Simple. Does it affect the constitution? Abortion has nothing to do with the constitution. It is a pure legal matter nothing constitutional.

That's essentially what the GOP claims they want to do, limit "judicial activism", sometimes called "legislating from the bench".

A funny way of going about it?

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:

Appoint enough decent judges to out vote Kav and friends.

SCOTUS appointments are for life, although a justice may retire for age reasons, as in the case of Kennedy, or due to failing health. Retirements and deaths happen (on average) less than twice in a 4-year presidential term, and Obama appointed only two during his time in office. The other 7 justices aged 8 years during that period, though it must have seemed longer to conservatives. It seems that justices do hang on at times. Gorsuch, Roberts, and Kavanaugh have been appointed at low enough ages that it is unlikely they will retire or die any time in the next two decades (if Roberts can last until the age Kennedy has at retirement). Clarence Thomas is only 70, and should last another decade in the company he now has and Alito is two years younger.

Your line of questioning in this regard betrays a deep well of ignorance about SCOTUS politics which would have taken you no more than 30 minutes to repair, assuming you know how to do your own research.

If you bothered reading comments before answering to them, you would have understood that he was proposing to recruit more federal judges, which is possible, the constitution doesn't specify how many they should be.
Your patronizing attitude is ridiculous enough as it is, at least try to be on topic when you do it.

The president couldn’t do that. It’s federal law. Congress has to vote to change it.

Again, I don't know what you're responding to. Nobody mentionned the president.

aban57 wrote:
Again, I don't know what you're responding to. Nobody mentionned the president.

He's responding to your ignorance of the nominal separation of powers in US government, and how that is written into its Constitution. The issue at hand is whether there are shortcuts to remaking a judiciary that is increasingly politicized, that is, by means other than partisan appointment. It's not a straightforward matter to remove someone from the judiciary. In local government, judges are elected, and they often run for office unopposed, except that there are more candidates than potential electees.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
Again, I don't know what you're responding to. Nobody mentionned the president.

He's responding to your ignorance of the nominal separation of powers in US government, and how that is written into its Constitution. The issue at hand is whether there are shortcuts to remaking a judiciary that is increasingly politicized, that is, by means other than partisan appointment. It's not a straightforward matter to remove someone from the judiciary. In local government, judges are elected, and they often run for office unopposed, except that there are more candidates than electees.

No he's not. And I don't know how you can talk about my ignorance on the subject, as I didn't say anything that was wrong. Your stupid patronizing attitude is again misplaced.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
Again, I don't know what you're responding to. Nobody mentionned the president.

He's responding to your ignorance of the nominal separation of powers in US government, and how that is written into its Constitution. The issue at hand is whether there are shortcuts to remaking a judiciary that is increasingly politicized, that is, by means other than partisan appointment. It's not a straightforward matter to remove someone from the judiciary. In local government, judges are elected, and they often run for office unopposed, except that there are more candidates than electees.

No he's not. And I don't know how you can talk about my ignorance on the subject, as I didn't say anything that was wrong. Your stupid patronizing attitude is again misplaced.

Yeah, I don't know how ignorant you are or are not about the details, but this is what Carl Pierce wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Quite simple when the dems next have power replace the sup court with a new one.

I pointed out that this betrays a deep ignorance of the status fo the US Supreme Court, and somebody, I don't forget who, said that my criticism was premature, but I think my criticism stands, because CP only remarked on the Supreme Court, and it remains a long haul to change the way the SCOTUS is comprised.

If you're treading on my tits here just because you think I support a conservative judiciary, you're dead wrong, and your yammering isn't really going to change the fact that the US is going deep into a conservative vein, no matter what I think. Or what Carl Pierce "thinks".

I don't care how liberal anyone can make the district courts or the circuit courts of appeals. The Supreme Court is the court of final resort for anyone who really wants to press the issue, and conservative campaigns to change laws are really well-funded in the US at the moment.

aban57 wrote:
If you bothered reading comments before answering to them, you would have understood that he was proposing to recruit more federal judges, which is possible, the constitution doesn't specify how many they should be.
Your patronizing attitude is ridiculous enough as it is, at least try to be on topic when you do it.

That's a load of bullshit, Sunshine. CP suggested the lower courts can somehow "outvote" the Supreme Court decisions. Good luck figuring that one out. You both completely miss the point that the job of the judiciary is not to make the law, but to interpret it. When someone does not like the interpretation of a lower court, guess where the case ends up? When the losing side doesn't like the decision, they appeal it upstairs. Surely you're familiar with government that operates on similar principles. If not, you're speaking, as I say, from ignorance. The deep ignorance that doesn't know its depths.

