Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One important legal principle is stability. Knowing what the rules are, and that those rules won't be subject to instantaneous judicial whims.I won't deny, all you need is a majority vote to overrule "settled law".
Pure 100% bullshit.Because the Republicans believed a President should get his nominees barring a dramatic disqualificiation.
It's not Trump.
Trump gets the credit...he nominated the majority that overturned Roe v Wade... that's his legacy...but the blame from the point of view of the Democrats should lie elsewhere.
Mitch McConnell should get a little.
He didn't change the rules though. He simply made choices unpopular with Democrats within his power by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland.
He also removed the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices confirmations in retaliation for an earlier Democratic Filibuster rule change.
How Mitch McConnell playing 'long game' shaped the Supreme Court and led to the end of abortion landmark Roe
Decisions made by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were key to a chain of events that resulted in the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.www.foxnews.com
But that's not the person that's really to blame.
Enter Democrat Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada...the person who initially nuked the filibuster for a considerably short term gain of a few federal judgeships...
Much of the blame falls here.
You should read this one...Harry Reid's interview where he states he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the Filibuster for Supreme Court nominations if Hillary is Elected President.
Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won’t hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.
Harry Reid – Nuclear Option proliferator
If Hillary wins, and Dems retake the Senate, expect Dems to use the Nuclear Option for a Supreme Court nomineelegalinsurrection.com
Next...Hillary Clinton. She knew what was on the line...and proceeded to run one of the most ill conceived Presidential campaigns in recent memory, capped with a loss to a challenger with no campaign experience, no political experience and... according to the polling...no chance of winning.
A chunk of blame goes here.
__________
And last but not least...former President Obama.
The leader of the party who without doubt put his personal seal of approval on the fateful decision to send Harry Reid to the floor of the Senate to nuke the filibuster and show those Republicans who is boss.
He believed Hillary was a shoe in for 2016 and there was a good chance Democrats would take the Senate...but mostly I think it was ego, hubris, and short-sighted strategy that contributed to one of the all-time political backfires in US history.
President Obama applauded Senate Democrats Thursday for changing the rules on filibusters, saying too many of his nominees and initiatives have been blocked by Republicans for strictly partisan reasons.<Snip>The change does not affect nominees for the Supreme Court. Nor does it apply to legislation, though Obama suggested he wouldn't mind seeing that change as well.
Obama applauds filibuster rule change
President Obama discusses new filibuster rules in the Senate.www.usatoday.com
So...there you go...when you are sitting alone at home fuming over the fate of Roe...these should be the targets of your animosity.
Does that mean Marburry v Madison is on the table?I keep telling these leftists idiots that there's no such thing as "settled law", but they just keep on believing the propaganda parrots. Can't fix stupid.
I don't think so. They got that one right. IMHO.Does that mean Marburry v Madison is on the table?
Really? You think a third party knows more about the constitution than the people that wrote it?I don't think so. They got that one right. IMHO.
Mitch McConnell should get a little.
He didn't change the rules though.
Mitch McConnell, Joe Mancin, Kirstin Sinema, Lisa Murkowski, Susan CollinsHe also removed the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices confirmations
That's your opinion. I believe judicial review is good government.Really? You think a third party knows more about the constitution than the people that wrote it?
WOW !!!!
ABC reports "On June 24, the Supreme Court's smallest-possible majority struck down the long-standing Roe v. Wade ruling, which had for five decades guaranteed a right to access abortion. It was a rare instance of the court restricting rights it had previously extended via the Constitution.
"Roe's reversal was partly possible because of the votes of the court's three most recent justices, all of whom were appointed for life by President Donald Trump -- himself elected by a minority of the population. He lost the popular vote and was confirmed by Senate Republicans representing roughly 43 percent of the country."
The problem is, our Constitution gave too much power to the smaller states, meaning states with small populations. Americans who live in states with large populations have less power and less representation than those Americans who live in states with smaller populations.
What does this mean exactly? It means the farmer in Montana has more political power, more government influence than the doctor in California. The problem becomes more acute with the realization that, generally speaking, the doctor in California is going to have more education and be more informed than the farmer in Montana.
Republican leaders are not dumb, and they are taking full advantage of their less educated, less informed, voters. Because they are largely uninformed and not fully cognizant of events around them, grassroots Republicans are largely unaware of what is being done in their name. All they know is, they are loyal followers of Donald Trump. Most of them know very little about Trump's attempt to overthrow the elected government.
Here is one example of the problem. There are many others.
Technically speaking, our President is not chosen by the American people. He is voted into office by the electors in the Electoral College in accordance with our Constitution. The number of electors each state has is the total of its Senators and representatives.
California has a total population of a little more than 39 million. California has 55 electors. Montana has a population of little more than a million. Montana has three electors.
When you divide the population by the number of electors, each elector in Montana represents 333,333 Americans. Each elector in California represents 709,090 Americans. The farmer in Montana has over twice the representation than the doctor in California. That is how Trump became our President in 2016 even though he lost the popular vote cast by the American people.
This becomes all the more serious when one realizes that the doctor has a college education and, generally speaking, is more informed than the farmer in Montana who has no use for a college education and political awareness unless the latter has something to do with farming.
I believe those that wrote it, should explain the meaning of what they wrote.That's your opinion. I believe judicial review is good government.
Um...removing the filibuster IS changing the rules!
And it's funny how you neglected to point out McConnell's blazing hypocrisy by refusing to confirm Garland because it was a presidential election year, and yet he confirmed TWO judges in the next presidential election year.
So, yeah. It's McConnell's fault. Bigly.
The decision was about judicial review.I believe those that wrote it, should explain the meaning of what they wrote.
We see this all the time, when some third party explains what a song lyric means, and when they ask the artist that wrote it what it meant, it shows the third partys interpretation wasn't even close.
From Paul McCartneys blackbird, to Bruce Springsteins Born in the USA
Wrong again. Very wrong.Your math is weak.
California has 53 electors for 39 million people (at least a couple million who are illegal aliens).
About 1 for every 736,000.
Montana has 1 elector for 1.14 million people.
The people in Montana have less power than the people in California.
www.archives.gov
Alito and Thomas DID get the required 60 CLOTURE (ending filibuster) votesRepublican George H W Bush
Thomas, Clarence 52-48 Oct 15, 1991
What happened to needing 60 votes?
Republican George W. Bush
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. 58-42 Jan 31, 2006
Again, why no 60 votes needed?
Republican Donald Trump
(because Mitch McConnell nuked the supreme court filibuster)
Barrett, Amy Coney 52-48 Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett 50-48 Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M. 54-45 Apr 7, 2017
Not a single nominee even came close to getting 60 votes
That proves democrats aren't the obstrutionists that republicans are.Alito and Thomas DID get the required 60 CLOTURE (ending filibuster) votes
One important legal principle is stability. Knowing what the rules are, and that those rules won't be subject to instantaneous judicial whims.
Tell me. If they overturn Oberfell v Hodges, which was only settled 5-4, what happens then? Are those marriages annulled? Are their children disinherited. Is their family healthplan revoked?
Overturning a decision has repercussions that ripple through all aspects of society.
Pure 100% bullshit.
Merrick Garland.
