Law Justice Kennedy Retires!!! New SCOTUS justice to be announced 9PM Monday, July 9th

[SaiWa]

I mean I get that argument but you can see why some of us in states that never swing can't take the national level stuff seriously I'm sure.

no and I wouldn't fault anyone for it. it is a free country after all. I just believe it's the wrong way to think. Always vote.

 

[waiguoren]

That's really the only glimmer of possible hope for social liberals at this point.

Absurd comment.

Social liberals have been winning consistently over the past 70 years. Compare the number of states which have legalized gay marriage or decriminalized marijuana use to the situation 30 years ago.

The proper avenue for social liberal change is state legislation. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, abortion or drug laws.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I could see him allowing a 20 week ban but striking down Heartbeat Bills.

He's very aware of his place in history. So I'm not sure how far right he'll allow the court to get when he has the option.

20 weeks is around viability as it is. He would certainly uphold such a ban. I'm not optimistic at all on that front.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I wrote, simply and directly: it's the job of the Congress to enact laws, not the judiciary.

Your response was that I am wrong.

I was talking about human beings using their own bias to make decisions. Which they all do. Now run along kid and stop trying to get attention from a website.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Absurd comment.

Social liberals have been winning consistently over the past 70 years. Compare the number of states which have legalized gay marriage or decriminalized marijuana use to the situation 30 years ago.

The proper avenue for social liberal change is state legislation. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, abortion or drug laws.

Yeah, it doesn't say a lot about many things. Most phrases in the Constitution (Due Process, Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, Equal Protection, etc) aren't defined; and those persons that passed the amendments didn't hold ubiquitous views on what they meant nor could foresee how society and technology would progress/unfold.

I haven't the slightest clue on how you could not consider Kennedy's retiring to be a blow to social liberals. It is. Regardless of how you feel about those specific issues and how they should be tackled.

 

[Fugazy]

Disclaimer:

***I did not vote for Trump***

I have been sincerely embarrased by the behavior of the people in my very liberal workplace.

Today two sad, self loathing white people at my place of work went on and on how it was a terrible day because of this retirement.

And then I heard this actual quote

"Well, maybe, he (Trump) will appoint someone so bad, it would be like criminal, and he can get impeached, and then the judges will get impeached. Judges can be impeached right?"

Other lib reply:

"Well yeah, but it might not be that bad. I mean, like it'll be terrible but they will probably be qualified, like you know, a really bad plumber, but he is still a plumber"

-said the non-gender conforming "woman" with many face piercings and half shaved head to the other lib.

To which all I could think was, Really? That's honestly what you expect to happen?

 

[luckyshot]

He's a Republican nominated by Reagan. I wouldn't think that nominating another conservative, assuming he or she is an honest and capable judge, would effect the court's current leanings.

He also wrote the majority opinion legalizing gay marriage. He was a Republican but not an ideologue.

Whoever Trump nominates will be right if right... like Jeff Sessions right.

Not an argument.

Lots of things are true without being arguments.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Kennedy and RBG should have both retired under Obama. Not that I think he was the lefty that folks pretend him to be, but because of the alternative scenario of having Trump and a Republican Congress.

 

[BrotherClaudio]

oh ffs he's going to put that Fox news lady in isnt he?

Nope, Trey Gowdy

 

[BKMMAFAN]

But in Gonzales v. Raich, he wrote that the federal government has no authority to pass a law banning the production/use of homegrown marijuana. He doesn't let his policy preferences get in the way of his beliefs about the Constitution's meaning.

As an aside, had to be Scalia's most baffling decision to side with the majority. Almost certainly because pot was involved. Thomas was/is certainly more consistent than he was. Lots of ICC cases could be at risk now as well; including some key provisions of the Civil Rights Acts.

 

[waiguoren]

Yeah, it doesn't say a lot about many things. Most phrases in the Constitution (Due Process, Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, Equal Protection, etc) aren't defined; and those persons that passed the amendments didn't hold ubiquitous views on what they meant nor could foresee how society and technology would progress/unfold.

All the phrases you mentioned can be pinned down in a narrow range of interpretation through careful textualist/originalist analysis.

As for foreseeing how society/technology would progress/unfold---that's why we have an amendment process and a legislature. Both are underused, particularly the former.

I haven't the slightest clue on how you could not consider Kennedy's retiring to be a blow to social liberals. It is. Regardless of how you feel about those specific issues and how they should be tackled.

I didn't argue that point.

 

[waiguoren]

As an aside, had to be Scalia's most baffling decision to side with the majority. Almost certainly because pot was involved. Thomas was/is certainly more consistent than he was.

I agree with you.

