Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later

[MMC]

..........and those hateful and spiteful ones on the Left will attack her just like their doing to Kavanaugh.

Of course they will.....that's a given.

But now the Republicans know how to treat the Demos when they are in control. Each and everyone should take that Spartacus moment.

[Hoosier8]

'Just Deserts" ? The only ones getting any desert with a conservatives scotus are corporations and the polluters. They get to do as they please while the court hampers the rights of the working class and the needy, especially women. That is the history of the supreme court. Read it sometime and get out of the bushes of right wing BS.


"Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."


'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

"A Supreme Court ruling saying a homophobic baker didn’t get a fair hearing because of his religion. Another ruling that said the Muslim travel ban had nothing to do with religion. Yet another ruling making it harder for public sector unions to do their job."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbec...ere-lying.html

Not a fan of the laws democrats passed?

[Standing Wolf]

I'd be interested to hear - specifically - what things you guys want or expect to see the U.S. Supreme Court do...or undo, as the case may be, should a "conservative" majority emerge.

Please, if you don't mind, no "Return us to being a Constitutional democracy" or any of that vague, unhelpful rhetoric. Actual, real life examples of specific changes in the law that you would like to see made.

[Common]

I'd be interested to hear - specifically - what things you guys want or expect to see the U.S. Supreme Court do...or undo, as the case may be, should a "conservative" majority emerge.

Please, if you don't mind, no "Return us to being a Constitutional democracy" or any of that vague, unhelpful rhetoric. Actual, real life examples of specific changes in the law that you would like to see made.

I will speak for mysef, I dont necessarily want them to reverse anything, I want assurance that some things will be preserved, like The right to own firearms and Especially the enforcement of existing immigration law.

I want them to order the immediate cease of Illegal Sanctuary cities.

[stjames1_53]

I'd be interested to hear - specifically - what things you guys want or expect to see the U.S. Supreme Court do...or undo, as the case may be, should a "conservative" majority emerge.

Please, if you don't mind, no "Return us to being a Constitutional democracy" or any of that vague, unhelpful rhetoric. Actual, real life examples of specific changes in the law that you would like to see made.

Like @Common says, I want to see these sanctuary cities and states to have their whims at over-riding Federal laws stepped on, hard
You keep claiming, falsely, that we are a democracy. I want to see it also lend itself to establishing a return to a Constitutional REPUBLIC....you may keep your democracy

[Cannons Front]

I'd be interested to hear - specifically - what things you guys want or expect to see the U.S. Supreme Court do...or undo, as the case may be, should a "conservative" majority emerge.
Please, if you don't mind, no "Return us to being a Constitutional democracy" or any of that vague, unhelpful rhetoric. Actual, real life examples of specific changes in the law that you would like to see made.

Obviously it will depend on what cases make it to their view, but as examples of things I believe will make it there.
1. Changing the age to buy guns to 21, you are universally treated as an adult at 18 in the US, at that point you should have all of the same rights and privileges as all other adult citizens. The same argument could be made for Alcohol and tobacco products.
Sorry but you are either an adult or you are not....
2. Does a noncitizen released from criminal custody become exempt from mandatory detention if, after the noncitizen is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take the noncitizen into immigration custody immediately?
Illegal is Illegal and the illegals should be in jail
3.Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964
Sex is a natural determination not a choice
4. Whether the establishment clause requires the removal or destruction of a 93-year-old memorial to American servicemen who died in World War I solely because the memorial bears the shape of a cross.
History is history and the Separation of Church and state was to prevent a particular church from being endorsed by the Gov't a statue to veterans is not an endorsement

There are a few that I hope they look at and rule on.

[Tahuyaman]

'Just Deserts" ? The only ones getting any desert with a conservatives scotus are corporations and the polluters. They get to do as they please while the court hampers the rights of the working class and the needy, especially women. That is the history of the supreme court. Read it sometime and get out of the bushes of right wing BS.


"Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."


'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Millhiser

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

"A Supreme Court ruling saying a homophobic baker didn’t get a fair hearing because of his religion. Another ruling that said the Muslim travel ban had nothing to do with religion. Yet another ruling making it harder for public sector unions to do their job."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbec...ere-lying.html

What’s your problem with the Supreme Court being guided by the US constitution?

[Standing Wolf]

I will speak for mysef, I dont necessarily want them to reverse anything, I want assurance that some things will be preserved, like The right to own firearms and Especially the enforcement of existing immigration law.

When has the Supreme Court - any U.S. Supreme Court - threatened the Second Amendment? The Constitutional right to the private ownership of firearms is not in jeopardy, and wouldn't be in jeopardy even with an overwhelming majority of justices with a liberal inclination.

I want them to order the immediate cease of Illegal Sanctuary cities.

Well, first you would have to define what a "sanctuary city" is, and there's no agreement on that. (Some folks started calling Phoenix a "sanctuary city" because the new Sheriff of Maricopa County, on the advise of the County Attorney, stopped the practice of holding prisoners who'd completed their sentences without any orders or paperwork of any kind because to do so was illegal, and because the federal government itself had warned local law enforcement not to attempt to enforce federal immigration law.) Whether (and when) federal officials have the right to require local ones to do anything is a question best answered on a case-by-case basis.

