The Next President Might Appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices

[Slade3200]

I'd be afraid of picks by Trump, Hillary, Cruz, and Sanders.

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

I would think there would be a reduction, from the urban areas in the deep south that have 1-2 abortion clinics, but for most of the country it would lead to a rash of quick State level votes guaranteeing Abortion on Demand, and not much else.

We would not return to what we had before Roe v. Wade. Abortion is far more socially acceptable now than it was back then. Nevertheless, legal abortions were far more common before Roe v Wade than than most people realize. Nearly 800,000 a year. Probably a higher rate than we have today.

If Roe v Wade was reversed, some states would still make abortion illegal. However, most of those states would have exceptions for health of the mother or rape or incest. But, just as in the past, the "health of the mother" exemption will lead to doctors using the flimsiest of reasons to permit an abortion.

Just think of the impact if all this time and money spent fighting the abortion situation was spent towards child/teen education and health care. Play that scenario out and you will see a real effect on teenage pregnancy and abortion rates

 

[blackhawk]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

 

[Slade3200]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

 

[blackhawk]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

 

[Seawytch]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

God help us.

Amen.

So the SCOTUS has been leaning Conservative and corporate centered for decades...but a more liberal court means God must help us?

 

[g5000]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

God help us.

Amen.

So the SCOTUS has been leaning Conservative and corporate centered for decades...but a more liberal court means God must help us?

"Corporate centered"?

Yes, God help us. The liberal justices are prone to believing we are better ruled by extemporaneous decisions which accommodate current conditions (usually a crisis) rather than try to live by time-tested precedents.

 

[Seawytch]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

God help us.

Amen.

So the SCOTUS has been leaning Conservative and corporate centered for decades...but a more liberal court means God must help us?

"Corporate centered"?

Yes, God help us. The liberal justices are prone to believing we are better ruled by extemporaneous decisions which accommodate current conditions (usually a crisis) rather than try to live by time-tested precedents.

Got examples?

 

[bendog]

The next President will be appointing Scalia's replacement.

If the President is Clinton, Ginsburg and and Breyer will probably retire, and Clinton will appoint two more Justices. We will swing from a conservative court to a liberal court, and it will stay that way for a loooooooong time.

God help us.

Amen.

So the SCOTUS has been leaning Conservative and corporate centered for decades...but a more liberal court means God must help us?

Regardless of how this election turns out, McConnell was out of his mind not to sprint to the White House and thank Obama for the Nevada governor.

 

[Slade3200]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

Why delay? If our politicians can grow up and work together i'm sure they can find some great nominees who don't practice law with a partisan or personal agenda. It would be great if congress and Obama can end things on a high note, work together, and find a great option to replace Scalia.

 

[Seawytch]

And, yes, corporate centered..

» The Corporate Court

 

[konradv]

The next president could appoint as many as five, particularly if he/she serves two terms.

Good a reason as any to keep Trump out or nobody's private property will be safe. He'd "eminent domain" all the best land to the highest bidder.

 

[blackhawk]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

Why delay? If our politicians can grow up and work together i'm sure they can find some great nominees who don't practice law with a partisan or personal agenda. It would be great if congress and Obama can end things on a high note, work together, and find a great option to replace Scalia.

Two very big if's.

 

[bendog]

And, yes, corporate centered..

» The Corporate Court

I may be wrong, but what I took G5000s meaning to be was that liberal justices tend to formulate new analyses to fit problems seen as "new." It is true that the Roberts Court is also altering previous analyses to fit it's own ideology that govt lacks the power to compel, or prevent, behaviors. It's rulings in favor of capital are one example.

 

[Slade3200]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

Why delay? If our politicians can grow up and work together i'm sure they can find some great nominees who don't practice law with a partisan or personal agenda. It would be great if congress and Obama can end things on a high note, work together, and find a great option to replace Scalia.

Two very big if's.

We can only hope that the resounding message of this election gets through. The people want action! If that becomes the priority then hopefully these blowholes in DC will get off their soapboxes, stop the gridlock, and learn to work together.

 

[Slade3200]

And, yes, corporate centered..

» The Corporate Court

I may be wrong, but what I took G5000s meaning to be was that liberal justices tend to formulate new analyses to fit problems seen as "new." It is true that the Roberts Court is also altering previous analyses to fit it's own ideology that govt lacks the power to compel, or prevent, behaviors. It's rulings in favor of capital are one example.