Lots of ICC cases could be at risk now as well; including some key provisions of the Civil Rights Acts

Could you be more specific?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Insofar as it pertained to using judicial review to effect social change, yes it did.

Edit: not sure what happened to what I quoted.

 

[waiguoren]

Disclaimer:

***I did not vote for Trump***

I have been sincerely embarrased by the behavior of the people in my very liberal workplace.

Today two sad, self loathing white people at my place of work went on and on how it was a terrible day because of this retirement.

And then I heard this actual quote

"Well, maybe, he (Trump) will appoint someone so bad, it would be like criminal, and he can get impeached, and then the judges will get impeached. Judges can be impeached right?"

Other lib reply:

"Well yeah, but it might not be that bad. I mean, like it'll be terrible but they will probably be qualified, like you know, a really bad plumber, but he is still a plumber"

-said the non-gender conforming "woman" with many face piercings and half shaved head to the other lib.

To which all I could think was, Really? That's honestly what you expect to happen?

You need to get out of that shithouse office.

 

[IGIT]

I was talking about human beings using their own bias to make decisions. Which they all do. Now run along kid and stop trying to get attention from a website.

hi ho Kong!

his contention (i think) is that the conservative justice's bias is towards the "truth" - that is to say, the original intent of the framers. because their zeal is pure, their only bias would a "good" kind of bias.

the liberal justices allow their actual, human emotions and feelings interfere with their jurisprudence. liberal justices are not focused on the meaning of the constitution (circa 1787) and instead are ruled by their own, personal biases.

the premise of this argument is conservative judges have a special insight into how James Madison would have viewed an issue like net neutrality in the late 1700s.

also, waiguoren's premise assumes that "originalism" itself is not a bias.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Disclaimer:

***I did not vote for Trump***

I have been sincerely embarrased by the behavior of the people in my very liberal workplace.

Today two sad, self loathing white people at my place of work went on and on how it was a terrible day because of this retirement.

And then I heard this actual quote

"Well, maybe, he (Trump) will appoint someone so bad, it would be like criminal, and he can get impeached, and then the judges will get impeached. Judges can be impeached right?"

Other lib reply:

"Well yeah, but it might not be that bad. I mean, like it'll be terrible but they will probably be qualified, like you know, a really bad plumber, but he is still a plumber"

-said the non-gender conforming "woman" with many face piercings and half shaved head to the other lib.

To which all I could think was, Really? That's honestly what you expect to happen?

hi Fugazy,

i like the disclaimer.

that means you're totally objective when you slag on the left, right my friend?

- IGIT

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I agree with you.



Could you be more specific?

Sure.

Many provisions in our various Civil Rights Acts which prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation are based on Wickard's (and progeny) expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause; ie, any commercial activity taken in the aggregate can have an 'effect' on ICC, such that Congress can regulate it.

See Atlanta v US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States

If a mom/pop hotel, restaurant, shop, etc wanted to prohibit blacks (see above case) from doing business, they couldn't because their actions could be considered to effect ICC; thus Title II of the Civil Rights Act of '64 was upheld. I could easily see 5 originalists reversing that on originalist/textualist grounds (there is case law from the 1820's from CJ John Marshall which went on at length about how the ICC was to be viewed as granting states more power over most commerce as opposed to our expansive interpretation today) (I posted it here years ago, I can try to find it later)

 

[Gregolian]

Disclaimer:

***I did not vote for Trump***

I have been sincerely embarrased by the behavior of the people in my very liberal workplace.

Today two sad, self loathing white people at my place of work went on and on how it was a terrible day because of this retirement.

And then I heard this actual quote

"Well, maybe, he (Trump) will appoint someone so bad, it would be like criminal, and he can get impeached, and then the judges will get impeached. Judges can be impeached right?"

Other lib reply:

"Well yeah, but it might not be that bad. I mean, like it'll be terrible but they will probably be qualified, like you know, a really bad plumber, but he is still a plumber"

-said the non-gender conforming "woman" with many face piercings and half shaved head to the other lib.

To which all I could think was, Really? That's honestly what you expect to happen?

Someone on my FB friend's list:
"So, I either get fitted for a Nazi uni now or get in line for a camp?"

 

[Fugazy]

hi Fugazy,

i like the disclaimer.

that means you're totally objective when you slag on the left, right my friend?

- IGIT

I feel it necessary, too people nowadays think if you make a disparaging comment in the direction of the left you must be a full on Trump bot.

I've voted for literally one Republican my entire life. For a city position.

 

[Fugazy]

Someone on my FB friend's list:
"So, I either get fitted for a Nazi uni now or get in line for a camp?"

Lmao. Why tho?