+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: The Supreme Court (/thread-82.html)
Pages:
1
2
The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 05-14-2016
I'm staking out territory on this thread since this tends to be up my wheelhouse, and we're likely to get a bunch of opinions over the next six weeks.
I feel guilty about feeling hopeful about a death (Scalia), but unfortunately the Constitution forces those kind of feelings when it comes to the Supreme Court. The biggest short term stake in this presidential election is far and away the balance of power at the Court. If Scalia does get replaced by Garland or (hopefully) someone further left, there's going to be a long laundry list of terrible precedents that I'd like to see overturned ASAP.
RE: The Supreme Court - Odin - 05-14-2016
(05-14-2016, 04:56 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: I'm staking out territory on this thread since this tends to be up my wheelhouse, and we're likely to get a bunch of opinions over the next six weeks.
I feel guilty about feeling hopeful about a death (Scalia), but unfortunately the Constitution forces those kind of feelings when it comes to the Supreme Court. The biggest short term stake in this presidential election is far and away the balance of power at the Court. If Scalia does get replaced by Garland or (hopefully) someone further left, there's going to be a long laundry list of terrible precedents that I'd like to see overturned ASAP.
First among them Citizens United.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 05-14-2016
(05-14-2016, 05:10 PM)Odin Wrote:(05-14-2016, 04:56 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: I'm staking out territory on this thread since this tends to be up my wheelhouse, and we're likely to get a bunch of opinions over the next six weeks.
I feel guilty about feeling hopeful about a death (Scalia), but unfortunately the Constitution forces those kind of feelings when it comes to the Supreme Court. The biggest short term stake in this presidential election is far and away the balance of power at the Court. If Scalia does get replaced by Garland or (hopefully) someone further left, there's going to be a long laundry list of terrible precedents that I'd like to see overturned ASAP.
First among them Citizens United.
We need to go even further back: this whole mess started with Buckley v. Valeo allowing some campaign expenditures to be constitutionally protected in the first place.
#1 on my list is Shelby County, but I don't know if the political capital will be there for Congress to do something that would trigger a lawsuit. Ideally we would require all state and local elections to be precleared, but that seems ambitious in the current climate.
The most likely U-turn I see soon is on abortion, since so many states are passing ridiculous laws that will provide plenty of ripe opportunities for court challenges. Ideally, I'd like to see the Court go as far as to overrule Casey, jettisoning Sandra Day O'Connor's bourgeois-tilted take on abortion in favor of the brighter line of Roe v. Wade.
I've got a lot of other cases I want to see overturned but I don't know how interested people would be in such a list at the moment.
RE: The Supreme Court - radind - 06-05-2016
Interesting review of Republican and Democratic interpretation of US constitution.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?408513-1/randy-barnett-discusses-republican-constitution
Book Discussion on Our Republican Constitution Randy Barnett talked about his book Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, in which he argues that the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans is based on their differing interpretations of the Constitution and the meaning of the phrase “We the People.”
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-08-2016
Dear Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, and Lindsey Graham:
It's good that you're blasting Trump for his horrendous comments about Gonzalo Curiel regarding the Trump University case. But your comments are going to ring hollow unless you do one simple step to ensure that Trump won't have a deleterious effect on America's judiciary: push immediately for Merrick Garland to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. With the four of you, 44 Democratic and 2 independent colleagues, and Joe Biden, it can be done.
Sincerely,
--Bronco80.
RE: The Supreme Court - playwrite - 06-10-2016
Obviously, another area will be addressing, and hopefully reversing, the trend of increasingly insane ammosexuality that is gripping much of the country.
One major dent in the trend is the recent 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court decision on conceal and carry -
Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public
The beauty is that the ruling will stand if it doesn't go to the SCOTUS or, if it does go, the current Court's 4-4 make-up results in a split decision.
We just need to keep the Talking Yam out of the WH and take back the Senate to get off the train to Hell that the ammosexuals are just itching their jockstraps to take us.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-10-2016
DC v. Heller is looking more to me as a vanity project from the right wing of the Court. They were so intent on making a landmark decision with the Second Amendment, but they haven't bothered with extrapolating upon it at all. I certainly wouldn't mind if Heller was overturned but I have to admit that that case has become pretty low on my list as a practical matter.
RE: The Supreme Court - Eric the Green - 06-10-2016
(06-10-2016, 11:49 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(06-10-2016, 08:22 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: DC v. Heller is looking more to me as a vanity project from the right wing of the Court. They were so intent on making a landmark decision with the Second Amendment, but they haven't bothered with extrapolating upon it at all. I certainly wouldn't mind if Heller was overturned but I have to admit that that case has become pretty low on my list as a practical matter.