It doesn't matter whether somebody's political views are progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, republican, or democrat, the job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret law, not push opinion or agenda. This should be easily seen by reviewing a judges record.

 

[blackhawk]

So either Trump, Clinton, or possibly Cruz could nominate three Supreme Court Justices let's put all our partisan politics aside for a moment and let that sink in.

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

Why delay? If our politicians can grow up and work together i'm sure they can find some great nominees who don't practice law with a partisan or personal agenda. It would be great if congress and Obama can end things on a high note, work together, and find a great option to replace Scalia.

Two very big if's.

We can only hope that the resounding message of this election gets through. The people want action! If that becomes the priority then hopefully these blowholes in DC will get off their soapboxes, stop the gridlock, and learn to work together.

I'm not holding out to much hope for that Cruz and Hillary are very polarizing figures people either love them or hate them and no one has any idea what Trump would do.

 

[Slade3200]

Good thing nominate and elect are two different things

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

Why delay? If our politicians can grow up and work together i'm sure they can find some great nominees who don't practice law with a partisan or personal agenda. It would be great if congress and Obama can end things on a high note, work together, and find a great option to replace Scalia.

Two very big if's.

We can only hope that the resounding message of this election gets through. The people want action! If that becomes the priority then hopefully these blowholes in DC will get off their soapboxes, stop the gridlock, and learn to work together.

I'm not holding out to much hope for that Cruz and Hillary are very polarizing figures people either love them or hate them and no one has any idea what Trump would do.

If Cruz wins the election im moving to Syria

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah but I don't think delaying a confirmation for four years is going to happen.

Why delay? If our politicians can grow up and work together i'm sure they can find some great nominees who don't practice law with a partisan or personal agenda. It would be great if congress and Obama can end things on a high note, work together, and find a great option to replace Scalia.

Two very big if's.

We can only hope that the resounding message of this election gets through. The people want action! If that becomes the priority then hopefully these blowholes in DC will get off their soapboxes, stop the gridlock, and learn to work together.

I'm not holding out to much hope for that Cruz and Hillary are very polarizing figures people either love them or hate them and no one has any idea what Trump would do.

If Cruz wins the election im moving to Syria

I'm not moving no matter who wins packing up and moving to another part of the city is a big enough pain dam sure not going to another country.

 

[g5000]

Me, too.

Another reason I support Kasich.

The worst you get from strict constructional justices is a stop on government power, and a devolution of allowed power to the local level in cases where it applies.

But don't worry, progressives will scream that overturning Roe would result in abortion being illegal throughout the US (both sides can use hyperbole).

The overturning of Roe v Wade would have almost zero impact on the number of legal abortions in the US.

I would think there would be a reduction, from the urban areas in the deep south that have 1-2 abortion clinics, but for most of the country it would lead to a rash of quick State level votes guaranteeing Abortion on Demand, and not much else.

We would not return to what we had before Roe v. Wade. Abortion is far more socially acceptable now than it was back then. Nevertheless, legal abortions were far more common before Roe v Wade than than most people realize. Nearly 800,000 a year. Probably a higher rate than we have today.

If Roe v Wade was reversed, some states would still make abortion illegal. However, most of those states would have exceptions for health of the mother or rape or incest. But, just as in the past, the "health of the mother" exemption will lead to doctors using the flimsiest of reasons to permit an abortion.

Just think of the impact if all this time and money spent fighting the abortion situation was spent towards child/teen education and health care. Play that scenario out and you will see a real effect on teenage pregnancy and abortion rates

Yes, I point this out in just about every abortion topic.

I am very pro-life. But I am also a realist. Half of all abortions are the result of no contraception of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the life being aborted. Another fifth are due to the inconsistent or improper use of contraception.

If we could get more people to use birth control, properly and consistently, the number of abortions would drop by at least one half.

Then abortions would not be so prevalent, and thus would become less and less a social norm.

This would accomplish much more of the pro-life goal than repealing Roe v Wade ever would.

I still believe Roe v Wade should be reversed, though, as a matter of principle.

 

[candycorn]

The next president could appoint as many as five, particularly if he/she serves two terms.

I don't think so. The youngest five judges won't even hit the average retirement age in the next eight years.

I don't see Alito or Thomas retiring before 75, do you? Especially if Clinton is elected.

Hell no.

The rest of them won't even hit 70 before 2024.

So there are really only 3 appointments in play between now and 2024.

Stuff could change overnight...people also get sick and pass away. But I think 5 is too many. 3; maybe 4.