Another Founding Fathers Screw Up- SCOTUS for life (1 Viewer)

When our founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices life tenure on the bench, the goal was to shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day. Today’s justices, however, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and gridlocked political institutions.

Reform please. 

Trump has two (yes 2) accomplishments during his current presidential tenor:

1. Gave the rich a great tax cut which did nothing for the middle or lower class.

2. Trump has appointed two Supreme Court justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – as well as nearly 200 other judges with lifetime appointments to lower federal courts.

That's it...golf, fox tv watching and hamburders.

Well in fairness life expectancy back then was like the mid-40s so blame science.

Dumb science

The FF also didn’t create the SC to be a 2nd legislature. Matters of basic morality and general welfare were to be republican decisions, by the people through their representatives. 

Take abortion out of the picture and the salience of the supreme court plummets.  Sure, there are other issues that matter, but most people don't care about 95% of SCOTUS cases.  I'm convinced that you can make a good argument that Roe is directly responsible for a large chunk of the disfunction of our current political system.

IvanKaramazov said:

Take abortion out of the picture and the salience of the supreme court plummets.  Sure, there are other issues that matter, but most people don't care about 95% of SCOTUS cases.  I'm convinced that you can make a good argument that Roe is directly responsible for a large chunk of the disfunction of our current political system.

Click to expand...

I’d argue government wanting to get into the business of a woman and her doctor are directly responsibility.

Joe Mammy said:

When our founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices life tenure on the bench, the goal was to shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day. Today’s justices, however, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and gridlocked political institutions.

Reform please. 

Trump has two (yes 2) accomplishments during his current presidential tenor:

1. Gave the rich a great tax cut which did nothing for the middle or lower class.

2. Trump has appointed two Supreme Court justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – as well as nearly 200 other judges with lifetime appointments to lower federal courts.

That's it...golf, fox tv watching and hamburders.

Click to expand...

Actually Trump did get rid of the marriage penalty.  

That said, I agree that giving anyone other than a king a position for life is dumb.

Ending life term is as obvious as getting rid of smoking on airplanes. So why hasn’t it been changed?

Because bofesidez won’t undercut their own advantage.

Same reason bofesidez won’t limit executive power or other ethical loopholes after running against them and gain power on reform.

Joe Mammy said:

When our founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices life tenure on the bench, the goal was to shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day. Today’s justices, however, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and gridlocked political institutions.

Reform please. 

Trump has two (yes 2) accomplishments during his current presidential tenor:

1. Gave the rich a great tax cut which did nothing for the middle or lower class.

2. Trump has appointed two Supreme Court justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – as well as nearly 200 other judges with lifetime appointments to lower federal courts.

That's it...golf, fox tv watching and hamburders.

Click to expand...

Note: not a Trump supporter because character matter but policy wise he lines up closer to me than Biden—yet regardless this is wrong:

I am middle class (Though maybe not for long) and got a tax cut so don’t know what you’re talking about—less of a refund but also less paid in total amount. This was especially true if you have a child due to Rubio’s threat to vote against it without an expanded child credit

I suppose if you don’t pay any income tax then yes—letting people keep more of their own money isn’t a winning idea for you. Taxes did go up for some CA/NY/IL rich people with the SALT deduction being eliminated. Bit of a complex thing to get into here but this is the only way they went up

But yes corporate tax being lowered includes small businesses. Again I guess if you see businesses and those who run them as evil capitalists who should be nationalized and taxed to death entirely then yes—I can see why you wouldn’t like this.

And regardless Tim Scott and Cory Booker’s bipartisan amendment was part of the act—the one that created Opportunity Zones allowing states to designate economically distressed and neglected communities and creating incentives for investments into those areas—something that has injected 75 billion dollars into those areas so far: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house-trump-opportunity-zones-raised-75b-to-rebuild-poorest-communities

Not to mention a start to criminal justice and sentencing reform in the form of the First Step Act with overwhelming bipartisan support and backing from everyone from Bernie Sanders to Mike Lee and the Koch Brothers to the ACLU

Similarly he did some work on police reform via executive order even as Tim Scott’s bill was filibustered by Senate Democrats—even earning praise from Van “communist” Jones:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-cnns-van-jones-praises-trumps-policing-executive-order-as-a-step-in-the-right-direction/

Personally I visited Bahrain, UAE and a couple other Gulf countries en route to see family back in India when I was younger and anti Semitism was so casual, frequent, vicious and entrenched (Mein Kempf is a top seller in some of these countries). Never thought I would see the day those countries would openly acknowledge and cooperate with the state of Israel. That genuinely impressed me—especially when combined with not starting any wars unlike a bunch of Presidents before him.

