Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law

[Beerina]

Nothing wrong with reiterating the previous ruling. The basic idea is a seemingly reasonable law, or a set of such, if they stack up to block a constitutional right, are unconstitutional.

I hope people remember this crucially important principle when cases from California get to the SC, where "no gun stores within 1000 feet of a school" turn out to ban all gun stores in a county.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nothing wrong with reiterating the previous ruling. The basic idea is a seemingly reasonable law, or a set of such, if they stack up to block a constitutional right, are unconstitutional.

I hope people remember this crucially important principle when cases from California get to the SC, where "no gun stores within 1000 feet of a school" turn out to ban all gun stores in a county.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Minoosh]

It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.

No, I don't think that's going to happen. If Dems are that complacent they deserve to lose.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.

I don't think that is what any liberal is thinking.

No, I don't think that's going to happen. If Dems are that complacent they deserve to lose.

Agreed.

 

[a_unique_person]

Do you think they interpreted the Constitution correctly?

It is easier to read goat entrails.

 

[uke2se]

Anyone who thinks the courts are nonpolitical is naive. The disinterest of liberals to make plays for power is why they keep getting the snot beat out of them by conservatives.

I didn't say anyone actually thinks that the court is non-political, only that they want the court to be non-political.

 

[RolandRat]

I find it absolutely insane that US judges are political appointments. A court should be completely unpartisan.

 

[Stacyhs]

I find it absolutely insane that US judges are political appointments. A court should be completely unpartisan.

I completely agree. Federal judges are political appointees but state judges are often elected and run as non-partisan.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Since Ginsberg dropped the ball by refusing to resign when a liberal justice could be appointed, a conservative SCOTUS is very much on the ballot. Another Trump term practically guarantees a 5-4 conservative court that will issue rulings to totally undermine, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade.

McConnell's presence during the entire time shows how correct she was to *not* resign, as he stonewalled Obama's attempts to suggest a replacement, choosing to wait over a year to ensure the nomination was handed like a trophy to the next president.

 

[Belz...]

I completely agree. Federal judges are political appointees but state judges are often elected and run as non-partisan.

Elected judges are an even more insane concept, imo.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Maybe, maybe not, but it allows us to fire judges that aren't pulling their weight anymore. I voted to remove a judge a year or two ago who got a failing grade, which he responded angrily to, because he was prejudging----he was a sentencer. Every person who stood before him was a criminal and he was there to punish them.

 

[Segnosaur]

I find it absolutely insane that US judges are political appointments. A court should be completely unpartisan.

It should be. The question is, how do you actually accomplish that.

If you give the tack of selecting judges over to some non-elected group to make the pic, then people will suggest that you're being run by a bunch of un-elected people.

The U.S. HAD a good method of selecting judges... nominated by the president but had to be approved by 2/3rds in the senate... so even if there was some partisanship, you couldn't get a nominee through without at least some support from the opposing party. But Moscow Mitch blew that up... first by obstructing Obama, then by eliminating the 2/3rds requirement.

Perhaps what is needed is a constitutional amendment (if that could ever get through) restoring the 2/3rds requirement, and limiting the amount of obstruction that the Senate can apply.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Things can't be "unpartisan" when "Rejects reality" is one of the major parties.

 

[Ziggurat]

And worse still a second Trump term almost guarantees that 5-4 conservative court becomes a 6-3 or 8 to 2 conservative court.

Trump is going to appoint a 10th justice? Cool!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Trump is going to appoint a 10th justice? Cool!

You think that having a conservative court pushing religious decisions over the Constitution is a good idea?

 

[Darat]

I'd suggest lifelong terms are part of the problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

McConnell's presence during the entire time shows how correct she was to *not* resign, as he stonewalled Obama's attempts to suggest a replacement, choosing to wait over a year to ensure the nomination was handed like a trophy to the next president.

This is demonstrably untrue. David Souter retired in 2009 and was replaced by a a liberal, Sotomayor. There was absolutely a window when Ginsburg could have stepped down and avoided this fraught scenario. Obama's first few years in office had Democratic control of the Senate.

There were calls at the time, some explicitly citing the risk of future Republican victories making it impossible to confirm a liberal in Ginsburg's lifetime, for her to step down. If a Federalist society hack fills her seat, the lion's share of the blame lies at her feet for failing to act shrewdly.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You mean conservatives want judges to take an active role in shaping law? really? But that runs contrary to their cries of "activist judges".

Every accusation is a confession.

If you want a glimpse of the chaotic crapshow that will be the transition to a Biden presidency, look at their cries of "Deep State" with the understanding that they're brainstorming.

 

[Ziggurat]

You think that having a conservative court pushing religious decisions over the Constitution is a good idea?

My point was really about the math. Looks like he wasn't the only one.

 

[The Don]

And worse still a second Trump term almost guarantees that 5-4 conservative court becomes a 6-3 or 8 to 2 conservative court.

Ginsburg's 87, Bryer is 81. Rolling the dice they both aren't going to see 2024.

With a 5-4 you sort of have to pretend to give lip service to the other side in some cases. 6-3 or 8 to 2 that pretense will be gone completely.

IMO no Supreme Court justices will ever be appointed if they are nominated by the Democratic Party and the Senate is GOP held.

If there is a prospect of the GOP losing control of the Senate, I can also see them changing the rules so that a super-majority is required to secure an appointment, they can always revert to the original rules in the event that they don't lose their majority.