U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

[Aussie Willy]

And women will still get abortions even if illegal, “it is what it is”.

And many women will die as a result of those illegal abortions. But "it is what it is".

 

[allezfred]

He is President it is what it is.

Mexicans are rapists and murderers - it is what it is.
Children separated from their parents - it is what it is.
Forced hysterectomies on migrant women - it is what it is.
200,000 of your fellow citizens dead largely through a failure of leadership - it is what it is.

 

[Buzz]

It surprised me. Why would he vote for impeachment & flip now?

Complete control of the judiciary is every conservative‘s dream and he is a conservative. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make that happen.

 

[MacMadame]

You don't seriously think Joe Biden and the Democrat/Leftists would have done anything that would have stopped Cvid? They were accusing President Trump of being xenophobic. Easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

They already handled Ebola better than Trump handled C19. They know how to handle a pandemic.

And, no, banning only some people from only China after the virus had clearly escaped China is not the way to do it. Now if Trump had banned all international flights or all flights from countries that had hot spots, or banned China when the crud was only in China, it might have been effective. Instead, it was both "too little, too late" AND "pandering to his base's xenophobia."

 

[Aussie Willy]

They already handled Ebola better than Trump handled C19. They know how to handle a *********.

And, no, banning only some people from only China after the ***** had clearly escaped China is not the way to do it. Now if Trump had banned all international flights or all flights from countries that had hot spots, or banned China when the crud was only in China, it might have been effective. Instead, it was both "too little, too late" AND "pandering to his base's xenophobia."

And they could have put returning travellers into hotel quarantine to isolate them from the rest of the population. That seems to have worked in some places. Like where I live.

 

[overedge]

He is President it is what it is.

Please look at the links I posted above, which are the five parts of the Senate report on Russian interference with the 2016 elections - a report that was endorsed by Senators from both parties. A hostile foreign power interfered with the results of the election that you call "fair". Are you seriously OK with writing that off as "it is what it is"?

 

[demetriosj]

A hostile foreign power interfered with the results of the election that you call "fair".

Are you ok with George Soros backing campaigns (with his millions) of crazy, leftist DA's that do away with bail and let criminals roam the streets? Now that is interfering in an election.

 

[CDANN1013]

My mother was born in 1934 and was a very strong Catholic. She was fervent in her religious beliefs and believed that abortion was wrong on a morale level; HOWEVER, she believed in woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. She witnessed too many woman either bleed to death or suffered life long health issues due to illegal abortions. If she was alive today, she would want to keep abortion legal and safe.

 

[overedge]

Are you ok with George Soros backing campaigns (with his millions) of crazy, leftist DA's that do away with bail and let criminals roam the streets? Now that is interfering in an election.

You're insane.

 

[MsZem]

I reiterate my suggestion to disregard demetriosj until they post something about skating

 

[Japanfan]

Actually I think it's the opposite. With the detailed ultrasounds available today of fetus's as young as ten week old, it's a lot harder to argue that the fetus is just a bunch of cells we can destroy without a second thought. Heartbeats can be detected as early as ten weeks. The more science we have, the more we see just how complex and living a fetus is.

In most of the western world, that is not the pertinent issue - the abortion question was a constitutional question, not a moral one. Fetuses do not have rights in the US and Canadian constitutions - though individual US states have found ways to work around that - whereas woman, as persons, do. I just want to cry at the thought of our personhood being limited.

What you and so many others fail to understand that human rights are at issue here. To quote Hillary Clinton 'It is time to say for once and for all that women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights' (from a speech given at a Beijing plenary in 1995).

If taking away rights from women is accomplished and seen as acceptable, entire societies suffer. And politicians then become emboldened to eliminate/restrict the rights of minorities. And as

And as @BittyBug pointed, the impact on environmental rights must also be taken into account.

It may seem esoteric, but we can only be as healthy as our planet, and right now our planet is at a breaking point. "Pro life" should mean all life - including the vastly interconnected ecosystem that is essential to support human life.

Yes.

I would also say that this has the potential to be the death of our democracy.