Similarly matching with my liberal (the actual meaning of the word) dovish foreign policy on everything but China (which I am glad is seen finally as the threat it has always been saying that as someone with family and ethnic ties to India and Vietnam who are directly at risk from China), I appreciate NATO allies having to pay their fair share

And it’s small but I LOVE defunding foreign aid from the terrorist state of Pakistan—who sponsors brutal terroristic violence against Indian and Afghan civilians—not altogether different from the genocide it carried out against Bengalis (Muslims, Hindus and Chrstians) in 1971 as the Indian Army liberated Bangladesh—and whose PM has called Bin Laden a martyr before Parliament. The same country who Obama threatened to veto any legislation against, repeatedly called a great ally and begged Congress to send more fighter jets to to “fight terrorists”—-LMAO

Enough to overlook corruption, deficits, lack of character and division?

No probably not but this a flat out lie

KChusker said:

I suppose if you don’t pay any income tax then yes—letting people keep more of their own money isn’t a winning idea for you. Taxes did go up for some CA/NY/IL rich people with the SALT deduction being eliminated. Bit of a complex thing to get into here but this is the only way they went up

Click to expand...

SALT affected a lot more than just "rich" people.  Middle class folks got hit pretty hard by this in lots of locations.  The annual property taxes by themselves are above the SALT limit for an average 3 bedroom home in my town.  People here making well below $100K/year saw their disposable income drop by thousands.

Rich Conway said:

SALT affected a lot more than just "rich" people.  Middle class folks got hit pretty hard by this in lots of locations.  The annual property taxes by themselves are above the SALT limit for an average 3 bedroom home in my town.  People here making well below $100K/year saw their disposable income drop by thousands.

Click to expand...

A lot of the new work from home people are also going to find out that the home office deduction vanished for W2 employees.

IvanKaramazov said:

Take abortion out of the picture and the salience of the supreme court plummets.  Sure, there are other issues that matter, but most people don't care about 95% of SCOTUS cases.  I'm convinced that you can make a good argument that Roe is directly responsible for a large chunk of the disfunction of our current political system.

Click to expand...

So true.

IvanKaramazov said:

Take abortion out of the picture and the salience of the supreme court plummets.  Sure, there are other issues that matter, but most people don't care about 95% of SCOTUS cases.  I'm convinced that you can make a good argument that Roe is directly responsible for a large chunk of the disfunction of our current political system.

Click to expand...

I was talking to my wife about that and am kind of at the point that both Roe and anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric are hamstringing the Democratic Party more than helping them.  Roe is certainly a tougher pill to swallow and give up on......but I think its time for the Democrats to really start pivoting on the 2nd Amendment and trying to create a thread the needle message where they are pro-gun ownership but anti gun...."culture/worship".....whatever they could call it.  

How long of a term would be the correct  number?

Shutout said:

How long of a term would be the correct  number?

Click to expand...

Mandatory retirement at 80.  

johnnycakes said:

Mandatory retirement at 80.  

Click to expand...

So, on average, about 35 year terms. I don't know the magic number. I think it is hard because, clearly, it has to have a good amount of length to it. Otherwise, you would have wholesale changes in fundamental judicial decisions relatively often and that would be no good for consistency.  

johnnycakes said:

Mandatory retirement at 80.  

Click to expand...

Also, what would be your take on "if a justice, at any age, has a legitimate life-threatening condition/illness, they must transition?  This may sound harsh and I do not mean it this way but I always thought the judicial branch should not be drawn among partisan lines...but it is. And with that, I can't help but think, was RBG towing a party line, well aware of the impact of her absence if she resigned when she got so sick this last time? Was she trying to hold on? If so, why would she not transition during Obama's administration? She had prior health issues and she was in her early to mid 80's.  I can't help but wonder if her dedication to her role and party perhaps held her. Like, maybe she knew "her" party didn't have the senate and so she was hanging in there instead of enjoying the final chapter of her life as she could have?  
 

That's all speculation and no harshness meant but i don't think its that far-fetched these days. 

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The FF also didn’t create the SC to be a 2nd legislature. Matters of basic morality and general welfare were to be republican decisions, by the people through their representatives. 

Click to expand...

