What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Rover said:
Well, from a righty's perspective I'm sure a lot of this is going to feel like a missed opportunity. In reality its only been since Bush Sr that the knucks' had a majority of the justices. Even in Ronbo's time you still had Blackmun-Brennan-Powell-Stevens-Marshall. I think corporate cons took over when the court became O'Connor-Kennedy-White-Scalia-Rehnquist. Thomas replacing Marshall furthered that, but Ginsberg replacing White maybe brought it back to where it was before.

The problem always has been that fundies don't have 5 justices. O'Connor and now Kennedy were always fuzzy on making Evangelical Christianity the law of the land. If Hill gets to make a pick, plus Kennedy's increasingly socially liberal bent, then its all over for a long, long time. Kinda explains how the religious right is completely on board with a guy on his 3rd marriage who sired one child out of wedlock :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't give them a free pass. Just because the fundies don't have 5 doesn't mean it wasn't a conservative Court. Fundies should have known better than to think they'd ever get 5 radicals on the Court at the same time.

They had their chance to accomplish things and instead they always went too far. That was their undoing.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ScoobyDoo said:
Don't give them a free pass. Just because the fundies don't have 5 doesn't mean it wasn't a conservative Court. Fundies should have known better than to think they'd ever get 5 radicals on the Court at the same time.

They had their chance to accomplish things and instead they always went too far. That was their undoing.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. I think its hilarious that Souter, Kennedy, etc completely boned them. Remember Fishy's reaction when Roberts upheld the ACA? Comedy Gold, Baby! :D :D :D

Its a corporate conservative court, or at least it was until Scalia croaked. No doubt. It all relies on Donald Trump wining the Presidency to keep it that way. :eek:
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

For that matter, I doubt we'll get explicit reversals. The Court doesn't like calling attention to its past malfeasance / temporary insanity -- especially when the nutty justices are still serving. So for example McCutcheon established quid pro quo as the standard for corruption. They could admit that language is bonkers, but more likely they'll hand down a series of decisions which expand what they consider to fall under quid pro quo. That way it seems like the organic development of a legal theory, rather than backing out of a wrong turn.

There may be decisions that were so written that they don't have much wiggle room, and they may have to explicitly repudiate them. For instance, Heller created a right that had never existed before. Not much to do there but reverse it.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
For that matter, I doubt we'll get explicit reversals. The Court doesn't like calling attention to its past malfeasance / temporary insanity -- especially when the nutty justices are still serving. So for example McCutcheon established quid pro quo as the standard for corruption. They could admit that language is bonkers, but more likely they'll hand down a series of decisions which expand what they consider to fall under quid pro quo. That way it seems like the organic development of a legal theory, rather than backing out of a wrong turn.

There may be decisions that were so written that they don't have much wiggle room, and they may have to explicitly repudiate them. For instance, Heller created a right that had never existed before. Not much to do there but reverse it.
Click to expand...

Really the only explicit reversal we need is citizens united. That ruling needs to be obliterated. Beyond that though its going to depend on which laws activists feel like going after. I'm guessing the pro-choice people are going all out to get rid of the rest of recent anti-abortion laws. The bans after 20 weeks are most likely next to go with a 5th justice in place.

For Voting Rights, IIRC Roberts didn't rule pre-clearance unconstitutional. He said the map left over from the 60's was unconstitutional but Congress was free to update it. I can see people asking the court for greater clarity on just what constitutes proper voting ID, and how much lead time you need to give people to obtain it.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Rover said:
Really the only explicit reversal we need is citizens united. That ruling needs to be obliterated. Beyond that though its going to depend on which laws activists feel like going after. I'm guessing the pro-choice people are going all out to get rid of the rest of recent anti-abortion laws. The bans after 20 weeks are most likely next to go with a 5th justice in place.

For Voting Rights, IIRC Roberts didn't rule pre-clearance unconstitutional. He said the map left over from the 60's was unconstitutional but Congress was free to update it. I can see people asking the court for greater clarity on just what constitutes proper voting ID, and how much lead time you need to give people to obtain it.
Click to expand...

My memory is hazy but I recall people writing articles after Shelby that the Court had signalled Congress that they could update the VRA instead of (effectively) striking it down. The interesting thing is if there is a Democratic wave, the slew of Republican voter suppression laws can be used by Congress to justify pre-clearance not only of the south but of various other states that are playing fast and loose with the New Jim Crow.

When one tine of the GOP fork is posturing by saying "I doesn't sees any racists around here Mizz Scarlet, does you?" the other tine probably shouldn't have been gleefully disenfranchising every black person they could find.

