What the Supreme Court might have looked like.

[bomberfox]

We disagree - you do not have a positive right to receipt of a public license, regardless of whether or not one meets the qualifications laid out.



what same bullshit stunt - overturning a precedent? No. It's not about keeping or overturning precedent - you would not have wanted the court to keep Plessy.

You say this about obergefel but what you dont say is under this innane “strict constitutionalist” framework brown would go as well. Yes you have equal protection to have the same rights as straight couples and unfortunately Thomas has already told everyone he is gunning for obergefel.

 

[bomberfox]

Uh yes, the Founders absolutely designed the system assuming that they had to build in a series of checks and balances because they were keenly aware of the danger of faction. Mitch McConnell with an iron fist over the Senate?



No one has an iron fist over the Senate. It's a herd of cats.

Yes an iron fisted mitch mcconnel that can just threaten the shutdown of the government if he doesnt get his way, unilaterally decides to never let bills go forward or even be debated if he doesnt like it, and even thwart the original purpose of the senate when it comes to scotus nominations by not even having a hearing doing a huge disservice to the American people.

Even making a rule out of whole cloth based on nothing but a thought experiment that was never a senate rule nor tradition in the senate and lying about said tradition.

 

[bomberfox]

It's an old idea, but, it still works, on occasion. After the 2020 election, most recently and notably.

Barely and it took a hell of a lot of twisting hands that we might not be able to do next time.

 

[bomberfox]

I'm almost wondering if we should just cut the parking brake cable, so to speak, and jettison the last three sane justices and LET SCOTUS go 100 percent brutal MAGA.
At this point, it's not like it makes a difference how anyone else votes, and so therefore I wonder if giving the other six the impression that they have absolute authority and carte blanche to do their absolute worst might finally trigger enough alarm in all corners.

For instance, SCOTUS decides a case concerning the elevation of one specific branch of Christianity as THE OFFICIAL RELIGION and participation is mandatory on the pain of having legal residency, citizenship, voting rights, access to social help, education, veterans benefits, social security and Medicare automatically revoked if one is judged insufficiently obedient and faithful, laws regarding stiff penalties for insulting or satirizing top officials, cases involving legal penalties for "voting patterns" deemed "unamerican" by a few states, (like 20 of them?) elimination of all fourth amendment rights altogether, full criminalization of all extramarital sex...just let them blow their wad so hard that stock in cattle car manufacturers and correctional facilities goes through the roof in anticipation of mass arrests.

Let them just go full nazi, full authoritarian, to the point where it finally tips the entire applecart upside down.
Overreach often causes a very stiff backlash, so let's just have them do away with the boiled frogs and go full court press.
Yes, that will most likely trigger the war but that was already slated to happen anyway.

Whats funny is despite the pro corporate dominated Lochner court’s most strenuous attempts to give legitimacy to the court, it never once gained the reverence of the Warren court.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Let's take a quick look at expected outcomes:

A1. Does anybody truly believe that Thomas' ruling is going to stop abortions or even reduce the number of them significantly?
B2. Does anybody really believe that overturning Obergefell will stop gay marriages?
C3. Does anyone think that overturning the right to privacy re contraceptives will restructure the sexual makeup of American couples or strengthen the nuclear family?

A. Abortions will continue to be done, legally in states where it is legal and illegally where it is not, and more women will die. This world is not the movie "Dirty Dancing"...it is the real world.
B. Gay marriage will continue as before, and cases will wind up in civil court instead. The gay community AND their straight brothers and sisters who support them will make life extremely painful for any law enforcement body or lawmaking entity that tries to incarcerate a gay couple.
C. This is where the courts and law enforcement will be putting themselves in real actual danger.

In another thread @cpwill (who has accidentally revealed that he has zero personal experience with the issue) warned that Roe was almost worth a war which fells two percent of the population.
I don't think it will go down the way you think it will my conservative friend, because there are way way WAY too many wealthy and powerful conservatives who will be paying for way too many undercover abortions in the coming years and they WILL BE CAUGHT and made examples of.
They THINK they can get around this in their own state or in some other state.
They think wrong.
All the SCOTUS has done by overturning Roe is to set the stage for that civil war you're warning about.
It will begin prematurely and it will end prematurely, and the backlash will earn a generational tidal wave of sweeping votes across the country that will reduce the Christian Right to rubble and ashes.

