The Coming Conservative Supreme Court

[NapRover]

If there is hope for America, it hinges on DJ Trump's SCOTUS choices. And they'll be assured of confirmation, thanks to Harry Reid.


(http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/the_coming_conservative_supreme_court.html)The left lives by abusing power and taking the rules of political processes and twisting those rules for naked advantage. So for many decades, brazen gerrymandering of state legislative districts and congressional districts assured Democrats for almost a half-century of unbroken control of the House of Representatives, with all the mischief that brings.
Now the left whines about how "undemocratic" gerrymandering is, but no one in his right mind believes that a misty-eyed love of democracy motivates this whining. Instead, Democrats see decades of minority status in that same House of Representatives because of Republican gerrymandering – a vice Republicans repeatedly called to end during their long years out of power in state legislatures and in the House of Representatives, which was met by howls of laughter from Democrats.
Conservatives have learned the same lesson regarding the federal bench, especially the Supreme Court. These conservatives for decades sought the best jurists for the Supreme Court while leftists sought the most reliable ideological hacks. Today, the four leftist jurists vote virtually in lockstep on all important constitutional cases.
President Trump, with his list of acceptable Supreme Court nominees, has ensured that ideological trustworthiness and not some notional brilliance in judicial thinking will guide his nominees. He will be picking nominees for at least the next three and a half years – and if Hillary seeks the Democrat nomination, then likely the next seven and a half years – and he will have a Republican Senate almost certainly through the 2022 midterm elections because of the state configuration of Senate elections in the next two general elections.

More at the link!

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/the_coming_conservative_supreme_court.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/the_coming_conservative_supreme_court.html)

[Ethereal]

The hope of America is and always has been in its people, not government officials. And without a deep love of liberty and republicanism, no amount of swell judges will make any real difference.

[NapRover]

The hope of America is and always has been in its people, not government officials. And without a deep love of liberty and republicanism, no amount of swell judges will make any real difference.
Maybe not, but bad ones sure can!

[Ethereal]

Maybe not, but bad ones sure can!

If the people cherish their liberty, then no amount of bad judges can take it from them.

[Tahuyaman]

They can take it incrementally over several generations by developing a huge dependent class, expanding it slowly and using that to expand on their power.

[del]

earl warren was a conservative republican

have a nice day

[Ethereal]

They can take it incrementally over several generations by developing a huge dependent class, expanding it slowly and using that to expand on their power.
People who cherish their liberty do not become dependent on the government.

[Common Sense]

People who cherish their liberty do not become dependent on the government.
Like oil companies and farmers?

;)

[Tahuyaman]

People who cherish their liberty do not become dependent on the government.

It happens very slowly over a period of generations and it starts with the very young By the time you realized what has hapoened, it's too late.

[Tahuyaman]

Like oil companies and farmers?

;)


Actually the the government is dependent upon the oil companies. Government is the primary recipient of oil company profits. They collect more tax revenue per gallon than those who produce the product.

Government has regulated the family farmer out of business.


Try again. Tobacco is the same.

[NapRover]

If the people cherish their liberty, then no amount of bad judges can take it from them.

If only that were the case. If Hillary would have won more popular votes than Trump, the Little Sisters of the Poor would have been in the abortion business and the rest of us disarmed. Churches would be taxed,
speech censured, death panels galore, prisons emptying out.....

[del]

If only that were the case. If Hillary would have won more popular votes than Trump, the Little Sisters of the Poor would have been in the abortion business and the rest of us disarmed. Churches would be taxed,
speech censured, death panels galore, prisons emptying out.....

get a grip

[Common]

The democrats are very much afraid that trump will get another appointee, but what they are really afraid of is something happening to Ginsburg giving trump 3 conservative picks. That would put the supreme court right for two decades at least

[Boris The Animal]

The democrats are very much afraid that trump will get another appointee, but what they are really afraid of is something happening to Ginsburg giving trump 3 conservative picks. That would put the supreme court right for two decades at least
One can only hope.

[Common]

get a grip
You need to ungrip, youre way beyond the pimples and glass's stage

[DGUtley]

earl warren was a conservative republican. have a nice day
This is true. Roberts was a Bush appointee. You never know until they sit...

[NapRover]

get a grip
well I guess we'll never know, Trump having won more popular votes!
18256

[Standing Wolf]

I'd be interested to know what changes - radical or otherwise - some of you foresee or would predict with a more "conservative" high court in place.

