The first liberal court in two generations if HRC wins

[JakeStarkey]

How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America

Dylan Matthews on August 22, 2016, wrote, in “How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.

Ever since Abe Fortas’s resignation in 1969, the Court has either been split down the middle or, more often, made up primarily of Republican appointees. Some of those Republican appointees nonetheless turned out to be liberals, but even taking that into account, the Court hasn’t been majority liberal since 1971, when William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell joined. That hasn’t stopped the Court from evolving in a progressive direction at times. In 1973, GOP appointee Harry Blackmun authored Roe v. Wade, drawing only two dissents; from 1996’s Romer v. Evans to 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, Anthony Kennedy and the Court’s liberals steadily expanded the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

But for the most part, over the past half-century liberals have been playing defense as an organized and well-planned movement of conservatives has limited the scope of rights trumpeted by liberals, expanded the power of the state in criminal justice, and issued more business-friendly rulings on campaign finance and regulatory issues. The Court ruled that states didn't have to give poor black and Latino school districts the same funding as rich white districts. It ruled that school resegregation achieved through white flight to wealthy suburbs was just fine. It ruled that despite declaring abortion a fundamental right, that didn’t mean Medicaid had to extend that right to poor women, and then it reversed course on treating abortion as a fundamental right at all. It struck down the death penalty but then brought it back four years later.”

A new court appointed by Clinton might improve prison conditions, possibly stop executions permanently, enact finance campaign laws that would gut Citizens United. Abortion rights would be defended. It might defend voting rights and damage gerrymandering. The LGBT question would be put to rest for two generations.

If McConnell can hold onto the Senate, then he can thwart anything Hillary does.

It will be more important news on election night to see how the Senate goes than anything else.

Hillary has essentially already won the presidency. No use crying over that anymore.

McConnell will be a one term majority leader

That is not a given. However, if he has only 51 or 52 votes, he will deal on SCOTUS to get economic deals he wants.

 

[rightwinger]

How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America

Dylan Matthews on August 22, 2016, wrote, in “How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.

Ever since Abe Fortas’s resignation in 1969, the Court has either been split down the middle or, more often, made up primarily of Republican appointees. Some of those Republican appointees nonetheless turned out to be liberals, but even taking that into account, the Court hasn’t been majority liberal since 1971, when William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell joined. That hasn’t stopped the Court from evolving in a progressive direction at times. In 1973, GOP appointee Harry Blackmun authored Roe v. Wade, drawing only two dissents; from 1996’s Romer v. Evans to 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, Anthony Kennedy and the Court’s liberals steadily expanded the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

But for the most part, over the past half-century liberals have been playing defense as an organized and well-planned movement of conservatives has limited the scope of rights trumpeted by liberals, expanded the power of the state in criminal justice, and issued more business-friendly rulings on campaign finance and regulatory issues. The Court ruled that states didn't have to give poor black and Latino school districts the same funding as rich white districts. It ruled that school resegregation achieved through white flight to wealthy suburbs was just fine. It ruled that despite declaring abortion a fundamental right, that didn’t mean Medicaid had to extend that right to poor women, and then it reversed course on treating abortion as a fundamental right at all. It struck down the death penalty but then brought it back four years later.”

A new court appointed by Clinton might improve prison conditions, possibly stop executions permanently, enact finance campaign laws that would gut Citizens United. Abortion rights would be defended. It might defend voting rights and damage gerrymandering. The LGBT question would be put to rest for two generations.

If McConnell can hold onto the Senate, then he can thwart anything Hillary does.

It will be more important news on election night to see how the Senate goes than anything else.

Hillary has essentially already won the presidency. No use crying over that anymore.

McConnell will be a one term majority leader

That is not a given. However, if he has only 51 or 52 votes, he will deal on SCOTUS to get economic deals he wants.

No he won't. McConnell doesn't have that card to play. His base will not allow him to approve ANY liberal judge EVER

McConnell has already obstructed for one year. He will keep playing the same losing hand until it burns him. And there will be a revolt if he leaves the Supreme Court empty

 

[Al Azar]

I'm with RW. About the only way to get nominees confirmed is with a Democratic majority. The GOP refuses to govern. They exist today only to thwart the people's will and force us down a different road.