with only a simple majority of 51 votes (with scotus being the exception). Now that they are in the minority, they will reap what they sowed.
Personally I think it should be reversed, but the trouble with Democrats is they love to play hardball (i.e. Justice Bork), but then do not want to be on the receiving side.
That was evident with this nuclear option rubbish where Obama, Hillary, Reid, Schumer, etc., all made impassioned speeches about how the nuclear option would destroy democracy (when the R's considered doing it in 2005, but decided against it). Yet they turned around and did it themselves when they gained the majority.
I dare any Democrat and or liberal to defend this blatant hypocrisy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dequindre
Abortion and gay marriage will never get overturned. The "worst" thing to happen would be further restrictions on abortion, but it is too ingrained in law to completely overturn.
To some degree I agree on abortion, mainly because of the amount of time that has passed between Roe vs. Wade and today.
However Stare Decisis only goes so far. If a current court feels some thing was decided incorrectly, especially if it does not have a constitutional basis to stand on, overturning a recent 5-4 decision is certainly a possibility.
Heck, while I know she was wrong, Hillary was saying the Heller 2nd Amendment 5-4 decision was wrongly decided. We all know she would have nominated anti-2nd Amendment judges hoping to overturn Heller & McDonald.
While I agree he could only serve one term, what does the "make it that far" comment mean
I am not sure what you mean by that?
Sadly, Republicans have nominated moderates far too often, while Democrats always seem to appoint litmus tested liberals.
I hope optics do not matter, and Trump not being afflicted with PC is less likely to choose someone based on gender/race, than your typical Democrat or RINO would.
Furthermore, we have more women justices serving now (3) than ever in our history. It was not all that long ago Sandra Day O'Connor was the first female. She was nominated by Reagan, NOT because of her gender, rather her qualifications. Unlike the self proclaimed "wise Latina", O'Connor graduated 2nd or 3rd in her class, behind William Rehnquist who graduated 1st.
The point being that Trump need not worry about choosing a woman, even if he was infected by PC.
You have that very backwards. It was liberal activist judges that mysteriously "found the right to abortion" in the Constitution. The same can be said for homosexual marriage, with Kennedy going along with 4 liberal activists. So just because liberals (activists by their very nature) created something not found in the Constitution, does not mean that conservatives correcting the mistake, makes them "activists".
As to pot, it is not legal, and conservative justices are unlikely to find any legal text to justify making is so. That is up to the individual state legislatures. The only way it would become legal nationally would be for the legislature to do their job, not look to the un-elected judges.
I think this will also need Congress to get involved. However, strict constructionist judges could find that the 14th Amendment applied only to slaves (which was obviously it's intent). That would go a long way to eliminating the anchor baby phenomenon.
While we agree on most of what you posted, I think you might have misspoken or be mistaken. I think citizens having a child within their country are granted citizenship. That however is much different than a non citizen purposely traveling to their country to have the baby, to have citizenship bestowed upon them.
I doubt that is the norm.
I think about 100, which is a good start, but a far cry from the 300+ Obama nominated over the last 8 years.
Trump would need two terms and a lot of retirements/deaths for the balance sheet to even be balanced, much less tilted right.
Two problems with your notion. For starters, most Republicans during previous Democratic presidencies approved even the radical leftist judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They played by the rules that a potus gets his nominees to the scotus, provided they are qualified. So despite their liberal activist tendencies, they met the criteria.
Secondly, Harry Reid and the Democrats hypocritically created the nuclear option to be able to confirm nominees with only a simple majority of 51 votes (with scotus being the exception). Now that they are in the minority, they will reap what they sowed.
Personally I think it should be reversed, but the trouble with Democrats is they love to play hardball (i.e. Justice Bork), but then do not want to be on the receiving side.
That was evident with this nuclear option rubbish where Obama, Hillary, Reid, Schumer, etc., all made impassioned speeches about how the nuclear option would destroy democracy (when the R's considered doing it in 2005, but decided against it). Yet they turned around and did it themselves when they gained the majority.
I dare any Democrat and or liberal to defend this blatant hypocrisy.
To some degree I agree on abortion, mainly because of the amount of time that has passed between Roe vs. Wade and today.
However Stare Decisis only goes so far. If a current court feels some thing was decided incorrectly, especially if it does not have a constitutional basis to stand on, overturning a recent 5-4 decision is certainly a possibility.
Heck, while I know she was wrong, Hillary was saying the Heller 2nd Amendment 5-4 decision was wrongly decided. We all know she would have nominated anti-2nd Amendment judges hoping to overturn Heller & McDonald.
Just out of curiosity, who would be your ideal choice for the current opening on the Supreme Court, as well as other potential vacancies? You seem to be well-versed in this kind of stuff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