I have asked this same question in at least one other thread, and I don't recall that I got many (if any) responses.

If you do have examples, I'd also be interested in what you see as being the legal basis for those changes being made. In other words, aside from the personal ideological tendencies of the individual justices, what reason or rationale exists to justify a change in the court's stance on something?

[Ethereal]

Like oil companies and farmers?

;)

I never said big oil and big agribusiness were exemplars of liberty, so I don't really follow you.

[Standing Wolf]

I'd be interested to know what changes - radical or otherwise - some of you foresee or would predict with a more "conservative" high court in place.

I have asked this same question in at least one other thread, and I don't recall that I got many (if any) responses.

If you do have examples, I'd also be interested in what you see as being the legal basis for those changes being made. In other words, aside from the personal ideological tendencies of the individual justices, what reason or rationale exists to justify a change in the court's stance on something?

Anyone?

[Peter1469]

Anyone?


A further clamp down on using the Commerce Clause to justify legislation. That would bring us back towards what our Founders created- a federal government with limited and enumerated powers. The remainder of power left with the states and the people.

[NapRover]

I'd be interested to know what changes - radical or otherwise - some of you foresee or would predict with a more "conservative" high court in place.

I have asked this same question in at least one other thread, and I don't recall that I got many (if any) responses.

If you do have examples, I'd also be interested in what you see as being the legal basis for those changes being made. In other words, aside from the personal ideological tendencies of the individual justices, what reason or rationale exists to justify a change in the court's stance on something?
The Donald scored big when he called off the dogs re: the war on religion. The naming of a healthcare mandate as a tax, after announcing to the public that it wasn't a tax stinks to high heaven. Gun rights: don't give them up! Lock up nuts! Allow what the COTUS stipulates-that if it's not spelled out in the COTUS, it's left up to the states. No reading between the lines or parsing words. The president can bar immigration form terrorists countries if he wants to......to name a few.

the rationale should be self-evident.

[Standing Wolf]

A further clamp down on using the Commerce Clause to justify legislation. That would bring us back towards what our Founders created- a federal government with limited and enumerated powers. The remainder of power left with the states and the people.

Okay. Any specific examples come to mind?

[Standing Wolf]

The Donald scored big when he called off the dogs re: the war on religion.

How do you think the high court has ruled incorrectly on religion...or in what religious controversy or matter should they become involved in the future?


The naming of a healthcare mandate as a tax, after announcing to the public that it wasn't a tax stinks to high heaven.

I have to agree with you there, for the most part; I have never been a fan of the mandate.


Gun rights: don't give them up!

I don't foresee Americans losing their Second Amendment protections any time soon, regardless of the high court's composition.


Lock up nuts!

Was that part of the "gun rights" item, or a separate one? If the former, I'd agree, if you mean that increased penalties for those who violate current laws are more of an answer than restricting access by the law abiding.


Allow what the COTUS stipulates-that if it's not spelled out in the COTUS, it's left up to the states.

Don't forget the last four words of the Tenth Amendment: ..."or to the people". Proclaiming, as some do, that it's a matter of federalism or states' rights is a false dichotomy. The people do not have to humbly take with a smile what state governments give them; the court system exists to provide justice and relief from the tyranny of state and local governments as much as any other variety.


No reading between the lines or parsing words.

Unfortunately, that often appears, to the uninitiated, to be what is happening when in fact it's only just the normal, inevitable attempt by a court to apply a handful of words to an almost infinite number of unique situations. In other words, no single law, code or Constitution can make detailed allowance for every conceivable circumstance. Legal reasoning and the application of precedents may sometimes appear to be far-fetched, but in truth "reading between the lines [and] parsing words" is, in a sense, what courts are (and have to be) all about.


The president can bar immigration form terrorists countries if he wants to......to name a few.

As the law makes clear, that power is not absolute. Lower courts have determined - quite easily, and with ample evidence - that the current President did what he did with an eye to restricting travel to the U.S. on the basis of religion. No increase in the number of "Conservative" justices on the high court is going to change the facts or that part of the law.

[Peter1469]

Almost all legislation since 1937 has claimed the Commerce Clause as its hook to the Constitution. See US v. Lopez


Okay. Any specific examples come to mind?