This.

One of the early scenes of 'The Handmaid's Tale' keeps coming to mind, without being invited. It's the scenes where all the women are fired from their jobs and all their money goes into a male partner's or relative's bank account. And June (the protagonist) comments that 'when they suspended the constitution, we didn't wake up . . . .we're awake now".

I'm angry, scared and sad - these past few days I've had a permanent pit in my stomach, and I don't expect it to go away.

 

[ballettmaus]

Good point with regards to the argument that the Senate represents the will of the people.

Your nightly reminder that Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler have never actually been elected to the U.S. Senate and literally do not represent the will of the people in deciding who should fill the vacancy left by Justice Ginsburg.

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1308605986924572672

So, if we argue the will of the people then only 51 of those GOP Senators (who still present 15 million fewer Americans) were actually elected by the people.
And McSally actually lost her election, so the people of Arizona did not want her.

 

[skatesindreams]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's army of clerks to stand guard at the Supreme Court

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns for the final time to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, an army of more than a hundred of her former clerks will meet the casket and accompany it up the stone steps leading to the great hall where the liberal icon presided for almost 30 years.

www.cnn.com

 

[Spikefan]

Someone posted about why the GOP latched on to the evangelical movement in the 1980’s and I thought it summed it up perfectly:
“Distract people and make them equate their political identity with their religion and they’ll be too distracted by Jesus, gay people and fetuses to notice all the substantive ways the wealthy and powerful are bleeping them over.”

 

[Louis]

Supreme Court justices are not elected by referendum or popular vote, so it doesn't matter what people think now.

Donald Trump is the lawful president of the U.S. That is a fact. He appoints Supreme Court justices. That is his right and obligation.

People elected Senators in 2016 and 2018, knowing that if they voted for Republicans, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee would be likely to be approved. The people have had their say. It's done and decided. We don't get a revote because you don't like the outcome.

This is entirely the Democrats being whiny because they didn't have the votes in 2016, whereas the Republicans do in 2020. Too damn bad. This is democracy at work, and any attempt to stop it is anti-democratic and authoritarian. The leaps of logic people are making - certain senators were appointed v. elected - are nonsense.

I look forward to the confirmation of President Trump's nominee and commend Romney and others for their willingness to proceed with confirmation hearings.

 

[Louis]

I'll worry about right to choose when the other party isn't trying to take away right to leave your home, earn a living, see your family members, or attend weddings or funerals -- while exempting themselves from all of these restrictions.

For people who only want to leave their home to riot, loot, or get an abortion, by all means vote Democrat.

 

[Susan1]

My mother was born in 1934 and was a very strong Catholic. She was fervent in her religious beliefs and believed that abortion was wrong on a morale level; HOWEVER, she believed in woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. She witnessed too many woman either bleed to death or suffered life long health issues due to illegal abortions. If she was alive today, she would want to keep abortion legal and safe.

o.k. - abortion is back as a main topic again, so I will say again. I am pro-choice. That is not the same as pro-abortion. When I would have physically been of age, it would have been my choice, not that I would have done it. And it would and is not my business if anyone else does. I found out my ex-husband's 15 year old daughter had one afterwards. Her dad and I were dating and broken up at the time, or she would have called me to take her and I would have. (I told her I would have even when we were broken up.) She was drunk and fell asleep and this guy raped her. He paid the $300. She told her dad years later, and he was mad that I knew and didn't tell him, not that she did it.

My aunt got pregnant in her senior year in the 50s, graduated, went to stay with a relative, and gave the baby up for adoption. He found her when he was 21. He had a great life. She told him never to contact her again because she had a life and a family now. That upset me more than ex-stepdaughter's abortion.

 

[misskarne]

I'll worry about right to choose when the other party isn't trying to take away right to leave your home, earn a living, see your family members, or attend weddings or funerals -- while exempting themselves from all of these restrictions.

For people who only want to leave their home to riot, loot, or get an abortion, by all means vote Democrat.

