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.
With the pending announcement of the new Supreme Court Justice, I'm hearing all sorts of horror stories how the Court will go "activist" and implement the conservative dream upon America. Not just Roe, but gay marriage, wage and labor laws, environmental regulations - basically taking us back to the 18th century.
I think this is hyperbole for the most part, but what if Trump is able to install 2 or 3 more hyper-conservative justices in his 8-year reign? We'll have a 7-2 ultra-conservative court which would undo a century's worth of progress.
If this indeed comes to past, and the American people vote in a super-majority of Democrats in retaliation (say, in 2024), the pressure of this hyper-conservative S.C. would be immense. The government would be hamstrung in just about everything the voters demand (such as the restoration of environmental regs.) In this case, the Dems would have 2 choices - one is to pack the court, i.e. bringing it up to 13 or 15 seats, with the president installing a crew of hyper-liberal justices to tilt the court back to liberal again, -OR- simply abolish the S.C. altogether. Just amend the Constitution, and voila, that storied institution is gone. The more I think about it, the better it sounds. Who needs a branch of government filled with unelected elders who cannot be held accountable to the desires of the American people? Eliminating the S.C. sure would solve a lot of problems, imo.
Not happening. Although any of the founders with half a brain should have seen that lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court would be the biggest weakness of our "democracy". Should have been 10 years max.
As far as undoing a century's worth of progress? That's going to happen whether the court is 5-4 or 7-2. Depends on who you ask whether they think that Brown, or Roe were progress. There are plenty of red states that will love going back to the Jim Crow era to become "great again".
The best analogue for America after Trump will be a apartheid era South Africa style nation, but with unlimited military might and unlimited technology to enforce the ultimate police state.
You're right, and slavery only ended with a constitutional amendment. If you think you can pass an amendment to outlaw gay marriage or abortion, good luck with that!
The only times the SC reversed precedent was to expand civil rights, such as Brown v Board of Education.
With the pending announcement of the new Supreme Court Justice, I'm hearing all sorts of horror stories how the Court will go "activist" and implement the conservative dream upon America. Not just Roe, but gay marriage, wage and labor laws, environmental regulations - basically taking us back to the 18th century.
I think this is hyperbole for the most part, but what if Trump is able to install 2 or 3 more hyper-conservative justices in his 8-year reign? We'll have a 7-2 ultra-conservative court which would undo a century's worth of progress.
If this indeed comes to past, and the American people vote in a super-majority of Democrats in retaliation (say, in 2024), the pressure of this hyper-conservative S.C. would be immense. The government would be hamstrung in just about everything the voters demand (such as the restoration of environmental regs.) In this case, the Dems would have 2 choices - one is to pack the court, i.e. bringing it up to 13 or 15 seats, with the president installing a crew of hyper-liberal justices to tilt the court back to liberal again, -OR- simply abolish the S.C. altogether. Just amend the Constitution, and voila, that storied institution is gone. The more I think about it, the better it sounds. Who needs a branch of government filled with unelected elders who cannot be held accountable to the desires of the American people? Eliminating the S.C. sure would solve a lot of problems, imo.
It would probably create a whole new set of even worse problems. In any case, you make amending the Constitution sound as simple as changing a pair of socks. It isn't.
I do agree that lifetime appointments are problematic, but we are probably stuck with them.
I'm hearing all sorts of horror stories how the Court will go "activist" and implement the conservative dream upon America.
Before believing fear mongering do your research.
The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government. The President nominates justices to the court.
Wow. Listen to the whining and complaining now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Libs have no problem with activist judges who lean left (cough... 9th circuit), and they love their wise Latina who openly says her job is to "interpret" the constitution for modern times.
Calling to abolish the SC is just so predictable. Just like their calls to abolish ICE, and calls to abolish the electoral college as soon as it doesn't swing their way.
You lefties just need to calm down. The sky will not fall, and the world will not end just because Trump will be picking the new SC justice.
My prediction is the pick will not be "ultra" or "hyper" conservative or whatever superlative you want to use (turn off CNN, sheesh).
Yes, the pick will lean right, but not enough to even overturn Roe. Besides, despite what you hear from Rachel Madow, it actually is quite difficult to overturn a previous SC court decision. Newly discovered evidence is required; not just a change in ideology of the court. So the Row decision is actually quite safe.
