Liberals Just Lost the Supreme Court for Decades to Come

[Mashmont]

So says the leftwing New Republic.

Liberals Just Lost the Supreme Court for Decades to Come

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.

newrepublic.com

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.
Every presidential election is about control of the Supreme Court, even if many Americans don’t consciously realize it. By reelecting former President Donald Trump on Tuesday and turning over the Senate to firm Republican control, voters guaranteed that all but the youngest of them will live under a deeply conservative high court for the rest of their lives.

Some have suggested liberals may push for Sotomayor to vacate, so the Democrats can install another one in the lame-duck session, but Sotomayor has expressed no willingness to do so, and Joe Manchin said he would block any nominee the GOP opposed.

I can't look into a crystal ball, but I think JD Vance will be a formidable candidate in 2028. The man simply cannot be beaten in debate or interview as he has proven many times in the past few months. He is a brilliant man and a devout Catholic. If he can be a two-termer and conservatives control everything for the next 12 years, it could work out very well, provided they pick the right justices and don't get hornswoggled like they did with Souter. If they could get the right case to give personhood status to the unborn, then legal abortion would be eradicated forever in this country. I pray that is the case.

 

[TNHarley]

then legal abortion would be eradicated forever in this country.

#MakeCoathangersGreatAgain

 

[Independent thinker]

So says the leftwing New Republic.

Liberals Just Lost the Supreme Court for Decades to Come

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.

newrepublic.com

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.
Every presidential election is about control of the Supreme Court, even if many Americans don’t consciously realize it. By reelecting former President Donald Trump on Tuesday and turning over the Senate to firm Republican control, voters guaranteed that all but the youngest of them will live under a deeply conservative high court for the rest of their lives.

Some have suggested liberals may push for Sotomayor to vacate, so the Democrats can install another one in the lame-duck session, but Sotomayor has expressed no willingness to do so, and Joe Manchin said he would block any nominee the GOP opposed.

I can't look into a crystal ball, but I think JD Vance will be a formidable candidate in 2028. The man simply cannot be beaten in debate or interview as he has proven many times in the past few months. He is a brilliant man and a devout Catholic. If he can be a two-termer and conservatives control it for the next 12 years, it could work out very well, provided they pick the right justices and don't get hornswoggled like they did with Souter. If they could get the right case to give personhood status to the unborn, then legal abortion would be eradicated forever in this country. I pray that is the case.

Yes, even if Democrats get lucky and take the House, Democrats have lost the Court for a very long time. Both Alito and Thomas may retire and we can put some younger blood in there for decades to come, not to mention some of the liberal justices aren't spring chickens either. Now they are forced to hang in there like Ginsburg did, even listening to cases laying in a hospital bed hooked up to life support, trying to hold on until 2029.

 

[Care4all]

Do you think s Supreme Court is meant to be stacked with ONE Party rule? Is that what our founders envisioned?

 

[Oddball]

Do you think s Supreme Court is meant to be stacked with ONE Party rule? Is that what our founders envisioned?

That's what your team believed, when they floated making Puerto Rico a state and packing the court.

But now the shoe is on the other foot, and that doesn't look like such a hot idea now, huh?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Do you think s Supreme Court is meant to be stacked with ONE Party rule? Is that what our founders envisioned?

Elections have consequences. Think hard

 

[excalibur]

Do you think s Supreme Court is meant to be stacked with ONE Party rule? Is that what our founders envisioned?

Ask FDR.

 

[Care4all]

That's what your team believed, when they floated making Puerto Rico a state and packing the court.

But now the shoe is on the other foot, and that doesn't look like such a hot idea now, huh?

They didn't do it Oddball, it was just a handful making noise but the majority would not let it happen, though it could have been done with a work around by the democrats. Biden wouldn't do it as President and he also wouldn't let the Senate filibuster end....when a handful of Dems were screaming for it.

 

[Care4all]

Ask FDR.

And IT WAS REJECTED and mocked as his court packing attempt....and no president ever tried what he did again.

 

[Oddball]

They didn't do it Oddball, it was just a handful making noise but the majority would not let it happen, though it could have been done with a work around by the democrats. Biden wouldn't do it as President and he also wouldn't let the Senate filibuster end....when a handful of Dems were screaming for it.

"They didn't do it" isn't an answer....They were seriously floating the idea and that's all we need to know.

Pedo Peter would have signed it, because he was never in charge and would have scribbled on anything put in front of him.

 

[para bellum]

Biden wouldn't do it as President and he also wouldn't let the Senate filibuster end....when a handful of Dems were screaming for it.

Biden was against it before he was for it. He was onboard for ending it for the immigration and voting bills that dems tried to ram through.

It was Sinema and Manchin that blocked the effort, and they took a lot of heat for it.

 

[excalibur]

And IT WAS REJECTED and mocked as his court packing attempt....and no president ever tried what he did again.

Huh? What are you talking about? The only ones that were talking about adding seats to SCOTUS were Dems, and that isn't what you were talking about in the post I responded to. Nor is court-packing (adding more seats) part of the OP.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So says the leftwing New Republic.

Liberals Just Lost the Supreme Court for Decades to Come

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.

newrepublic.com

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.
Every presidential election is about control of the Supreme Court, even if many Americans don’t consciously realize it. By reelecting former President Donald Trump on Tuesday and turning over the Senate to firm Republican control, voters guaranteed that all but the youngest of them will live under a deeply conservative high court for the rest of their lives.

Some have suggested liberals may push for Sotomayor to vacate, so the Democrats can install another one in the lame-duck session, but Sotomayor has expressed no willingness to do so, and Joe Manchin said he would block any nominee the GOP opposed.

I can't look into a crystal ball, but I think JD Vance will be a formidable candidate in 2028. The man simply cannot be beaten in debate or interview as he has proven many times in the past few months. He is a brilliant man and a devout Catholic. If he can be a two-termer and conservatives control everything for the next 12 years, it could work out very well, provided they pick the right justices and don't get hornswoggled like they did with Souter. If they could get the right case to give personhood status to the unborn, then legal abortion would be eradicated forever in this country. I pray that is the case.

Trump likely names at least two more justices. Likely in their 40s. Elections have consequences

 

[Care4all]

Trump likely names at least two more justices. Likely in their 40s. Elections have consequences

But that's not what Trumpers thought in 2020, not how they treated Biden or Democrats after the Biden WON?

 

[Care4all]

Huh? What are you talking about? The only ones that were talking about adding seats to SCOTUS were Dems, and that isn't what you were talking about in the post I responded to. Nor is court-packing (adding more seats) part of the OP.

What did,

Ask FDR


mean?

 

[fncceo]

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump.

Dire consequences or miraculously fortunate happenstance?

 

[eagle1462010]

But that's not what Trumpers thought in 2020, not how they treated Biden or Democrats after the Biden WON?

They your side has treated our side I'd call it KARMA.

 

[Picaro]

Do you think s Supreme Court is meant to be stacked with ONE Party rule? Is that what our founders envisioned?

Great point, and you have all those Republicans Democrats have nominated in the past to point to as examples of Democrat fairness n stuff.

oh ... wait ... never mind.

 

[Mashmont]

Dire consequences or miraculously fortunate happenstance?

New Republic thinks the consequences are dire. I think they're wonderful.

 

[Lisa558]

#MakeCoathangersGreatAgain

#MakeBusRidesOK Again