Of course a man who throws a temper tantrum at the very idea of controlling a pan-demic thinks that a woman's right to her own body is completely insignificant.

 

[Japanfan]

I look forward to the confirmation of President Trump's nominee and commend Romney and others for their willingness to proceed with confirmation hearings.

Really?

I know you are conservative, but I don't think you support taking away a human right that could put women's rights back one-half century? Nor would you support abrogating rights for minorities and easing environmental protections?

Although you are a conservative and identify as one, I've never gotten the impression that you are a misogynist or a clear racist.

 

[Japanfan]

I'll worry about right to choose when the other party isn't trying to take away right to leave your home, earn a living, see your family members, or attend weddings or funerals -- while exempting themselves from all of these restrictions.

Well, you can do that. Women who find themselves in a untenable position due to being pregnant unfortunatly do not have the luxury of waiting.

And I think you might worry a wee bit more if you got a woman pregnant, and the woman wanted to have an abortion, and couldn't get one. In which case you could be saddled with 18 years of child support. Might put a bit of crimp on your lifestyle.

 

[Louis]

Of course a man who throws a temper tantrum at the very idea of controlling a pan-demic thinks that a woman's right to her own body is completely insignificant.

I'm a staunch of proponent of abortion rights, but think there are more significant issues in the country right now. This was the same position many pro-Biden advocates were taking, until the Supreme Court vacancy opened, and up became down and vice versa (as usual).

I also think Roe is settled law and won't be overturned even with another Trump appointee.

Although you are a conservative and identify as one, I've never gotten the impression that you are a misogynist or a clear racist.

The solution to most of the "sky is falling!" problems re: the Supreme Court is to legislate. Liberal justices have stomped all over states' rights and taken extreme interpretations of the law beyond the scope of the judicial branch. Even when I agree with the Supreme Court, I am uncomfortable with how much they are legislating from the bench and turning everything into a federal issue.

Justice Ginsberg's death is a wake-up call for people like me - who didn't and don't want to vote for Trump, and who have deep disagreements with what the Republican party has become (which is no longer the party of small government, personal responsibility, and states' rights). We'd not just be voting for Biden, but for a liberal agenda and a liberal Supreme Court justice. Don't think I can do it.

Best case for me - and honestly, I think best case to get Biden elected - is to confirm a Supreme Court justice and take the issue off the table. If this is on the table, I think some of the NeverTrumpers, including some who had backed Biden, might be forced to take a second look.

 

[Susan1]

My aunt got pregnant in her senior year in the 50s, graduated, went to stay with a relative, and gave the baby up for adoption. He found her when he was 21. He had a great life. She told him never to contact her again because she had a life and a family now. That upset me more than ex-stepdaughter's abortion.

me to myself and anybody who "liked" - thinking - he was older, cause it was the mid 80's, so maybe he was 30? (This was before the internet, so I don't remember how he tracked her down. He always knew he was adopted and she got married and moved 100 miles away and then moved back here when her youngest went to college.) Shocker, man!

 

[Aussie Willy]

For anyone who is interested, on Planet America tonight Chas presented about the levels of court in the US - Supreme, Appeals and District, the current make-up (Dems or GOP) and why the balance is the way it is. Less than 5 minute clip.

ABC Planet America - The Wall: What about the OTHER Federal Courts? | Facebook | By ABC Planet America | THE WALL: THE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS - From TONIGHT'S SHOW (at 9.30): We've heard plenty this week about Trump's potential legacy of Supreme Court.

2.3K views, 57 likes, 2 loves, 22 comments, 7 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from ABC Planet America: THE WALL: THE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS - From TONIGHT'S SHOW (at 9.30): We've heard plenty this week...

www.facebook.com

 

[taf2002]

Supreme Court justices are not elected by referendum or popular vote, so it doesn't matter what people think now.

Donald Trump is the lawful president of the U.S. That is a fact. He appoints Supreme Court justices. That is his right and obligation.

People elected Senators in 2016 and 2018, knowing that if they voted for Republicans, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee would be likely to be approved. The people have had their say. It's done and decided. We don't get a revote because you don't like the outcome.

This is entirely the Democrats being whiny because they didn't have the votes in 2016, whereas the Republicans do in 2020. Too damn bad. This is democracy at work, and any attempt to stop it is anti-democratic and authoritarian. The leaps of logic people are making - certain senators were appointed v. elected - are nonsense.

I look forward to the confirmation of President Trump's nominee and commend Romney and others for their willingness to proceed with confirmation hearings.

I'll worry about right to choose when the other party isn't trying to take away right to leave your home, earn a living, see your family members, or attend weddings or funerals -- while exempting themselves from all of these restrictions.

For people who only want to leave their home to riot, loot, or get an abortion, by all means vote Democrat.

It's very easy to have these views speaking from Europe. And from being a man. You have made it clear you will never live in the US again so what's it to you if the US goes down the shitter? You may not care about women or the US as a whole but don't you care about the environment? Many of the safeguards have already been removed during this administration to further the interests of the top 1% but that's just the tip of the iceberg to what Trump can/will do with the blessings of a 6-3 Court. I have enjoyed your posts in the past but the 2 above sound very selfish speaking from your distant seat.

 

[Louis]

You have made it clear you will never live in the US again so what's it to you if the US goes down the shitter?

Among other reasons:

• the vast majority of my retirement assets are in the U.S. (and can't be moved), and I still pay taxes in the US
• I will theoretically qualify for US Social Security and Medicare (ha ha!)
• my father is retired in the US
• my sister's children are being educated in the U.S. (or at least were, pre-c*vid)
• I depend on tax treaties and other arrangements the U.S. has in place with the UK, Italy, and any other country where I may live in the future

I have a lot to lose, financially and otherwise, if the US "goes down the shitter"

You may not care about women or the US as a whole but don't you care about the environment?

I care about all of those things, and think the answer is legislation.

To be honest (and I think Democrats could get behind this), I'd be OK with either abolishing or highly restricting the Supreme Court to only rule on a bare minimum of issues with clear and unambiguous federal jurisdiction.

 

[NeilJLeonard]

Are you ok with George Soros backing campaigns (with his millions) of crazy, leftist DA's that do away with bail and let criminals roam the streets? Now that is interfering in an election.

Apples and oranges...

NJL

 

[clairecloutier]

At this point, I'm also practically ready to either abolish or highly restrict the Supreme Court, but for completely different reasons than @Louis, LOL.

And, I also object to the Supreme Court's legislation from the bench, but again, in my case, it's the Republican judges whom I find by far the most egregious.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece from yesterday that I totally agree with. It advocates setting 18-year term limits for SC justices. Going forward, each elected President would have 2 opportunities in his/her term to select SC justices. The author makes the point that the current SC justices could voluntarily implement this plan on their own, without any action from Congress:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/22/justices-themselves-can-turn-down-heat-by-creating-their-own-term-limits/

This proposal is mostly in line with another plan to fix the courts, which I have posted about in the past:

https://fixthecourt.com/2017/06/tlproposalrelease/

Overall, we need to end the madness that has developed around the SC appointments. It just is becoming counterproductive and detrimental to our political health as a nation, so to speak. No one benefits in the long term, as it only ratchets up partisanship. Structural reform is needed.

 

[skatesindreams]

Trump must hate the honors paid to RBG!

 

[kedrin]

To be honest (and I think Democrats could get behind this), I'd be OK with either abolishing or highly restricting the Supreme Court to only rule on a bare minimum of issues with clear and unambiguous federal jurisdiction.

How would you propose doing this?

 

[demetriosj]

You're insane.

You are so worried about Putin influencing our election, (who's the insane one?), but here's another domestic example I suppose you are totally fine with:

Bloomberg raises millions to help Florida felons vote

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Just days after after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis won a court victory to keep felons from voting until they've paid off fines, restitution and court fees, billionaire Mike Bloomberg has stepped in to help them pay off the debts. The former Democratic presidential...

www.beaumontenterprise.com

Talk about buying votes and trying to influence an election. Also probably illegal.