Supreme Court of the United States

[In the Corn]

I hope that will include both Obergfell and Roe (which would presumably include upholding Griswold, which begat Roe, and Lawrence, which begat Obergfell - and of course Loving).

I thought I was reading from the Book of Numbers there for a minute.

I agree with you on keeping these as settled law. While personally, I may not agree with abortion, I'm a proponent of having safe options for women who decide this is their best choice.

[B-Fly]

I thought I was reading from the Book of Numbers there for a minute.

I agree with you on keeping these as settled law. While personally, I may not agree with abortion, I'm a proponent of having safe options for women who decide this is their best choice.

I'm Jewish, so the Law and the law always play similarly in my mind, lol. And I assume even Justice Thomas would have to uphold Loving, lest he open the door for his own marriage to be banned.

[Bernie Brewer]

It's ok, i got the sarcastic part. When Reid did drop the vote down to majority I could see why he did it but knew it would come back to haunt the D party eventually. The R's shouldn't have blocked all the judges Obama appointed, Garland should be on the SC, and whoever Trump nominates now should be approved, assuming the nominee is qualified. As much as I don't think I will like Gorsuch's rulings he was qualified, not someone just pulled off the street that was Trump's friend. It looks like Congress has some unwritten rules like baseball has. Rule 1 - be a jerk just because you can. Rule 2 - see rule 1. I guess they are written now.

I was not a fan of freezing out Garland. I thought it would bite the GOO in the future. And, while this appointment likely will proceed quickly, it’s just another example of why this political environment makes me sad.

[Bernie Brewer]

I'm Jewish, so the Law and the law always play similarly in my mind, lol. And I assume even Justice Thomas would have to uphold Loving, lest he open the door for his own marriage to be banned.

Maybe he has been looking for an out, you don’t know!

All kidding aside, I will be disappointed if any new judge try’s to overturn any of the major settled law cases including Obergfelt and Roe.

[cardboardbox]

All kidding aside, I will be disappointed if any new judge try’s to overturn any of the event settled law cases including Oberhfelt and Roe.

so are all rulings from the SC correct? They never should feel the need to think about something again and possibly have a different opinion?

[Bernie Brewer]

so are all rulings from the SC correct? They never should feel the need to think about something again and possibly have a different opinion?

That depends on the case. I don’t believe Obergfelt or Roe are those types of cases.

[In the Corn]

so are all rulings from the SC correct? They never should feel the need to think about something again and possibly have a different opinion?

Watch what you're saying or they'll come for your guns!

[nullnor]

did the democrats vote against Gorsuch because they didn't like him or because of Garland? and did the republicans use all those filibusters before because they didn't like the appointments or because they wanted to block Obama? so you could say getting rid of the filibuster in both cases was appropriate because they weren't voting or not voting for the proper reason.

..so just when you think everyone's wrong, it turns out everyone is right. or is it some people are wrong and some are right? or ..wait no AH.. AH.. some people are both right and wrong at the same time! ..Oh i think i am getting a head rush.. :assing out::

[onejayhawk]

did the democrats vote against Gorsuch because they didn't like him or because of Garland? and did the republicans use all those filibusters before because they didn't like the appointments or because they wanted to block Obama? so you could say getting rid of the filibuster in both cases was appropriate because they weren't voting or not voting for the proper reason.

..so just when you think everyone's wrong, it turns out everyone is right. or is it some people are wrong and some are right? or ..wait no AH.. AH.. some people are both right and wrong at the same time! ..Oh i think i am getting a head rush.. :assing out::

Welcome to politics as usual. Check your head at the door and don't forget your nausia pills.

J

[dslaw]

did the democrats vote against Gorsuch because they didn't like him or because of Garland? and did the republicans use all those filibusters before because they didn't like the appointments or because they wanted to block Obama? so you could say getting rid of the filibuster in both cases was appropriate because they weren't voting or not voting for the proper reason.