Educate yourself, already:

http://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges

The US constitution does not specify how many justices should serve on the Supreme Court. It's entirely possible for a complicit President and Senate to simply put more justices on the bench to get the political imbalance they prefer.

It's an option that was procedurally and politically difficult to even consider in the past but the actions of Mitch McConnell's Senate over the past 2 years have very seriously raised the possibility that it could happen sooner rather than later.

Yes, and it's been done before. At one point there were 10 justices.

I could absolutely see a situation where if the Dems take the Whitehouse and Senate in 2020 that the first order of business is to renominate Merrick Garland under the guise of "righting a past wrong".

laklak wrote:Yes, and it's been done before. At one point there were 10 justices.

Yes, the composition of the court fluctuated a lot in the first 75 years or so, but it has been twice as long since that time that anyone has seen fit to make such fundamental changes. The last Judiciary Act was around the time of the Civil War. Popular time to shuffle things around, I guess. I don't think the Civil War actually ended, even though there was an armistice.

purplerat wrote:I could absolutely see a situation where if the Dems take the Whitehouse and Senate in 2020 that the first order of business is to renominate Merrick Garland under the guise of "righting a past wrong".

I absolutely see a situation where neither Ginsburg nor Breyer will still be justices in 2020.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Sorry about the somewhat late reply, but beside my time constraints, I wanted to give your post some thought and give your post answers that a thoughtful post on your part deserves.

Spinozasgalt wrote:
Skinny, you're on good terms with several LGBT people on this forum. With a conservative SCOTUS, their rights and freedoms are at risk in the US. Do you not believe this or do you not care?

Yes I do care, in fact very much so. I've shown support for our members who fall into that category. If I didn't, I simply wouldn't post in support of them and would just ignore the thread or a specific post.

I do want to mention, (you are probably well aware of this and more on this below) I was raised as a fundie. The subject of sexual orientation was never mentioned either in a sermon or during our Tuesday night young people's meetings. It is condemned in the OT, However, we rarely, if ever, used the OT since its laws were replaced by the NT. Unfortunately, in the NT Paul condemns it. However, despite that we were taught to never judge anyone so it was left up to us to make-up our own minds. We weren't told that explicitly, it was more of what wasn't said than what was said. I did make -up my own mind and accepted people with no regard to their sexual preferences or their orientation whatsoever. Of course my church promoted the mom/dad/kiddies concept, but never to the detriment of other groups.

Do I believe their rights are at risk? No. The LGBTQ+ has fought long and hard to receive equal treatment under the law, but just as important, to get the public to understand that their sexual expression is just as legitimate as anyone else's. Granted, there are some religious groups and fringe groups that oppose them, but I truly believe they are in the minority. Obviously I support Trump, but if he were to take away those rights , I would oppose him. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, it's my understanding that Trump would not do that. Showing support for the LGBTQ+ cause, is (in my opinion) a basic human right and would be a travesty of justice were those rights to be removed or even attempted to be removed.

Spinozasgalt wrote:
If you watched Kavanaugh before the judiciary committee, then you've seen that he refused to answer in the affirmative that any number of cases related to our rights were resolved correctly. Trump/Pence have already tried to remove trans people from the military. And this is the period in which a number of cases of supposed religious freedom/anti-LGBT discrimination will come before SCOTUS.

I was only able to watch snippets of the coverage so I missed the part you're referring to. It's my understanding (correct me if I'm in error here) that Trump's objection was based on the cost of the operations which I believe is somewhere around $140,000. That cost would have to be endured by the tax payers. In addition, since it is elective surgery, the person would be unable to perform their duties for a period of time.

Spinozasgalt wrote:
Abortion is now at risk, too. Collins gave her vote on the basis that Kavanaugh set out in private that he sees Roe v Wade as established law, but as Prof Melissa Murray outlined in her testimony before the committee, abortion rights and access aren't secured by that precedent alone. The conservative strategy can proceed along different lines by limiting access and overturning later rulings (Murray's arguments trace Kavanaugh's history with subverting such precedents quite well) so that Roe v Wade is dead in everything but name.

To be very honest... I am not in favour of abortion. I could BS and just say 'Of course I agree with it!' However, I want to be honest with you and that is my honest opinion. I said earlier 'more on this below' and that's my fundie indoctrination view. My church (Pentecostal for those who weren't aware) was quite adamant on that point with no room for discussion. Every unborn child is 'a child of God' and must be treated as such. The only exception that I can remember would be rape, but it's hard to remember the exact details. While I don't want to go to the grave with my opinion, it can't be underestimated the incredible power that indoctrination has over peoples' minds, especially when it's used throughout one's early years right up to, and beyond, one's teenager years. Young people look to their parent(s), educators, church leaders (if they are theists) and so on for guidance. Their brains are like putty, very, very easy to manipulate. And logically so too, they are still in the process of learning and maturing so they can be fed almost anything.