Certain state and local jurisdictions, as well as pro-armament groups, as well as haters of individual armaments, have engaged in overreach. All camps are knee jerking against each other, outwith reason. A reasoned approach leads to a conclusion that there is no inherent evil to an individual right to armaments for law abiding and sane individuals, and it also leads to the acceptability of reasonable restrictions. The word reasonable can become a can of worms, however, most people probably agree that for law abiding people, having a magazine that happens to exceed 10 or whatever arbitrary number of rounds is not an actual problem. Meanwhile, most people agree that law abiding people don't need full auto, howitzers, motor driven ammunition feeds, radar assisted aiming, advanced fire control systems, or any other number of typically "military" technologies. Conversely, most people agree that for a jurisdiction to effectively ban most or all individual armaments is severe overreach as well (hence, Heller). Yes, we CAN all get along!
I think we can, if we choose to. I can recognize the fact that in America, some people want guns and are not ready for a ban, and that to impose one by force is folly. I can hold to my ideal of a gun-less society, and still get along with those who want their "rights" and are also willing to understand the need for reasonable restrictions. I do hope Heller is overturned. But such disagreements can be lived with.
RE: The Supreme Court - Eric the Green - 06-10-2016
(06-08-2016, 08:34 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: Dear Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, and Lindsey Graham:
It's good that you're blasting Trump for his horrendous comments about Gonzalo Curiel regarding the Trump University case. But your comments are going to ring hollow unless you do one simple step to ensure that Trump won't have a deleterious effect on America's judiciary: push immediately for Merrick Garland to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. With the four of you, 44 Democratic and 2 independent colleagues, and Joe Biden, it can be done.
Sincerely,
--Bronco80.
That would certainly be wise for them!
They might do it after Hillary's election. Two of them might be lame ducks by then though, especially if they wait that long to act.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-10-2016
(06-10-2016, 11:34 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(05-14-2016, 04:56 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: I'm staking out territory on this thread since this tends to be up my wheelhouse, and we're likely to get a bunch of opinions over the next six weeks.
I feel guilty about feeling hopeful about a death (Scalia), but unfortunately the Constitution forces those kind of feelings when it comes to the Supreme Court. The biggest short term stake in this presidential election is far and away the balance of power at the Court. If Scalia does get replaced by Garland or (hopefully) someone further left, there's going to be a long laundry list of terrible precedents that I'd like to see overturned ASAP.
I have a different hope. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to be a highly apolitical body to adjudicate matters of Constitutionality. It's time for this Left - Right bullshit vis a vis its justices to cease. There should be no such thing as a "Leftist" or a "Rightist" justice. What qualifies a person to be a justice of the SCotUS among other things is an ability to rise above the fray of polity. That is a special skill set. People like Garland are precisely what the doctor ordered. May there be many more and may the SCotUS return to its correct function.
As long as Supreme Court justices are appointed by politicians, it willl remain an inherently political institution. It's been that way ever since it began. SCOTUS like to say that they're above the fray of polity, but deep down they know it's not a coincidence that they split into similar camps over and over again. So with that being the case, in my own worldview I'd certainly like to see the Court pull more left than it's been at.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-10-2016
(06-10-2016, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:What I want to know is, if/when Clinton has won or it looks like she might win--and also if the Dems are going to retake the Senate, whether or not Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination, or if Garland will withdraw himself. That would allow Clinton to appoint someone to the left of Garland.(06-08-2016, 08:34 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: Dear Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, and Lindsey Graham:
It's good that you're blasting Trump for his horrendous comments about Gonzalo Curiel regarding the Trump University case. But your comments are going to ring hollow unless you do one simple step to ensure that Trump won't have a deleterious effect on America's judiciary: push immediately for Merrick Garland to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. With the four of you, 44 Democratic and 2 independent colleagues, and Joe Biden, it can be done.
Sincerely,
--Bronco80.
That would certainly be wise for them!
They might do it after Hillary's election. Two of them might be lame ducks by then though, especially if they wait that long to act.
RE: The Supreme Court - Eric the Green - 06-20-2016
Good news:
from newsmax:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is reportedly considering retirement from the nation's high court after this year's presidential election.
The Washington Examiner, citing unnamed sources, reports Thomas has been mulling an exit "for a while and never planned to stay until he died."
Appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 1991 after bitter confirmation hearings, the conservative's retirement, along with the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, would have a big impact on control of the high court.
The court is currently divided 4-4, the next president will certainly tip the balance with a replacement for Scalia. Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a swing vote on the high court, will be 80 next year, the Examiner notes.
Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-balance-conservative/2016/06/19/id/734589/#ixzz4C6IqVSda
RE: The Supreme Court - pbrower2a - 06-20-2016
I have never thought highly of Clarence Thomas as a jurist. He seems too much like a flunky of the Executive branch when a Republican is President and too consistently uncooperative when a Democrat is President. Indeed that is about all that I can say about him without saying something horrible.