Elections do have consequences but overreach often has worse ones.
I don't know how old @cpwill happens to be but I am old enough that I was alive before Roe and in 1973 I was at an age where theoretically at least, I could have wound up at a clinic with my little gal pal needing services. I remember how Roe changed things because I remember how it was before Roe.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

If he filled it again, then he replaced all nine justices. This is a common theme among fascists. When the courts disagree with you, replace the entire court - whether they want to be replaced or not - until they do agree with you. Which is precisely what the fascist FDR did between 1937 and 1943.

Not really. Here is the court when FDR entered office:

Justice: Successor Successor of Successor

Willis Van Devanter (retired at 78) Hugo Black
James Clark McReynolds (retired at 79) James F Byrnes (took another position) Wiley Blount Rutledge
Louis Brandeis (retired at 83) William O Douglas
George Sutherland (retired at 76) Stanley Foreman Reed
Pierce Butler (died) Frank Murphy
Harlan Stone (elevated to Chief Justice) Robert H Jackson
Charles Evans Hughes (CJ) (retired at 79) Harlan Stone
Owen Roberts (served entire FDR presidency)
Benjamin Cardozo (died) Felix Frankfurter

While FDR appointed 8 new members of the SC and they were then confirmed by the Senate. Retiring near the age of 80 or death is not the President removing a Justice to be replaced. James Byrnes left the Supreme Court after a year to head up a powerful Wartime agency. "whether they want to be replaced or not" is your own fiction. Only Congress via impeachment, or the Justice themself can vacate a SC seat. Unless Butler and Cardozo were removed by God, but that would imply that God was on FDR's side. I'm assuming that isn't your argument.

 

[Glitch]

Not really. Here is the court when FDR entered office:

Justice: Successor Successor of Successor

Willis Van Devanter (retired at 78) Hugo Black
James Clark McReynolds (retired at 79) James F Byrnes (took another position) Wiley Blount Rutledge
Louis Brandeis (retired at 83) William O Douglas
George Sutherland (retired at 76) Stanley Foreman Reed
Pierce Butler (died) Frank Murphy
Harlan Stone (elevated to Chief Justice) Robert H Jackson
Charles Evans Hughes (CJ) (retired at 79) Harlan Stone
Owen Roberts (served entire FDR presidency)
Benjamin Cardozo (died) Felix Frankfurter

While FDR appointed 8 new members of the SC and they were then confirmed by the Senate. Retiring near the age of 80 or death is not the President removing a Justice to be replaced. James Byrnes left the Supreme Court after a year to head up a powerful Wartime agency. "whether they want to be replaced or not" is your own fiction. Only Congress via impeachment, or the Justice themself can vacate a SC seat. Unless Butler and Cardozo were removed by God, but that would imply that God was on FDR's side. I'm assuming that isn't your argument.

Funny how none of the Justices were keen on retiring when FDR was proposing forced retirement at age 72 in 1936, which Congress rejected. Just as Congress rejected FDR's demand that they increase the number of justices. Those who didn't willing retire, were forced to retire one way or another. At no time in US history has a President ever replaced all nine justices within a 6-year window. It doesn't happen, unless a fascist President makes it happen.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Cool. Do you actually think of any poster who disagrees with you sharply on your chosen primary issues as reasonable or honorable?

No, he doesn’t. Because Democrats inherently view all of their political interactions through a friend enemy distinction. People who don’t agree are the enemy. Read the concept of the political by Carl Schmitt, that is how leftists view power politics.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Funny how none of the Justices were keen on retiring when FDR was proposing forced retirement at age 72 in 1936, which Congress rejected. Just as Congress rejected FDR's demand that they increase the number of justices. Those who didn't willing retire, were forced to retire one way or another. At no time in US history has a President ever replaced all nine justices within a 6-year window. It doesn't happen, unless a fascist President makes it happen.

Roosevelt did not propose forcing retirement. His ill-fated court packing scheme was about adding an additional justice for each judge who did not retire at age 70 and that was 1937, not 1936. That is a different than you characterize it. Also, as was previously pointed out, Owen Roberts and Harlan Stone were justices throughout the entire Roosevelt administration of which none were nominated during his first term. That makes 8 nominations for FDR, tied with Washington. Slogans don't replace facts.

 

[NWRatCon]

Roosevelt did not propose forcing retirement. His ill-fated court packing scheme was about adding an additional justice for each judge who did not retire at age 70 and that was 1937, not 1936. That is a different than you characterize it. Also, as was previously pointed out, Owen Roberts and Harlan Stone were justices throughout the entire Roosevelt administration of which none were nominated during his first term. That makes 8 nominations for FDR, tied with Washington. Slogans don't replace facts.

Bullshit is particularly pernicious in the face of facts.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Bullshit is particularly pernicious in the face of facts.

