• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Oh what a great pick. I’m sure all of the talk about non-partisanship and independence by the Trumpist wing of the country was sincere.

 
Newenglanddeac said:
Oh what a great pick. I’m sure all of the talk about non-partisanship and independence by the Trumpist wing of the country was sincere.

Click to expand...

If the Court rules in Trump's favor in such a situation, it will make all the current protests and criticism look minor in comparison. I read an article somewhere about Chief Justice Roberts being concerned about the Court appearing to be "too partisan". While that ship has already sailed, a string of clearly partisan, far-right SC rulings will wreck whatever credibility the Court has left with much, if not most, of the country and will lead to growing pressure for some major Court reforms, such as ending lifetime appointments or expanding the Court. If nothing else, it would only confirm that the SC has become nothing more than just another partisan branch of the government, and not the objective, nonpartisan branch it has been presented as being for generations.
 
Highland Deac said:
If the Court rules in Trump's favor in such a situation, it will make all the current protests and criticism look minor in comparison. I read an article somewhere about Chief Justice Roberts being concerned about the Court appearing to be "too partisan". While that ship has already sailed, a string of clearly partisan, far-right SC rulings will wreck whatever credibility the Court has left with much, if not most, of the country and will lead to growing pressure for some major Court reforms, such as ending lifetime appointments or expanding the Court. If nothing else, it would only confirm that the SC has become nothing more than just another partisan branch of the government, and not the objective, nonpartisan branch it has been presented as being for generations.
Click to expand...

Roberts has a sure majority. He could care less about appearing "too partisan." This is footage of Roberts and Kavanaugh responding to the haters.


 
PhDeac said:
Roberts has a sure majority. He could care less about appearing "too partisan." This is footage of Roberts and Kavanaugh responding to the haters.


Click to expand...

No doubt, but when the Democrats regain control of the WH and Congress, and at some point they will, they may find themselves facing laws to remove lifetime appointments, or to expand the Court. What goes around comes around.
 
If you believe the experts and insiders, Roberts cares immensely about the court’s legitimacy. We have a pretty good proof point in his aca vote and ruling. He worked hard to keep it in place. Time will tell but I tend to agree with the idea he will dampen the politicalization of the court.
 
We know he cared when Kennedy was a swing vote with Obama was president. We don’t know that he will care with a sure thing conservative majority. We don’t know that he cares with Republican control of the White House and Congress. We don’t know if he will care is the Court is the only bulwark against a blue wave.
 
PhDeac said:
We know he cared when Kennedy was a swing vote with Obama was president. We don’t know that he will care with a sure thing conservative majority. We don’t know that he cares with Republican control of the White House and Congress. We don’t know if he will care is the Court is the only bulwark against a blue wave.
Click to expand...

Sure. There's a lot we don't know but may soon find out. But a lot of signs point to him managing the court as he has. I very much doubt he will use the court to offset a progressive agenda. But it makes for great political theater (and hyperbole).
 
What signs beyond his ACA decision?
 
Given ch's track record of predictions on how 'pubs would handle healthcare, I'd suggest betting opposite him on these issues.
 
I didn't read the NPR article, but as I understand it the point of contention is whether or not serving the country of Sudan via their embassy fulfills the requirements for serving sovereign entities. Or something.
 
So, we have learned that Kavanaugh is coming for Roe and writes like a 1st year law student (or had a 1st year law student write his dissent while he got schnockered with Squi).
 
How much clearer an example of the state imposing a religion can you get?
 
Shooshmoo said:
So, we have learned that Kavanaugh is coming for Roe and writes like a 1st year law student (or had a 1st year law student write his dissent while he got schnockered with Squi).
Click to expand...

Brett is well aware of who put him on the Court, and he's going to do exactly what they want. He's almost the exact opposite of the reason the Framers provided lifetime tenure for federal judges - they would not have the pressure to bow to public whims, or to be partisan, but could theoretically be "objective" and open-minded when looking at cases. Like Thomas, he's basically a partisan hack who will probably spend the next thirty to forty years trying to enforce the whims and edicts of the Religious Right and GOP Establishment on everyone else. At least Roberts has displayed some semblance of probity in some of his decisions, I don't see Kavanaugh ever doing that.
 
Pretty sure the framers weren’t originally thinking about Muslims when they said “freedom of religion.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top