It's difficult to lay this at the feet of the SC.   Note that the SC can't initiate anything, they can only react and respond to issues that are brought to the bench.     Although there have certainly been SC justices that have had outspoken views at various times, the overwhelming majority of SC justices throughout history have taken their role to act as interpreters of the constitution quite seriously, and have done so without overtly detectable political bias. 

If we are to go shopping for fault with issues like Roe v Wade and many others in the social and human interaction realm that have ended up in the SC, we need to look elsewhere.    In the spring of 1795, when the first set of Federal Laws were assembled into printed forms, these were printed in 12 small volumes.    Today, the Federal Statutes are well over 30,000 and increasing, spanning categories across 51 titles.    Printed in volumes similar to what was used in 1795, these would be thousands upon thousands of volumes.    

To look for blame, absolutely look towards the legislative branch.    The problem with electing legislators is most feel they are only proving their worth if they pass legislation.   Many should go to congress and do nothing, and they would be doing the country a much greater service.

“To do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual.”

- Oscar Wilde

Click to expand...

Shutout said:

How long of a term would be the correct  number?

Click to expand...

I'd read an article a year or so ago about fixed terms.  I don't recall, but they were longish ...16?  25?  I like the concept, though.  But the question might be - what do you do after leaving the SC?  It's gotta be all downhill after that.  But maybe not.  Join a law firm or law school as a distinguished advisor/scholar ..or enjoy retirement.  Taking away the "forever" nature of it, allows more consistency to the process.  Voters truly would have input, as they'd know if terms were expiring in an upcoming 4-8 year period.  We'd have unexpected dynamics that would make it less predictable (retirements; deaths).  For the justices, wouldn't they appreciate a set term?  I mean, they're all literally working themselves to death.  Let them leave younger and healthier to enjoy something else or just a well-earned retirement.

IvanKaramazov said:

Take abortion out of the picture and the salience of the supreme court plummets.  Sure, there are other issues that matter, but most people don't care about 95% of SCOTUS cases.  I'm convinced that you can make a good argument that Roe is directly responsible for a large chunk of the disfunction of our current political system.

Click to expand...

Explain this to me like the idiot I am.  How is adding a "conservative" judge going to change Roe vs Wade?  Do they just get to bring it up again to be debated?  If the highest court already ruled on it how is it brought up again?  If it would get "over turned" can it be brought up again if the court starts to lean more liberal?  Sorry if this has been discussed or explained before, guess I don't have strong feelings either way (pro-life/pro-choice) so haven't paid much attention.

Oh and towards OP comment - yes believe there should be an age limit on the Supreme Court judges (and president....)

yak651 said:

Explain this to me like the idiot I am.  How is adding a "conservative" judge going to change Roe vs Wade?  Do they just get to bring it up again to be debated?  If the highest court already ruled on it how is it brought up again?  If it would get "over turned" can it be brought up again if the court starts to lean more liberal?  Sorry if this has been discussed or explained before, guess I don't have strong feelings either way (pro-life/pro-choice) so haven't paid much attention.

Oh and towards OP comment - yes believe there should be an age limit on the Supreme Court judges (and president....)

Click to expand...

Flat out definitively speaking, it can be overturned, yes. The question regarding whether the Supreme Court does this often enough is up for debate, though, and there are serious arguments against overturning precedent. This is encapsulated in the concept of stare decisis, in which courts are unlikely to overturn their own guideposts and decisions.

But yes, they can be expressly overruled. See Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

I hope I did that justice for the law-talkin' guys.

johnnycakes said:

Mandatory retirement at 80.  

Click to expand...

65, as cognitive impairment develops in 10-20% between the ages of 65-75.

Terminalxylem said:

65, as cognitive impairment develops in 10-20% between the ages of 65-75.

Click to expand...

Cognitive impairment is happening from the time you are thirty. Males especially, too. They see a decreased aptitude in math and spatial relations, both of which generally put them in greater numbers in the higher end of high IQ people when measured. Females decline, but the argument goes that the baseline is lower anyway. If the standard is dementia or diseases like Alzheimer's, then I see your point, but it seems awfully stringent to have mandatory retirement ages when there are plenty of people that age who exhibit no decline. If you're looking for life wisdom and aptitude among a judging class, you could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the mandatory retirement age is 65. Seems young to me.

rockaction said:

Cognitive impairment is happening from the time you are thirty. Males especially, too. They see a decreased aptitude in math and spatial relations, both of which generally put them in greater numbers in the higher end of high IQ people when measured. Females decline, but the argument goes that the baseline is lower anyway. If the standard is dementia or diseases like Alzheimer's, then I see your point, but it seems awfully stringent to have mandatory retirement ages when there are plenty of people that age who exhibit no decline. If you're looking for life wisdom and aptitude among a judging class, you could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the mandatory retirement age is 65. Seems young to me.

