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.
"Just amend the Constitution" he says. It has to pass 2/3 of Congress and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Not gonna happen. Which is a good thing, because the SC has functioned as an important check on the excesses of both executive and legislative branches for 230 years.
I think people go a little overboard in what they think replacing members of the SC is going to do. First of all, I don't know what you mean by "ultra-conservative". Gorsuch, for example, is conservative but I would not call him "ultra" by any means. We can expect Trump to nominate a conservative, so if we get another Gorsuch I think Democrats should accept it as it could be worse.
Second, the Court has historically been very reluctant to overturn precedent. I would be surprised if Roe v Wade is overturned, and shocked if gay marriage is overturned, even with a solid majority of conservative justices. Sorry conservatives, you might get some nibbling around the edges, but for the most part these issues are settled law.
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.
"Just amend the Constitution" he says. It has to pass 2/3 of Congress and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Not gonna happen. Which is a good thing, because the SC has functioned as an important check on the excesses of both executive and legislative branches for 230 years.
I think people go a little overboard in what they think replacing members of the SC is going to do. First of all, I don't know what you mean by "ultra-conservative". Gorsuch, for example, is conservative but I would not call him "ultra" by any means. We can expect Trump to nominate a conservative, so if we get another Gorsuch I think Democrats should accept it as it could be worse.
Second, the Court has historically been very reluctant to overturn precedent. I would be surprised if Roe v Wade is overturned, and shocked if gay marriage is overturned, even with a solid majority of conservative justices. Sorry conservatives, you might get some nibbling around the edges, but for the most part these issues are settled law.
Slavery and segregation were settled laws too. People’s attitudes change over time. Social issues should not be set in stone. They should evolve as the people evolve. Majority popular vote in each state should be how these issues are decided. And if the people of my state want abortions to be legal, I’ll either accept that or move to another state where they are illegal.
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.
The supreme court doesn't make laws and the court is not supposed to be activist. Ignore the hyperbole, it's propaganda meant to scare you.
People on both sides would join the left if they thought the scare stores were true but they know it's fear mongering. It's too set in stone (settled) and won't change and no one, Dem or Repub wants it to.
Perhaps it's time for liberals to either come back from the cliff or step off it. Pick one.
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.