So, if the Trump administration or one of its agencies wants the Supreme Court to compel a city to comply with a particular directive or requirement, it's going to have to bring a case against the appropriate officials and then argue from a Constitutional perspective why compliance should be ordered. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it would be highly interesting. What I don't think is that it would require a conservative majority on the Court to make a Constitutionally defensible ruling.

[Standing Wolf]

Obviously it will depend on what cases make it to their view, but as examples of things I believe will make it there.
1. Changing the age to buy guns to 21, you are universally treated as an adult at 18 in the US, at that point you should have all of the same rights and privileges as all other adult citizens. The same argument could be made for Alcohol and tobacco products.
Sorry but you are either an adult or you are not....

I'm assuming that you're aware that someone already has to be 21 to buy a handgun. Why the exception, then, for long guns? And does that exception still make sense in the modern world? (I'm not arguing either way...just speculating on why an 18-year-old can own a rifle or shotgun now, and whether those reasons are still applicable.) I'm going to guess - because I haven't studied the matter - that it has a lot to do with the place of hunting in the history and culture of the U.S. So, do enough Americans still engage in hunting to make that pertinent? On the other hand, should an individual with a home, maybe a family to protect, not have access to any firearm because they haven't had their 21st birthday? What reasons exist for keep handguns out of the possession of 18-20 year olds, when they can enlist in the military and be issued one?

2. Does a noncitizen released from criminal custody become exempt from mandatory detention if, after the noncitizen is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take the noncitizen into immigration custody immediately?

Illegal is Illegal and the illegals should be in jail

If the noncitizen has served his or her sentence, why would further detention by local authorities be "mandatory"? (I'm not suggesting that no mechanism for further detention should exist; I'm saying that I know for a fact that federal authorities often don't want to be bothered with employing it, and that in some places they rely too heavily on local authorities' willingness to actually violate the law in order to help them out.)

3.Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964
Sex is a natural determination not a choice

On the other hand, some choices do place one in a class against which discrimination is unlawful. Religion and marital status, to name two. If the law provides that an individual's sex, for legal purposes, can be changed, then any law against discrimination on the basis of sex is enforceable in that case.

4. Whether the establishment clause requires the removal or destruction of a 93-year-old memorial to American servicemen who died in World War I solely because the memorial bears the shape of a cross.
History is history and the Separation of Church and state was to prevent a particular church from being endorsed by the Gov't a statue to veterans is not an endorsement

I personally believe that the sensitivity of some people to the presence of religious symbols on public land must be tempered with some historical understanding. If a religious group wanted to construct a big cross on public land today, it might well be seen as an attempt to proselytize - to use public resources to advertise its message and recruit. That was clearly not the intention of those who put up the veterans' memorial.

There are a few that I hope they look at and rule on.

Thanks for your examples. I appreciate the input.

[Captdon]

Are you happy now, Teddy Kennedy? Are you happy, Joe Biden? Are you happy now, Harry Reid? It’s due to the things that you did and said that Donald J. Trump is now naming his second Supreme Court justice in under two years in office. It is your fault that the once courtly process of Supreme Court appointments turned into the blood-and-thunder-eye-gouging drama that we hate and we live through today.


It was 31 years ago, in 1987, that Edward M. Kennedy burst on the floor of the Senate to tell us all that with Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, “women would be forced Into back-alley abortions,” blacks would eat at segregated lunch counters, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the freedom of millions would hang by a thread


Before it was over, liberals would raise and spend over $10 million in negative ads (quite a sum at the time) and in lobbying efforts. They would threaten black witnesses with career-ending reprisals and seize and search records of video rentals for signs of blue movies that were never found.


As Steve Hayward says, “The demagogic nature of the public campaign against him made it a watershed moment in American politics, permanently deforming the nomination process as for the judiciary, with ideological battles now extending to the lower federal courts as well.” How true this was proven in 1991, when Kennedy’s office unleashed Anita Hill upon Clarence Thomas, though with less success.

And in 1992, Biden averred that if a vacancy occurred in the Supreme Court before the presidential election, the Democratic Senate should refuse to let Republican President George H.W. Bush fill it until the election was over, so that the new president (who would be Bill Clinton) could decide.


Twenty-four years later, in 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took this advice. He refused to allow a vote on a nominee picked by an exiting Democrat. Democrats fumed, but, as they expected a President Hillary Clinton, they bided their time.


Picture their rage when Trump was elected, bringing not only himself but a procession of judges whom a Republican Senate would rush to confirm. The first pick, Neil Gorsuch, did not change the court’s balance, and Democrats would have done better to put up a fight on the second one, which would. But their anger and shock knew no bounds.


In 2013, in a fit of pique at GOP opposition, Majority Leader Harry Reid had blown up the 60-vote rule for non-Supreme Court nominations, reducing the threshold to a simple majority vote. “You will regret this,” McConnell had said at the time, and he would be prescient. Democrats went to war, and McConnell went nuclear, later blowing up the 60 vote rule for Supreme Court nominations — just as Hillary Clinton’s running mate had promised to do after she won in 2016.

Now Democrats need that judicial filibuster, and it’s no longer there for them, lost in the rubble they helped to create.


Pity the Democrats. Thirty-one years of blood, sweat, and tears in which they sacrificed all to the abortion rights movement, uprooting rule after rule and norm after norm, laying waste to the rules of Supreme Court selection in the interests of what remains a fringe issue.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...31-years-later


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...31-years-later

I feel just terrible for them. All that work and money and lying to come to this point. It's all going away.