Click to expand...

I’m talking cognitive impairment as defined medically, which is based on demonstrable memory impairment and sometimes neurocognitive testing. To avoid a strict-age based cut-off, I’d be Ok with serial neuropsych evaluation for elderly public officials, including SC justices. 

Terminalxylem said:

I’m talking cognitive impairment as defined medically, which is based on demonstrable memory impairment and sometimes neurocognitive testing. To avoid a strict-age based cut-off, I’d be Ok with serial neuropsych evaluation for elderly public officials, including SC justices. 

Click to expand...

I realize that the cut off and serial neuropsychological evaluations suggested are ways of softening the blow of what you're proposing with requiring people be no more than 65, but in doing so, you're making doctors beholden to the political process as we know it. And that's an ugly place for them to be, really. Plus, it's really likely unconstitutional to do that, though the elderly (I don't think) are a protected class.

rockaction said:

I realize that the cut off and serial neuropsychological evaluations suggested are ways of softening the blow of what you're proposing with requiring people be no more than 65, but in doing so, you're making doctors beholden to the political process as we know it. And that's an ugly place for them to be, really. Plus, it's really likely unconstitutional to do that, though the elderly (I don't think) are a protected class.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the 25th Amendment make it explicitly Constitutional to create legislation that forces a test for all elected and appointed officials on a scheduled basis and removes them from service on a failed test (or series of tests)?

Rich Conway said:

Wouldn't the 25th Amendment make it explicitly Constitutional to create legislation that forces a test for all elected and appointed officials on a scheduled basis and removes them from service on a failed test (or series of tests)?

Click to expand...

I don't think that the Amendment that pertains to presidential succession, even textually, has been considered in such a way. Actually, I think that's a hard "no."

rockaction said:

I don't think that the Amendment that pertains to presidential succession, even textually, has been considered in such a way. Actually, I think that's a hard "no."

Click to expand...

Perhaps.  But I'm having a tough time coming up with anything in the Constitution that would forbid legislation that required regular cognitive tests for all officials (regardless of age), and outlined a process for removal and succession in the event of failure.  Naturally, "failure" would have to be defined in the legislation, perhaps as failing the cognitive test N successive times, spaced weeks apart.

Rich Conway said:

Perhaps.  But I'm having a tough time coming up with anything in the Constitution that would forbid legislation that required regular cognitive tests for all officials (regardless of age), and outlined a process for removal and succession in the event of failure.  Naturally, "failure" would have to be defined in the legislation, perhaps as failing the cognitive test N successive times, spaced weeks apart.

Click to expand...

I think it would be the 24th you're thinking of, anyway. Sounds like states can impose mandatory age retirements for judges, at least. Whether they can go against the ADEA and require it of federal officials is something else, I'd think. Though it's not out of the realm of possibility. Plus, there's always an opportunity for an amendment regarding the ages of justices, which doesn't seem political if they were to grandfather in (no pun) the current justices that are presiding. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_retirement

eta* I think my quip about the constitutionality of a mandatory age was probably an unnecessary aside to the normative undertaking this thread asks for. 

rockaction said:

I think it would be the 24th you're thinking of, anyway. Sounds like states can impose mandatory age retirements for judges, at least. Whether they can go against the ADEA and require it of federal officials is something else, I'd think. Though it's not out of the realm of possibility. Plus, there's always an opportunity for an amendment regarding the ages of justices, which doesn't seem political if they were to grandfather in (no pun) the current justices that are presiding. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_retirement

eta* I think my quip about the constitutionality of a mandatory age was probably an unnecessary aside to the normative undertaking this thread asks for. 

Click to expand...

None of what I suggested has anything to do with age, though.  Frankly, requiring cognitive tests of all officials probably isn't a bad idea.

That said, I would support the suggestion made in this forum many times to make SCOTUS terms 18 years, spaced 2 years apart, such that each POTUS term includes 2 nominees.

