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.
Why? The SC has had swings depending on who the president is ever since it's inception, why all of a sudden are they throwing a fit and refusing to answer if they will pack the court and why even consider it? Wasn't it Obama that said elections have consequences? Do they realize by threatening to pack the court they are coming off as a child throwing a fit because they didn't get their way and they are seriously turning off independents who MIGHT have considered voting for Biden/Harris in November. This is baffling to me. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is.
Ginsburg said she didn't want that either. Funny how they said her 'dying wish' was to wait until after the election to replace her. What about her wish not to pack the court?
The porblem as I see it (one person's opinion) is that Trump has thrown previous norms out the window so quickly that instittuions have had no time to react. Some thing that's good. Some think it's bad. I think he;s doing it for the sake of disruption without much sense for the consequences. Becuase those norms have checked other norms. The to=thought goes: Your follow these gentlemanly rules and I will do the same....OK, so now that you decisd to fast-track a justice through right at the time of an election (100% constitutionally permitted, just not "done") then I will consider incressing the number of justives on the court (again, permitted by the constittuion if you can amend the statute, but not "done").
To those of us who are independent we sit on the side and hit our heads because we realize it is a path to mutually assured destruction.
The porblem as I see it (one person's opinion) is that Trump has thrown previous norms out the window so quickly that instittuions have had no time to react. Some thing that's good. Some think it's bad. I think he;s doing it for the sake of disruption without much sense for the consequences. Becuase those norms have checked other norms. The to=thought goes: Your follow these gentlemanly rules and I will do the same....OK, so now that you decisd to fast-track a justice through right at the time of an election (100% constitutionally permitted, just not "done") then I will consider incressing the number of justives on the court (again, permitted by the constittuion if you can amend the statute, but not "done").
To those of us who are independent we sit on the side and hit our heads because we realize it is a path to mutually assured destruction.
Well we did elect him to pretty much be a bull in a china shop. The system wasn't working and needed wrecked. He has done a good job of it IMO. I mean if the democrats would have had the senate in 2016 they would have gotten Garland on the court. Its just the way it is.
Why? The SC has had swings depending on who the president is ever since it's inception, why all of a sudden are they throwing a fit and refusing to answer if they will pack the court and why even consider it? Wasn't it Obama that said elections have consequences? Do they realize by threatening to pack the court they are coming off as a child throwing a fit because they didn't get their way and they are seriously turning off independents who MIGHT have considered voting for Biden/Harris in November. This is baffling to me. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is.
After Barrett is confirmed, we will have the reverse of the Warren court in the 50s and 60s. That is huge and the concern on the left is for legitimate reasons.
That doesn't mean the SC will go back to pre-Warren court precedent. It means the impact of the court will be similarly big. But there will be some major reversals.
My predictions:
Roe is gone. That is mostly symbolic since a majority of women will still have access to abortion, and abortion rates have been falling anyways. The sting of a major culture war loss when victory seemed assured for the left is what makes this one hurt.
Obergefell will stand. There is nowhere near an anti-gay marriage constituency like there is an anti-abortion constituency.
Affirmative action and disparate impact are gone. Policy wise these reversals will severely affect the upwardly mobility of underrepresented groups.
All that will be left of the ACA is protection for pre-existing conditions. The marketplaces will be crippled when the mandate is declared unconstitutional. The whole country will have the situation that existed in New York state pre-ACA, with pre-existing condition protection, no mandate, and as a result very high premiums.
The biggest change of them all? Chevron deference may be overturned. This precedent gives regulations the force of law. Overturning this would be a policy making revolution and would re-empower Congress and do more than any other change to restore constitutional order. Predictably since it's the biggest prize it's also the least understood by voters. Overturning Chevron deference will effectively stop the progressive strategy of using unelected bureaucrats and judges to make most policy, reversing the growing democratic deficit.
After Barrett is confirmed, we will have the reverse of the Warren court in the 50s and 60s. That is huge and the concern on the left is for legitimate reasons.
That doesn't mean the SC will go back to pre-Warren court precedent. It means the impact of the court will be similarly big. But there will be some major reversals.
My predictions:
Roe is gone. That is mostly symbolic since a majority of women will still have access to abortion, and abortion rates have been falling anyways. The sting of a major culture war loss when victory seemed assured for the left is what makes this one hurt.
Obergefell will stand. There is nowhere near an anti-gay marriage constituency like there is an anti-abortion constituency.
Affirmative action and disparate impact are gone. Policy wise these reversals will severely affect the upwardly mobility of underrepresented groups.
All that will be left of the ACA is protection for pre-existing conditions. The marketplaces will be crippled when the mandate is declared unconstitutional. The whole country will have the situation that existed in New York state pre-ACA, with pre-existing condition protection, no mandate, and as a result very high premiums.
The biggest change of them all? Chevron deference may be overturned. This precedent gives regulations the force of law. Overturning this would be a policy making revolution and would re-empower Congress and do more than any other change to restore constitutional order. Predictably since it's the biggest prize it's also the least understood by voters. Overturning Chevron deference will effectively stop the progressive strategy of using unelected bureaucrats and judges to make most policy, reversing the growing democratic deficit.
The authoritarian right is here to impose their sharia.. i mean christian.. law.
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.