Spinozasgalt wrote:
If some of us are emotive about these issues, understand that we're not without cause.

I agree with you on that point. The issues you've raised are of very high importance to society and carry very detrimental effects to many people depending on how legislation is implemented.

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful post... it goes without saying that it's a pleasure conversing with you.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
To be very honest... I am not in favour of abortion.

That's as may be, and to twist the old adage, if you don't want an abortion in your family, don't let the prospect of it come to pass. What one hopes you do instead of just being opposed to something is to be in favor of something else, like realism. But I guess that's a hard slog for an ex-Pentecostal. This is reflected and magnified in the attitudes of the Trumps an Pences of the world. We have to wait and see how realistic they want to be, and how boot-stompingly aggressive they want to be in making rules for everyone but themselves and theirs. You know how it goes, Pups: Grab 'em by the pussy.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yeah, I don't know how ignorant you are or are not about the details, but this is what Carl Pierce wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Quite simple when the dems next have power replace the sup court with a new one.

I pointed out that this betrays a deep ignorance of the status fo the US Supreme Court, and somebody, I don't forget who, said that my criticism was premature, but I think my criticism stands, because CP only remarked on the Supreme Court, and it remains a long haul to change the way the SCOTUS is comprised.

Cp's use of the word "replace" was indeed wrong here. But again, if you bothered reading his next post, where he precises (or corrects, I don't know/care) the following :

Appoint enough decent judges to out vote Kav and friends.

Here he is correct, and you were responding to this post when I corrected you, not the previous one. So what I said still stands.

Cito di Pense wrote:If you're treading on my tits here just because you think I support a conservative judiciary, you're dead wrong, and your yammering isn't really going to change the fact that the US is going deep into a conservative vein, no matter what I think. Or what Carl Pierce "thinks".

Nope. Couldn't care less about what you think. Your answer to his post was wrong, that's all.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
If you bothered reading comments before answering to them, you would have understood that he was proposing to recruit more federal judges, which is possible, the constitution doesn't specify how many they should be.
Your patronizing attitude is ridiculous enough as it is, at least try to be on topic when you do it.

That's a load of bullshit, Sunshine. CP suggested the lower courts can somehow "outvote" the Supreme Court decisions. Good luck figuring that one out. You both completely miss the point that the job of the judiciary is not to make the law, but to interpret it. When someone does not like the interpretation of a lower court, guess where the case ends up? When the losing side doesn't like the decision, they appeal it upstairs. Surely you're familiar with government that operates on similar principles. If not, you're speaking, as I say, from ignorance. The deep ignorance that doesn't know its depths.

Educate yourself, already:

http://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges

As I said, his word "replace" was wrong, and your quote suggested that you didn't answer to this post, but his next one, which was true. You're trying (again I should say) to hide your error behind a world salad that has no connexion to what has been said before, or even what you're responding to.

aban57 wrote:

Appoint enough decent judges to out vote Kav and friends.

Here he is correct, and you were responding to this post when I corrected you, not the previous one. So what I said still stands.

How can this be "correct"? It's something that's even possible only in pipe-dreamland. The yammering of people who dream of simply augmenting the bench until the guys they don't like can be outvoted is real wacky dust. The largest the court has ever been is one seat larger than it is now, and that happened more than 150 years ago. How many new justices would have to be packed into the court to outvote Kavanaugh, Scaliia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas? Two, and nobody would be fooled about what a cynical move that would be. Why, the next time somebody wants to swing the court back again, we could just go to fourteen or fifteen. Sky's the limit, here, pard.

The typical career of a Supreme Court justice stretches across three or four presidencies. Thomas was appointed before Bill Clinton's administration took office, and he has at least another ten years if he stays healthy. Maybe somebody will think of Novichok or something. Oops. Cat's out of the bag.

I say we replace the whole shebang with Facebook. Whoever gets the most likes wins. Direct democracy. Who needs book learnin nohow? Didn't do my Daddy no good.

laklak wrote:I say we replace the whole shebang with Facebook. Whoever gets the most likes wins. Direct democracy. Who needs book learnin nohow? Didn't do my Daddy no good.

I've got an even better one: Replace the whole she-bang with acritarchs. The developing solution for what ails the Supreme Court is sort of as if John Harlan puked and that puke presented the argument for how to fix what's wrong with the Supreme Court.

Or artichokes.

SCOTUS is at the top of U.S. judicial arcitarchure.