Rich Conway said:

Frankly, requiring cognitive tests of all officials probably isn't a bad idea.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it's a terrible idea. It politicizes doctors, IMHO, and that's somewhere far away from where I'd like to see things. It further entrenches the medical establishment into our politics. "Public health" goals should and are to be examined suspiciously, never mind individualized care and assessment. Too many thorns in that teeming rosebush for me.    

rockaction said:

I disagree. I think it's a terrible idea. It politicizes doctors, IMHO, and that's somewhere far away from where I'd like to see things. It further entrenches the medical establishment into our politics. "Public health" goals should and are to be examined suspiciously, never mind individualized care and assessment. Too many thorns in that teeming rosebush for me.    

Click to expand...

How does it politicize doctors?  I'm not even sure doctors would need to be involved.  We create a test and a scoring system.  It could likely be administered via computer, only requiring a proctor be present to sign off that John Doe did actually take the test for John Doe.

Rich Conway said:

How does it politicize doctors?  I'm not even sure doctors would need to be involved.  We create a test and a scoring system.  It could likely be administered via computer, only requiring a proctor be present to sign off that John Doe did actually take the test for John Doe.

Click to expand...

I think requiring a doctor to make a determination based on (presumably) non-quantifiable standards inherently politicizes the system. If you want to have a test and system, have at it, but I'll bet it's tougher to remove the human element of decision-making from this realm of judgment than you think or seem to posit. Color me skeptical.

rockaction said:

I think requiring a doctor to make a determination based on (presumably) non-quantifiable standards inherently politicizes the system. If you want to have a test and system, have at it, but I'll bet it's tougher to remove the human element of decision-making from this realm of judgment than you think or seem to posit. Color me skeptical.

Click to expand...

Don't we have cognitive tests now (Person Woman Man Camera TV)?  Literally, we have them.  I sat in the room and listened to the nurses come in every hour on the hour and ask "What's your name", "What year were you born", "Who is in the room with you", "What year is it" when someone close to me had a stroke.  This really wouldn't be that hard.

Rich Conway said:

Don't we have cognitive tests now (Person Woman Man Camera TV)?  Literally, we have them.  I sat in the room and listened to the nurses come in every hour on the hour and ask "What's your name", "What year were you born", "Who is in the room with you", "What year is it" when someone close to me had a stroke.  This really wouldn't be that hard.

Click to expand...

Ah, okay. I claim ignorance. It depends upon the level of intrusion and examination, one would presume. I think there are safeguards if someone completely loses it and has access to that much power in politics; I'm just not sure of the process of testing and potential removal.

rockaction said:

Ah, okay. I claim ignorance. It depends upon the level of intrusion and examination, one would presume. I think there are safeguards if someone completely loses it and has access to that much power in politics; I'm just not sure of the process of testing and potential removal.

Click to expand...

Right, my point is that it could be done and I'm pretty sure that it could be done without violating the Constitution.  For example:

• All officials are required to undergo cognitive test X every 60 days
  
• Failure on any test would require two additional tests, exactly 4 and 8 days later
  
• Failure on both of those would remove the person from office temporarily and trigger an additional set of tests, exactly 15, 30, and 45 days later
  
• Success on all three of those would reinstate the person
  
• Failure on any one of those would repeat the 15, 30, 45 day cycle
  
• Failure on any two of those would make the removal permanent
  

At some level, it wouldn't be that much different than the NFL's concussion protocol, except, you know, they'd have to actually do it.  Doing such without regard to age wouldn't seem to violate the Constitution in any way.

To your point, the test itself would need to contain objective criteria and scoring only rather than subjective.

yak651 said:

Explain this to me like the idiot I am.  How is adding a "conservative" judge going to change Roe vs Wade?  Do they just get to bring it up again to be debated?  If the highest court already ruled on it how is it brought up again?  If it would get "over turned" can it be brought up again if the court starts to lean more liberal?  Sorry if this has been discussed or explained before, guess I don't have strong feelings either way (pro-life/pro-choice) so haven't paid much attention.

Oh and towards OP comment - yes believe there should be an age limit on the Supreme Court judges (and president....)

Click to expand...

Well, one option is for an abortion case to hit the court, and for the court to conclude that Roe and Casey were simply wrongly decided.  (They were clearly wrongly decided IMO).  Roe gets overturned like Plessy v Ferguson and states are free to set whatever restrictions or outright bans on abortion they want.

A more likely scenario is that Roe doesn't get explicitly overturned, but states are allowed to put all sorts of restrictions in place that amount to de facto bans.  That would be fine with me too.  It's not an ideal solution, but it's a way of dealing with a very poorly-conceived precedent and defusing an issue that can be dealt with on a state level.