Now even with a Democratic Senate, if the GOP holds the House they can stall federal legislative attempts to stop state voter suppression in the short term. In the long term, as the knucks age out of the federal judiciary that is a losing hand.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Rover said:
. The bans after 20 weeks are most likely next to go with a 5th justice in place.
.
Click to expand...
That will make for some interesting discussions
 
The Sicatoka said:
Roberts' take on the PPACA brought that into question.
Click to expand...

And this is where conservatives lose me because they aren't actually wanting to preserve the status quo, but they're being reactionaries who want to go backwards 150 years. They think the most conservative court in generations by almost any measure is still too liberal.

Well, barring the October surprise of all October surprises, get ready to see what a real liberal court looks like.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

unofan said:
Well, barring the October surprise of all October surprises, get ready to see what a real liberal court looks like.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a court that merely interprets law against the Constitution. Silly ol' naive me I guess ...
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Sicatoka said:
I'd like to see a court that merely interprets law against the Constitution. Silly ol' naive me I guess ...
Click to expand...

That's all the Court does. All the nonsense the right whines about basically comes down to McCulloch v Maryland. Once you accept implied powers, game over for "Originalism."

You guys had a good run. Forty years is an impressive length of time to hold back progress and protect the status quo. It also corresponds to the time period in which the US went into the toilet.

Let us have our run, now. The last time we ran the show we created the middle class, won WW2, and cut poverty in half until the Dixiecrats got steamed that that also included black people. We've got a good track record. You guys will get the keys back around 2060 and can fellate the rich again if that's what you want. But I lived the first half of my life under your tender mercies and have no intention of closing out under the same circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The Sicatoka said:
I'd like to see a court that merely interprets law against the Constitution. Silly ol' naive me I guess ...
Click to expand...

When did they stop doing that? Please take your time cause Drudge and Rick Santorum need to time to update their sites so you can find the answer :p

(hint: just because you dont like how they interpret the Constitution doesnt make what they do any different)

But hey, it isnt like the Constitution isnt a perfect document...I say we bring back the 3/5ths compromise!!
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
That's all the Court does. All the nonsense the right whines about basically comes down to McCulloch v Maryland. Once you accept implied powers, game over for "Originalism."

You guys had a good run. Forty years is an impressive length of time to hold back progress and protect the status quo. It also corresponds to the time period in which the US went into the toilet.

Let us have our run, now. The last time we ran the show we created the middle class, won WW2, and cut poverty in half until the Dixiecrats got steamed that that also included black people. We've got a good track record. You guys will get the keys back around 2060 and can fellate the rich again if that's what you want. But I lived the first half of my life under your tender mercies and have no intention of closing out under the same circumstances.
Click to expand...

How does that help rich white people? Or better yet, how does that help rich white people convince poor white people all those things are bad :p
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

BassAle said:
I know so many people that absolutely HATE Hillary. And not for any rational reason. I'm not a huge fan, but I think she'll be a competent president and I don't think she is evil. These people honestly think she should be in jail yet can't name an actual law that she broke.
Click to expand...

Hillary is the only reason this election isn't guaranteed to be a total blowout for the Dems. My grandfather, who loves Obama and doesn't like Trump, HATES Hillary. He, like all 80 year-old men, has issues with women being in power and making major decisions. I suspect he won't even vote this year.

You know how Catholics talk about Popes that are visionaries, and Popes that are "chair-warmers"? Obama was Francis. Hillary is Benedict XVI.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Hillary is the only reason this election isn't guaranteed to be a total blowout for the Dems.
Click to expand...

I tend to blame a current cycle of conservatism that is at its peak of narcissism and "this is my ball and I'm going home" methodology, a bullhorn conservative media that shrieks so loudly and so often that plenty of moderates have been deafened into submission, and a candidate in Trump that conned people into thinking they were getting something different. In the end it would be different, but is now being exposed as dangerous. We may not see it ever again, but were this 40 years ago I think we'd have a Reagan-Mondale like ***-kicking.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
won WW2,.
Click to expand...

WW2 was won off the backs of the greatest generation. It had more to do with a sense of duty, love of country than it did anything else. My Mother, Father, Uncle didn't enlist during WW2 because of liberal, conservative, Dem, Repub etc. Its obvious the military industrial complex grew up during WW2 so if you want to take credit for that go ahead.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

walrus said:
Its obvious the military industrial complex grew up during WW2 so if you want to take credit for that go ahead.
Click to expand...

Well, it does employ me... but point taken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top