Wow. Listen to the whining and complaining now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Libs have no problem with activist judges who lean left (cough... 9th circuit), and they love their wise Latina who openly says her job is to "interpret" the constitution for modern times.
Calling to abolish the SC is just so predictable. Just like their calls to abolish ICE, and calls to abolish the electoral college as soon as it doesn't swing their way.
You lefties just need to calm down. The sky will not fall, and the world will not end just because Trump will be picking the new SC justice.
My prediction is the pick will not be "ultra" or "hyper" conservative or whatever superlative you want to use (turn off CNN, sheesh).
Yes, the pick will lean right, but not enough to even overturn Roe. Besides, despite what you hear from Rachel Madow, it actually is quite difficult to overturn a previous SC court decision. Newly discovered evidence is required; not just a change in ideology of the court. So the Row decision is actually quite safe.
Keep track of this post in the years to come, because I predict you are dead wrong. The SCOTUS will overturn Roe, my guess is within 10 years. They might even overturn Brown, that would be more surprising but certainly not impossible. What they will do sooner is to abolish the ability of the government to regulate anything, especially the flow of corporate monies into the election system.
With the pending announcement of the new Supreme Court Justice, I'm hearing all sorts of horror stories how the Court will go "activist" and implement the conservative dream upon America. Not just Roe, but gay marriage, wage and labor laws, environmental regulations - basically taking us back to the 18th century.
I think this is hyperbole for the most part, but what if Trump is able to install 2 or 3 more hyper-conservative justices in his 8-year reign? We'll have a 7-2 ultra-conservative court which would undo a century's worth of progress.
If this indeed comes to past, and the American people vote in a super-majority of Democrats in retaliation (say, in 2024), the pressure of this hyper-conservative S.C. would be immense. The government would be hamstrung in just about everything the voters demand (such as the restoration of environmental regs.) In this case, the Dems would have 2 choices - one is to pack the court, i.e. bringing it up to 13 or 15 seats, with the president installing a crew of hyper-liberal justices to tilt the court back to liberal again, -OR- simply abolish the S.C. altogether. Just amend the Constitution, and voila, that storied institution is gone. The more I think about it, the better it sounds. Who needs a branch of government filled with unelected elders who cannot be held accountable to the desires of the American people? Eliminating the S.C. sure would solve a lot of problems, imo.
You really don't know much about checks and balances, do you? And you also don't know much about the political opinions of the nation at large. Plus, be careful what you wish for.
The Supreme Court does NOT have the power that you think it does. The ultimate power resides in the Congress and the states. If the vast majority of Americans truly disagrees with a SCOTUS decision, then the proper remedy is to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified that reverses that decision. The government, far from being hamstrung in these regards, can overrule the SCOTUS on ANY decision that the Court hands down.
Why is that not done, then? Well, the real answer is that, contrary to what you believe, the vast majority of Americans do NOT support the issues that you do. The country is in fact very closely divided on most of them. There is no massive public support for ANY of the issues that you list, not Roe, not environmental laws, not gay marriage, not wage and labor laws, or any of it. Instead, there is quite a bit of disagreement on all of these issues.
The fact is, though, that it is quite ironic for a progressive to whine about eliminating the SCOTUS and whine about the damage that the SCOTUS could do, when it is in fact that very institution that made the very "progress" that you celebrate. We would NOT have legalized abortion had the SCOTUS been eliminated prior to Roe, at least not in all states. We would NOT have legalized same sex marriage without the SCOTUS. Labor laws would be quite different without any number of SCOTUS decisions. Heck, even the Miranda rights (Miranda was the name of a defendant who brought his case to the SCOTUS) would not exist without the SCOTUS.
The fact is that you only want to see YOUR opinion become law; anyone else's opinion is irrelevant, even when the law and/or majority opinion backs up the dissenting opinion. You would not have been making this argument had Clinton won in 2016, would you?
I’m hoping that with a solidly conservative SC, they will get back to their limited original Constitutional purpose: cases involving disputes between states or with foreign powers; and that they will return social issue cases back to the states where the people can decide for themselves.
Sounds good but:
Gerrymandering renders state legislatures hopelessly corrupt and unbalanced one way or another.
hard to find a neutral source on the above. CNN was chest thumping about it and Fox ignored it. I do not pretend similar does not happen in blue states.
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.