IvanKaramazov said:

Well, one option is for an abortion case to hit the court, and for the court to conclude that Roe and Casey were simply wrongly decided.  (They were clearly wrongly decided IMO).  Roe gets overturned like Plessy v Ferguson and states are free to set whatever restrictions or outright bans on abortion they want.

A more likely scenario is that Roe doesn't get explicitly overturned, but states are allowed to put all sorts of restrictions in place that amount to de facto bans.  That would be fine with me too.  It's not an ideal solution, but it's a way of dealing with a very poorly-conceived precedent and defusing an issue that can be dealt with on a state level.

Click to expand...

I don't think the first paragraph ever happens, and I don't think the GOP actually wants it to happen.  It's more valuable as a rallying cry than anything else.

In the second paragraph, the bolded seems like the opposite of what would happen.

Rich Conway said:

In the second paragraph, the bolded seems like the opposite of what would happen.

Click to expand...

Well, imposing a particular outcome on states that is highly unpopular among voters in those states doesn't seem to be working well in terms of turning down the temperature.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any state-by-state issues that get people especially worked up.  The death penalty maybe?  But even that doesn't even approach abortion in terms of the overall level of noise and shoutiness.

  10 hours ago, yak651 said:

Explain this to me like the idiot I am.  How is adding a "conservative" judge going to change Roe vs Wade?  Do they just get to bring it up again to be debated?  If the highest court already ruled on it how is it brought up again?  If it would get "over turned" can it be brought up again if the court starts to lean more liberal?  Sorry if this has been discussed or explained before, guess I don't have strong feelings either way (pro-life/pro-choice) so haven't paid much attention.

Click to expand...

Why yes, as soon as a justice is elected to the Supreme Court, they get to talk about whatever they want, whenever they want.    They are issued 3 special cards that grant them special power.   As soon as they write a prior legal case on the card and turn it over on the gaming table, all the other justices must listen to them speak about their view on something that was decided years ago, and then they are required to vote on whether to overturn it, based solely on one of two labels (liberal or conservative) that was assigned to them by the loudest voice in the New York Times op-ed page. 

Don't you read this forum so you understand how this works?

Joe Mammy said:

When our founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices life tenure on the bench, the goal was to shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day. Today’s justices, however, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and gridlocked political institutions.

Reform please. 

Trump has two (yes 2) accomplishments during his current presidential tenor:

1. Gave the rich a great tax cut which did nothing for the middle or lower class.

2. Trump has appointed two Supreme Court justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – as well as nearly 200 other judges with lifetime appointments to lower federal courts.

That's it...golf, fox tv watching and hamburders.

Click to expand...

  I'm loving this SCOTUS stuff going on right now.  Lots of squirming in the seats and breaking out into hives. 

I think 200 years ago it was valid

I don't think it is today and the real problem is these SC Justices CAN retire/step away ... RBG should have years ago. For some reason they don't - pride? selfishness? 

At 80+ years old these leaders of our country have spent 1/2 their lives without a telephone, 1/3 without computers, many you wouldn't trust to drive on a 4 lane highway at night in the rain

just sayin ... 

IvanKaramazov said:

Well, one option is for an abortion case to hit the court, and for the court to conclude that Roe and Casey were simply wrongly decided.  (They were clearly wrongly decided IMO).  Roe gets overturned like Plessy v Ferguson and states are free to set whatever restrictions or outright bans on abortion they want.

A more likely scenario is that Roe doesn't get explicitly overturned, but states are allowed to put all sorts of restrictions in place that amount to de facto bans.  That would be fine with me too.  It's not an ideal solution, but it's a way of dealing with a very poorly-conceived precedent and defusing an issue that can be dealt with on a state level.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

IvanKaramazov said:

Well, one option is for an abortion case to hit the court, and for the court to conclude that Roe and Casey were simply wrongly decided.  (They were clearly wrongly decided IMO).  Roe gets overturned like Plessy v Ferguson and states are free to set whatever restrictions or outright bans on abortion they want.

A more likely scenario is that Roe doesn't get explicitly overturned, but states are allowed to put all sorts of restrictions in place that amount to de facto bans.  That would be fine with me too.  It's not an ideal solution, but it's a way of dealing with a very poorly-conceived precedent and defusing an issue that can be dealt with on a state level.

Click to expand...

This has already started. Republican controlled states have been passing laws like this for a while. Some are held up. Some are thrown out.

Obviously going forward, there's a much more likely chance these laws are held up.