Perhaps you should reply to the person who replied to your OP. He got some facts wrong, but FDR does not come across as innocent when it comes to the Supreme Court.

 

[mrjurrs]

Nope. They designed the system to have checks and balances exactly because they expected them to be self-interested actors who at most would represent the interests of the State governments who at that time appointed them. There were no philosopher kings in their worldview, and looking for them led to tyranny.

That would be incorrect. What is your fairy tale about the House?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Below are the succession of Justices over the last 32 years, including non-confirmations. Consider for a moment how the Court would have looked if the process had not been so egregiously manipulated by McConnell. Merrick Garland would have made the Court more moderate than Scalia. Gorsuch would replace Kennedy/Kavanagh. Ketanji Brown Jackson would replace Barrett/Ginsburg, and Biden would be appointing his second Justice to replace Breyer.
.View attachment 67399351

Why does Obama get to appoint Garland and Biden gets to replace Ginsburg? If your point is that McConnell "stole" Scalia's seat, then that's the one that would get replaced. If you think McConnell, should have blocked Garland, then Ginsburg's seat is filled by Biden. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[cpwill]

That would be incorrect. What is your fairy tale about the House?

No they were pretty clear about it. Ever read the federalist papers and their discussion of faction?

 

[CaughtInThe]

If you're a Republican and you can't cheat or support cheating regarding Supreme Court Justices then what fun is life.

 

[NWRatCon]

Think how much better the Supreme Court would be if only Dems could nominate judges, lol.

You are oh so RIGHT, X.

 

[cpwill]

At least something to agree on.

Indeed

The problem is, that is an ahistorical formulation.

It is not, as the Alito decision laid out at length

That's just partisan blather, and inaccurate to boot. Roe was not a political decision,

It is not, because Roe was indeed a political decision - the Left wanted the Court to solve a political dispute by just imposing their preferred answer, and, instead, they created a massive counter-movement to go through the very institution they had just leveraged.

It [Roe] was a pragmatic legal decision based upon established rights and legal precedent.

That is incorrect, as even Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly pointed out.

True. Legal decisions have to be addressed to courts... but the personnel of the court should not be determinative, rather legal principles. That is not the case with Dobbs.

To the contrary; the Federalist Society's decades-long goal has been to get people up on the Court who will apply exactly the principles - Originalism and Textualism - that were applied here in Dobbs.

No, you are wrong and are deliberately mischaracterizing my statements. I won't allow you to do so.

I am pointing out the implications of your argument; "Ideology" is not a bad word, it is a word that means "what we think is true". To accuse someone of being bad because they are using their ideological lens (in this case, Originalism and Textualism) to view an issue is to accuse them of disagreeing with you, and arguing that this is bad.

Yes, it is. As is obvious. Roe addressed a balancing of State and personal interests. The whole 3-trimester approach is based upon scientific and legal understandings as to stages of development and legal traditions.

Justice Blackman - who authored the Roe opinion - admitted that the trimester system he created was arbitrary, and that he just made it up.

As he was crafting the opinion, Blackmun wrote internal memos to his fellow justices, saying that he had decided to create a cut-off for legalized abortion at the “first trimester,” which he defined as the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. “This is arbitrary,” Blackmun wrote. “But perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability [of the fetus], is equally arbitrary.”​

Your analysis of the various opinions is nonsensical, and so divorced from them as to be unrecognizable. You've drunk too deeply from the well of partisan nonsense. Where did you derive these ideas?

So far, respectfully, your claims have been demonstrated to be without much in the way of supporting evidence. I'll stick with what's available, thanks

 

[NWRatCon]

We are a long way from the topic. I'd like to get back to it.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'll stick with what's available, thanks

I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to do the thorough refutation - in this thread - to the numerous inaccuracies in your last post that would be required. That we disagree is obvious. Why we disagree is also obvious. That this is not the topic of the thread is also obvious.

Another day, another thread; not that all of the contrary facts will dissuade you of your view. I'm not Don Quixote.

 

[cpwill]

You say this about obergefel but what you dont say is under this innane “strict constitutionalist” framework brown would go as well.

It would not.

Yes you have equal protection to have the same rights as straight couples and unfortunately Thomas has already told everyone he is gunning for obergefel.

And, while he is correct that readdressing decisions reached on substantive due proccess - which is what Obergefell leaned on, vice the Equal Protection Clause, which is what both Brown and Loving rest on - would be consistent. However, the Majority Opinion and Kavanaugh Concurrence both made clear that he is pretty much on an island alone when it comes to readdressing that issue.