Formerly Anthony Kennedy: US supreme court justice to retire. Goodbye Roe v Wade, Obergefell
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
willhud9 wrote:aban57 wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
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.
aban57 wrote:
Again, I don't know what you're responding to. Nobody mentionned the president.
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.
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.
CarlPierce wrote:Quite simple when the dems next have power replace the sup court with a new one.
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.
laklak wrote:Yes, and it's been done before. At one point there were 10 justices.
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".
Spinozasgalt wrote:
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?
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.
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.
Spinozasgalt wrote:
If some of us are emotive about these issues, understand that we're not without cause.
Skinny Puppy wrote:
To be very honest... I am not in favour of abortion.
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.
Appoint enough decent judges to out vote Kav and friends.
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".
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
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.
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.
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest