In a just system any judge Trump appointed should need to recuse themselves as it would be a huge conflict of interest for people picked by the Man accused of crimes to be judged by them
Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire From U.S Supreme Court
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...urt-agrees-take-double-jeopardy-issue-n887301
Related directly to Manafort, Cohen etc. if pardons start flying.
At this point, if Trump is found to have been installed by Russia, I wouldn't mind just impeaching Gorshuch and whoever this next appointee is, regardless of politics, as we cannot reward foreign entities with even a proxy molding of the government.
Because right now, if Hilary had been president, the fucking GOP would be fine just leaving us with a 7 member court because they're a den of fucking traitors.
Because right now, if Hilary had been president, the fucking GOP would be fine just leaving us with a 7 member court because they're a den of fucking traitors.
can someone with more insight into law and the system of SC comment how viable David Faris’ suggestion of ’court packing’ is?
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointments
Court packing is legal because there's no defined size of the Supreme Court in the Constitution and can be changed at will by Congress. It's historical highest count was 11, iirc.
Changing the size the court is perfectly legal and would take passing a law through the House/Senate and having the President sign it. If you control all 3, the biggest roadblock would be the filibuster rule in the Senate which can be removed with a simple majority vote.
I believe the Court's been anywhere from 6 to 11 members at various points in our history. The constitution doesn't spell out how the Supreme Court is structured.
Not sure on the "emeritus" position idea. From what I've read, people have proposed separating the court into different panels before.
Obviously if you pack the court enough you can probably ram through whatever changes you want.
Also, they used to be in the same building as Congress. They weren't put in their own building until the 1930s.
This case would also probably have an impact on federal prosecution for violating a person's civil rights. For example, the officers in the Rodney King case were found not guilty on state charges, but they were re-tried in federal court for violating King's civil rights and two were convicted there. If the court interprets double jeopardy that broadly, this kind of thing would go away.
Allowing politics to influence the timing of the release of information from the investigation is a fantastic way to get yourself fired and the investigation shut down. Moreover- even if Mueller has something on Trump that would lead to his removal, Pence or Ryan or some other Republican down the line is going to replace him and make that pick. It wouldn't change anything about the political composition of the SCOTUS.
Agreed. Voting for Trump is something that will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. Honestly, that's a taint those voters will never be able to wash away.
It needs to be on the table at the very least. FDR ended up not having to pack the courts because the threat of it pushed the court to his side. Roberts and the other conservatives need to think hard about if their more extreme decisions will delegitimize the courts so much that packing becomes inevitable. If they do make the court illegitimate anyway with extreme decisions, it will have to happen, though that probably comes with a lot of pain unless the whole country is basically on board.
It's not a stretch to say that court packing could be civil war inducing depending on the political climate. What do you think would happen if Trump and the republicans decided to pack the courts right now?
Last edited:
The ultimate fuck you would be Thomas retiring soon after.
The guy has mentioned he's wants to retire irc, the dude sleeps through decisions anyway lol
The guy has mentioned he's wants to retire irc, the dude sleeps through decisions anyway lol
There's been reports that have been refuted by his wife.
Maybe if republicans hold the senate he'll do it before the presidential election.
You mean Democrats openly talking about packing the courts when they get chance now could potentially hilariously backfire as the GOP could just do it pre-emptively?
I mean, the GOP could functionally pack the court now and then try to pass a law to shut the door behind them (but wouldn't get through Senate filibuster I imagine).
Last edited:
I was just about to say the same thing! How could they possibly miss this?
I think Trump will do it before the end of his term to manipulate the laws guaranteeing him a second term and probably more.
I suppose they must still be confirmed so America's last chance is the midterms.
I think even they are not willing to go there, not yet at least.
If this guy is supposed to be the swing vote how in the name of fuck did he turned around, saw Trump in power aand think "yeah, this is the guy I want to choose my successor"? HOW? Couldnt he at least wait for November? Christ.
His son is Trump's banker at Deutsche Bank.
Also, he's only a swing vote on social issues. He's solidly conservative otherwise
My takeaway from this, his rulings this year, and the fact that his son is close with Trump, is that Kennedy wasn't going to be of much help to us anymore if he stayed on anyway.
That's how I rationalize it, at least. It helps me feel less horrible about this.
I think I kind of see how people are making a thing of the son being a banker thing
but someone tell me how you "fix" this situation
As if the son was his banker before Kennedy became a judge
Is Kennedy supposed to wait potentially six years to retire just so he avoids looking like he's doing something improper?
Doesn't sound like a big deal IMO
but someone tell me how you "fix" this situation
As if the son was his banker before Kennedy became a judge
Is Kennedy supposed to wait potentially six years to retire just so he avoids looking like he's doing something improper?
Doesn't sound like a big deal IMO
Good point. I guess anything that Trump can do that doesn't go through the house and senate.. ah well. You guys better not fuck up Canada or the world too.
I never did agree with the SCOTUS having enough power to basically create legislation, and that goes for both sides. This is because issues and precedents can just go back and forth in theory. I can empathize with those that are passionate about issues like gay marriage and abortion, to which I would recommend that they focus less on the Supreme Court and focus more on trying to create a constitutional amendment. That’s how every other civil rights issue was settled, from the abolition of slavery, the black right to vote, women’s right to vote, and so on. Get enough people to agree on the issue so that it can become an amendment and actually become part of the Constitution. That way it’s almost guaranteed to remain permanently. Otherwise, by not being mentioned explicitly in the Constitution through an amendment, I don’t see an issue with it being left to the States. Either way, don’t let the Supreme Court make laws for you.
Edit: Not to mention, both options for passing an amendment to the Constitution do not involve the Supreme Court at all, so you arguably wouldn’t even have to worry about who Trump ends up picking. All you need is a lot of agreement among States and both houses of Congress (though that depends on how the amendment is ratified, every amendment thus far has been created from an approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate followed by approval of three-fourths of the States). Not to mention if you succeed, the Supreme Court can’t declare something which is now in the Constitution as unconstitutional. The only thing that can be done at that point is another amendment to repeal the past amendment, which can prove even more difficult (though it has been done before, with the 21st repealing the 18th).
Edit: Not to mention, both options for passing an amendment to the Constitution do not involve the Supreme Court at all, so you arguably wouldn’t even have to worry about who Trump ends up picking. All you need is a lot of agreement among States and both houses of Congress (though that depends on how the amendment is ratified, every amendment thus far has been created from an approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate followed by approval of three-fourths of the States). Not to mention if you succeed, the Supreme Court can’t declare something which is now in the Constitution as unconstitutional. The only thing that can be done at that point is another amendment to repeal the past amendment, which can prove even more difficult (though it has been done before, with the 21st repealing the 18th).
Last edited:
The constitution should not settle civil rights. It should be used as a framework for rights to be recognized by society through sociocultural norms, case law, executive action, and legislation.
Abortion is recognized as an extension of the natural right to bodily autonomy. Your body belongs to you, and no one else can tell you otherwise. It's a medical procedure that is safe. Imposing medically unnecessary restrictions on access to abortion infringes on that right.
The right to vote without discrimination based on sex would be recognized under the 14th amendment's equal protections clause under case law, even if you repealed the 19th amendment. All persons require equal protections under the law; arbitrary limitations on democracy imposed based on sex have no rational basis other than inequality of men and women. We have the 19th amendment not necessarily because it's still necessary, but because it is the path we chose to enshrine that right after the surpeme court ruled it wasn't covered under the privileges and immunities clause.
Rather than focusing on how bodily autonomy must be recognized, conservatives are focusing on how to outlaw abortion. That's not what roe v wade was about.
Given the timeline I wouldn't put it past them to actually do this... . Especially since people believe the Supreme Court is untouchable, etc. . If they weigh the court far enough to the right who would stop them to replace more of the core of the democracy? Could theoretically the Supreme Court put Trump as president for life? Maybe with a specific reason or a staged attack?
I agree that it shouldn’t settle rights but rather be a collection of rights that that have been agreed upon through various different avenues of life. That’s why it is so difficult to pass an amendment.
While I can understand what you are saying about abortion, the Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to abortions and as such it is currently impossible to infringe on a right that people do not have. If anything it seems that currently abortions are a privilege and, to you and others, should be made a right. Supreme Court decisions don’t provide a solid foundation and if anything are more like laws that could eventually be overturned, as evidenced by what Kennedy’s replacement might be capable of doing.
As for the equal protection clause, I feel like that is arguable. The clause applies only to local and state governments, and states that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “equal protection of the laws.” In that sense a similar issue occurs, that on the State (and one can say the federal) level there weren’t any laws at that time that allowed women to vote, so specifically under the law they had equal protection (though obviously not in a social context). Women would have had to, at the time, have had the right to vote through state legislation and then have had the States deny them that right for the equal protection clause to apply. Even then it is still only for local and state governments. The closest thing you have to that right now currently seems to be the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process which does indeed apply at the federal level.
I would disagree and say that if the 19th Amendment was repealed, women would not be able to vote unless their States allowed it (similar to what would happen if the SCOTUS overruled the gay marriage decision except that it is much harder to repeal an amendment than it is to overrule a Supreme Court decision). The only way that wouldn’t be the case is if the Supreme Court determines and tries to extend the phrasing of other amendments to make it so that women could still vote, but that goes back to the issue that if the SCOTUS became majorly conservative then they can just overrule what was decided by the progressive court. As such, the more explicit and clear you are, the better protected your rights are overall. We should stop trying to stretch the meaning and interpretations of the Constitution and it’s amendments and just make new ones.
Edit: I highly doubt they’re trying to outlaw abortion completely. I would imagine a good chunk of them just believe that the issue of abortions is still divisive and as such without almost everyone agreeing to it, the entirety of the United States should not be forced to either be completely for it (or completely against it) and just let states do their thing. A Supreme Court decision is basically like a discount amendment, which can force people to act one way or another regardless of agreement but in return is easier to get rid of. At least with an amendment, basically everyone (both citizens and politicians) would have to agree or disagree on an issue (and it would be practically impossible to repeal). Though a lot of them still might feel negative about it, I feel like if abortions became universally legal through an amendment, which involves the agreement of almost everyone, then they would be less vocal about it since it was done in an arguably more “fair” or at least less “flexible” manner.
Last edited:
It is not abortion that is a right. It is the liberty to make intimate and personal choices about one's own physical dignity and autonomy as a person. The government can not prevent you from getting an abortion any more than it can harvest organs without consent. You can't be forced to donate blood, or bone marrow, or your organs, because you have the right to your own body.
Abortion is legal in acknowledgement of that right.
It's the same reasoning used in Lawrence v Texas to overturn Bowers v Hardwick and strike down anti-sodomy laws.
Last edited:
Alright, now we’re getting somewhere than can be more decisive and actually is somewhat mentioned in the Constitution.
First let me just state that while the issue of choice/force is definitely a huge issue when it comes to that, I wouldn’t say it is the only issue. It is definitely a very nuanced subject for many.
Even if you argue that abortion itself isn’t the right in question but rather it is the liberty to make intimate and personal choices about one’s own physical dignity and autonomy as a person, the Constitution still doesn’t come anywhere close to saying we have that right either, and it falls back into not being able to infringe on a right that we don’t have. If you want that to be a right, go for it, and honestly with the way you phrased it I would argue that sounds like something that would sound perfect within the Constitution and allows for more broader implications than just abortions (like perhaps recreational cybernetics if that ever becomes an issue).
I will add a caveat that technically people might have that right under the 9th amendment (which to my knowledge is something almost nobody ever brings up), which says that “The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Basically, this is “the right to have rights.” Essentially, there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones that are explicitly mentioned. Even though these rights are not listed, it does not mean that they can be violated.
The only particular issue is that this is so vague that I don’t even know how useful this can be, and can be stretched to absurdity to basically make anything a right. Which, of course, as mentioned, any ruling the Supreme Court makes under this amendment can just be overruled eventually.
So basically once again I argue the best thing you can do is pass an amendment which explicitly states, grants, and protects the right you mentioned.
The Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade rulings by the courts both cited the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The government has to be able to provide a compelling interest aside from the morality of abortion or sodomy in order to intervene in such private affairs, and it must follow due process.
I believe the angle conservatives are trying to use to attack Roe v Wade is that under the constitution, if you have a heartbeat, then you have a right to life, liberty, and due process, and thus, only the state has the authority.
Basically the same reasoning used to justify capital punishment. This ruling would recognize the "rights" of the unborn over the rights of the woman who is pregnant, though. It also flies in the face of privacy laws, and seems to miss the point that it is the individual, not the state, taking the action that violates the fetus's rights.
Which might be fine if the states outlaw abortion, if these laws weren't already held to violate the due process clause themselves
Basically the same reasoning used to justify capital punishment. This ruling would recognize the "rights" of the unborn over the rights of the woman who is pregnant, though. It also flies in the face of privacy laws, and seems to miss the point that it is the individual, not the state, taking the action that violates the fetus's rights.
Which might be fine if the states outlaw abortion, if these laws weren't already held to violate the due process clause themselves
Last edited:
I see. I will concede and state I do have some level of ignorance since I have not completely read up everything on both of those cases recently, or rather the reasonings for the decisions.
However, given a majorly conservative SCOTUS, I could potentially see it being overruled via the argument that such actions deprive the unborn of the right to life or something to that effect.
Where is it stated that the government needs to provide a compelling interest aside from the morality of abortion or sodomy in order to intervene in such affairs (and that it most follow due process)? If such a rule came from a Supreme Court decision/opinion, it can just as easily be nullified by the Supreme Court. In loose terms for the sake of clarity, they could just be able to be like “yeah, about those things we said back then, we changed our minds and our now saying this.” The upholding of precedents and litmus tests and anything of that nature is relatively arbitrary.
Such a rule could have more of a foundation if it was incorporated by Congress, but then the Court might argue that the SCOTUS is separate from the government or just state that the rule is unconstitutional outright.
Normally societal outcry would put limits to such decisions but considering the issue is still pretty divided, the outcry might be deemed not significant enough. Not only that, but to my knowledge, a lot of people from both sides of the abortion debate argue that the reasoning for the decision of Roe v. Wade is among the worst (if not the worst) of all Supreme Court cases.
Edit: Exactly, you yourself came to the same conclusion as I about the angle that the conservatives would have on this, and if the Supreme Court is mostly conservative there isn’t really anything preventing them from overruling the decision using the reasoning that you wrote on your second post.
I could see them perhaps stating that it is the State and not the individual under the reasoning that by making it legal, the State is directly/indirectly allowing individuals to infringe on those rights, so by extension the State is knowingly infringing on those rights too.
And alright, so the laws that outlaw abortion are held to violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment, but what entity was it that made it so that those laws violate due process? Assuming it was the Supreme Court, they could just likely reverse that as well.
Last edited:
As a legal argument, I believe that: The problem is that there is a difference between "natural" personhood and judicial (juridical?) personhood. Example: Corporations vs. individuals. Married couples as a singular unit versus the two individuals who are married. Even when parties attempt to argue that abortion should be illegal, their arguments in parlance and before the courts tend towards being an argument in favor of the state having the right to intervene on behalf of the unborn over the mother's personal autonomy. It inevitably becomes a state right vs person's rights debate, not a person's rights against fetal rights. Judicial personhood can be granted or taken away, while "natural" personhood can not. Arguments of natural personhood for the unborn have been flat out rejected countless times; A fetus doesn't have the right to an attorney, it's a damn fetus. There are not laws or case rulings against fetal misconduct because fetuses just aren't natural persons.
You make a valid point.
I guess at the end of the day it just comes out to the fetus vs. the mother, or as you propose the State vs. the mother.
However, I don’t think the issue is about universally legal abortion versus universally outlawing it. If they tried to outlaw it completely they would go nowhere. Their point, which is valid, is that the right to an abortion or the right that you mentioned about autonomy, is not mentioned in the Constitution whatsoever, and as such it should be delegated to the States to decide. The same goes with gay marriage. I think a good chunk and perhaps a majority of the conservatives just dislike the immense legislative power the Court has gained, that was never its purpose.
At the end of the day, nobody should rely on any of the Court’s decisions as being permanent or irreversible, as they can be changed relatively easily. There is no firm foundation for either side and I would imagine the conservatives are upset that the Court are essentially creating discount amendments when it shouldn’t be doing that.
Obviously some conservatives might wish it was outlawed permanently but I believe a lot of them would be satisfied with giving the States the right to decide.
However, once again, if people wish to make either issue universal and/or grant everyone new rights, it should be done through amendments, not the Court.
Otherwise a progressive SCOTUS can just pass rulings that are essentially discount amendments that make the right furious because there was no universal agreement and a conservative SCOTUS will make rulings and discount amendments that make the left furious because there wasn’t any agreement.
Back in the day, the Court’s job was to determine if things were or were not Constitutional, it was not supposed to make things legal or illegal on a federal level.
So when it comes to abortions, let’s say the Court ruled in favor and said it was constitutional under certain areas of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter what the Court said, it would have and arguably should have zero impact. The idea would be that upon saying it is constitutional, people would work toward a piece of legislation or an amendment that would actually make it (more definitively and explicitly) constitutional. Anything that would actually give the ruling depth and a foundation to hold it up.
As for the fetus rights, you have some fair points. To my knowledge, you need to be an adult to have rights similar to the right to an attorney, or at least you need to be a certain age. At the same time, children and juveniles have rights too, even if they have less rights compared to adults, like being under the custody of an adult (or arguably not having autonomy to do much of anything until they are an adult). So I can still see them arguing for the rights of a fetus, even if they might have overall less rights than a child or adult.