We Must Not Forget – the United States Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

[longknife]

Forget everything else. It's all rhetoric. This is the most important item in this election – the future of the rights and freedom of the American people! It's not just the replacement for Justice Scalia, it's for others who are aging and will probably retire during the next four years. Who has the job of finding and nominating qualified judges to fill those vacant seats is going to make off the difference in this nation's future.



The coming presidential election will have a significant impact on the future of our constitutional freedoms. There is little doubt that the electorate understands and has come to accept that truth. Only the Justices of the Supreme Court and other judges can counter this unfortunate reality of a politicized judiciary. Political bias will creep inevitably into some judicial decisions. Judges are not automatons. But the rule of law and constitutional government depend on an independent judiciary, which in turn depends on judges committed to nonpartisanship and a public that demands such commitment.



Essay @ The Supreme Court in the Balance

 

[AceRothstein]

All the more reason not to vote for Deplorable Don.

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine a Hillary victory with her attempts to pack the court with leftists thwarted by a GOP controlled majority.

No problem! A simple executive order abolishing the court.

See the sort of precedent Obama has been allowed to establish through failure to impeach?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Imagine a Hillary victory with her attempts to pack the court with leftists thwarted by a GOP controlled majority.

No problem! A simple executive order abolishing the court.

See the sort of precedent Obama has been allowed to establish through failure to impeach?

 

[martybegan]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

 

[martybegan]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

 

[martybegan]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely be the only 2 justices to retire in the next 4 years. So including the Scalia vacancy, a Trump win could give us the horrifying prospect of a 7 - 2 conservative lean to the SC. Hello tyranny.

A Hillary win would result in a 5 - 4 SC leaning liberal, with a conservative Chief Justice. A much more sensible option.

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

 

[martybegan]

The horror, you would actually have to convince people of the benefits of your ideas, or even accept the tenets of federalism, i.e. not everyone wants to live like you, not everyone thinks like you, and you don't get to force people to either hide their true beliefs or face ruin.

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We all know you want an end to the checks and balances system. Conservatives have practically been demanding the SC be disbanded ever since they found out the constitution protects everyone's rights, not just theirs.

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

 

[martybegan]

No, I want them to be strict constructionists, and force us to use the amendment process if we want to add things like enumerated rights.

Progressives see the SC as an "easy button" to get their own way.

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.

These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.

So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.

And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh the horror....

Imagine Conservatives having to give up the court after 40 years of control

 

[rightwinger]

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.

These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.

So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.

And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.

The courts need to defend the individual against the tyranny of the states

 

[TheOldSchool]

It is the SC's job to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry you feel that it should be an easy button.

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.

These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.

So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.

And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.

They did not make shit up. They interpreted the constitution. The rest of your post is speculation and nonsense. Especially your last sentence, which I have to assume is you trying to change the subject because you're out of arguments.

 

[martybegan]

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.

These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.

So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.

And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.

The courts need to defend the individual against the tyranny of the states

Kind of like stopping NYC from making me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 for a handgun permit, right?

 

[martybegan]

Making up new things is not interpreting it. Strict construction requires the court to defer to the legislative process unless the law is explicitly contradicted by the constitution.

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.

These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.

So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.

And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.

They did not make shit up. They interpreted the constitution. The rest of your post is speculation and nonsense. Especially your last sentence, which I have to assume is you trying to change the subject because you're out of arguments.

Making shit up is making shit up.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.

You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.

I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.

When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.

One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.

Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.

These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.

So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.

And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.

They did not make shit up. They interpreted the constitution. The rest of your post is speculation and nonsense. Especially your last sentence, which I have to assume is you trying to change the subject because you're out of arguments.

Making shit up is making shit up.

Unless you agree with it.