..so just when you think everyone's wrong, it turns out everyone is right. or is it some people are wrong and some are right? or ..wait no AH.. AH.. some people are both right and wrong at the same time! ..Oh i think i am getting a head rush.. :assing out::

When the R's come out say they will do anything they can to make Obama a one-term president I think they are just wanting to block Obama. When the R's didn't move on Garland it was all because of the slim hope of winning the 2016 election (hope realized). The D's saw what happened to Garland and weren't going to approve any nominee unless Trump named Garland. Best I can remember it was way back under Reagan when Congress actually talked with the President and tried to work out policies both could live with.

[B-Fly]

Best I can remember it was way back under Reagan when Congress actually talked with the President and tried to work out policies both could live with.

I think that's an over-exaggeration. GHWB and Congressional Democrats found compromise/common ground on budget (including Bush's famous reversal on "read my lips, no new taxes", and on the first Gulf War. Clinton and Congressional Republicans found compromise/common ground on welfare reform. GWB worked with Congressional Democrats on No Child Left Behind, and then on numerous issues around homeland security, intelligence gathering and the "war on terror", including but not limited to war and regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then then worked together again on the bank bailout in September 2008. I do think McConnell's open and notorious announcement of intent to make Obama a one-term president and then his consistency in obstructionism and lack of collaboration/compromise marked a sea change. There were no GOP votes for the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA) or for the ACA, and it didn't get any better from there, unless you count a few 11th hour agreements to raise the debt ceiling or avoid/end a government shutdown.

[Judge Jude]

McConnell, Reed, Pelosi. and Boehner all sucking at once did not help matters. and we're still stuck with two of them!

[Bernie Brewer]

McConnell, Reed, Pelosi. and Boehner all sucking at once did not help matters. and we're still stuck with two of them!

That pretty much sums it up for me, although I’d add Shumer & Warren.

Edited to add: and a host of GOP congresscritters.

[Bernie Brewer]

Trump is nothing if not erratic. WaPo is reporting that Chuckie the Shum appealed to Trump to consider Merrick Garland for the appointment. While it won't happen, how would this "heal" the divided country? How would the GOP respond?

I think this would be fascinating to watch play out.

Schumer urges Trump to tap Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) privately urged President Trump in a phone call earlier this week to nominate federal Judge Merrick B. Garland, then President Barack Obama’s third nominee to the Supreme Court who was summarily shunned by Senate Republicans in 2016, to replace retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Trump had called Schumer on Tuesday afternoon for a Supreme Court-centered conversation that lasted less than five minutes, according to a person familiar with the call. Schumer, the person said, pressed the president to name Garland to succeed Kennedy, arguing doing so would help unite the country.

Schumer also warned the president that nominating a jurist who would be hostile to Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion, and to Obama’s signature health-care law, would be “cataclysmic” and damage Trump’s legacy, the person added, requesting anonymity since they were not authorized to speak publicly.

“Perhaps the most consequential issues at stake in this Supreme Court vacancy are affordable health care and a woman’s freedom to make the most sensitive medical decisions about her body,” Schumer wrote in a New York Times op-ed earlier this week. “The views of President Trump’s next court nominee on these issues could well determine whether the Senate approves or rejects them.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...?noredirect=on

This bolded quote is a bit disingenuous, as if he really cares about Trumps legacy!!!

[dslaw]

Trump is nothing if not erratic. WaPo is reporting that Chuckie the Shum appealed to Trump to consider Merrick Garland for the appointment. While it won't happen, how would this "heal" the divided country? How would the GOP respond?

I think this would be fascinating to watch play out.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...?noredirect=on

This bolded quote is a bit disingenuous, as if he really cares about Trumps legacy!!!

But you have to give points to Chuck for trying. He probably figures that by mentioning Trump's legacy that Trump may actually listen and think about the proposal. Has about a 1% chance of working but that is better than a 0% chance by not phrasing it that way.