It looks reasonably certain that should he retire. it won't be Donald Trump who nominates a replacement. Just think -- Donald Trump, so reckless about so many other things appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court. Another good reason to support Hillary Clinton if one is a Democrat or Independent -- and Gary Johnson if one is a Republican. Of course Hillary Clinton deserves no unqualified support... but Donald Trump deserves none.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-20-2016
(06-20-2016, 02:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good news:
from newsmax:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is reportedly considering retirement from the nation's high court after this year's presidential election.
The Washington Examiner, citing unnamed sources, reports Thomas has been mulling an exit "for a while and never planned to stay until he died."
Appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 1991 after bitter confirmation hearings, the conservative's retirement, along with the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, would have a big impact on control of the high court.
The court is currently divided 4-4, the next president will certainly tip the balance with a replacement for Scalia. Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a swing vote on the high court, will be 80 next year, the Examiner notes.
Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-balance-conservative/2016/06/19/id/734589/#ixzz4C6IqVSda
I'll believe it when I see. There's probably a very small kernel of truth in not wanting to stay on the Court his whole life, but I think he'll hold out for a Republican president. Although it would be poetic justice if he retired due to being resigned to a right-wing majority not coming back to the Court any time soon, since the man he replaced, Thurgood Marshall, felt the same way from the left in 1991.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-20-2016
(06-20-2016, 05:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have never thought highly of Clarence Thomas as a jurist. He seems too much like a flunky of the Executive branch when a Republican is President and too consistently uncooperative when a Democrat is President. Indeed that is about all that I can say about him without saying something horrible.
Although these are very low bars to cross, I think of him higher than Scalia (who took a Rush Limbaugh type approach to his jurisprudence) and Alito (who's about as blatant as a right wing partisan jurist as we've had in a while). Thomas also has a few issues where he's actually OK to good on. Of course, he more than cancels that out by going way off the deep end many times where not even Scalia or Alito would tread. He did that again today, basically pining for the Lochner era again in this opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-20-2016
Meanwhile, the main reason why I came to this thread was to point out this terrible Fourth Amendment decision, yet praise Sotomayor for bluntly calling out this terrible opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
RE: The Supreme Court - pbrower2a - 06-20-2016
(06-20-2016, 04:07 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: Meanwhile, the main reason why I came to this thread was to point out this terrible Fourth Amendment decision, yet praise Sotomayor for bluntly calling out this terrible opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
I would have ruled against Strieff. The right of the police to search an arrested suspect is a reasonable assumption. Grounds for arrest include a warrant for arrest sworn before a judge and approved , an arrest in flagrante delicto, or under suspicious circumstances. Going into a place of suspected drug activity without obvious other cause would constitute suspicious activity.
Had Strief not presented a driver's license he would have been arrested. Errors by arresting officers can be made in good faith thus nullifying an arrest and conviction, but there seems to be no obvious error as I see it.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bronco80 - 06-24-2016
I'm happy that Kennedy came around and saw the writing in the wall on Fisher. Good on him. Now I hope he does the same in Whole Women's Health. I was pessimistic that it was going to end in a 4-4 tie that would uphold Texas's anti-abortion laws in the Fifth Circuit only, but given that two other 4-4 ties were disposed of yesterday I now have a small shred of optimism. I hope I'm not wrong about that.
RE: The Supreme Court - Eric the Green - 06-25-2016
(06-10-2016, 06:03 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:(06-10-2016, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:What I want to know is, if/when Clinton has won or it looks like she might win--and also if the Dems are going to retake the Senate, whether or not Obama will withdraw Garland's nomination, or if Garland will withdraw himself. That would allow Clinton to appoint someone to the left of Garland.(06-08-2016, 08:34 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: Dear Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk, and Lindsey Graham:
It's good that you're blasting Trump for his horrendous comments about Gonzalo Curiel regarding the Trump University case. But your comments are going to ring hollow unless you do one simple step to ensure that Trump won't have a deleterious effect on America's judiciary: push immediately for Merrick Garland to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. With the four of you, 44 Democratic and 2 independent colleagues, and Joe Biden, it can be done.
Sincerely,
--Bronco80.
That would certainly be wise for them!
They might do it after Hillary's election. Two of them might be lame ducks by then though, especially if they wait that long to act.
I suspect the lame duck Senate will confirm Garland, if Hillary Clinton wins, rather than let the nomination slide into Hillary's term, since they will think she is liable to appoint someone more progressive, especially if the Senate goes Democratic. If the lame duck Senators DON'T confirm him though, after Hillary wins, I suspect Hillary will stick with Garland, and then it will depend on who wins the Senate whether we get a justice. If Trump wins, of course, he will appoint a conservative. That's why the Supreme Court is on the ballot this November. I suspect Clarence Thomas will resign, and Hillary, if she wins, will appoint a liberal successor to him. Perhaps another A-American.
RE: The Supreme Court - Bob Butler 54 - 06-27-2016
CNN is seeing Kennedy going out a liberal based on the two recent cases supporting affirmative action and abortion access. Has the court already gone liberal in spite of Senate inaction?