Importance of the 2016 Election - Supreme Court Justices (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2024, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

 

[rockaction]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Yep. Not much else to say about it, other than maybe making a thread for Court watchers about possible names. I also wonder if Citizens United, corporate personhood, and current 2nd Amendment case law wouldn't get a revision.

 

[Soonerman]

The only way they will be 88 by 2020 is if they go through a reverse wormhole.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020,

MOP alias?

 

[jon_mx]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

 

[rockaction]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020,

MOP alias?

As Green Day would say, there's no return from 86.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

 

[jon_mx]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

 

[Gawain]

I wonder if Alito is embarrassed by Yale Law School in the wake of the Heidi Iravani scandal. Only justice without his school listed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Only because after FDR/Truman, we've never managed to have the same party in the White House for more than 12 years. That allows most of the justices to time their retirements to get replaced by new justices that largely share their ideologies. It becomes a bigger deal the longer a single party controls the White House. If the Dems can stretch this 8 years into 12 or 16, it does seem plausible they can flip the Court.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Only because after FDR/Truman, we've never managed to have the same party in the White House for more than 12 years. That allows most of the justices to time their retirements to get replaced by new justices that largely share their ideologies. It becomes a bigger deal the longer a single party controls the White House. If the Dems can stretch this 8 years into 12 or 16, it does seem plausible they can flip the Court.

"Flip the Court", to what end? Largely a media-manufactured issue imo without real world substance.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Only because after FDR/Truman, we've never managed to have the same party in the White House for more than 12 years. That allows most of the justices to time their retirements to get replaced by new justices that largely share their ideologies. It becomes a bigger deal the longer a single party controls the White House. If the Dems can stretch this 8 years into 12 or 16, it does seem plausible they can flip the Court.

"Flip the Court", to what end? Largely a media-manufactured issue imo without real world substance.

You don't think that the Supreme Court's decisions have an impact on people's lives?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

"Flip the Court", to what end? Largely a media-manufactured issue imo without real world substance.

You don't think that the Supreme Court's decisions have an impact on people's lives?

Big fan of Cletius, but this comment is off base IMO.

In the last fifteen years the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election, rolled back protections for minority voting, confirmed ACA (and will likely soon gut it), and opened the door wide for unlimited campaign contributions via Citizen's United. That's a pretty big impact IMO.

ETA: they also effectively struck down laws preventing gay marriage.

 

[rockaction]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Only because after FDR/Truman, we've never managed to have the same party in the White House for more than 12 years. That allows most of the justices to time their retirements to get replaced by new justices that largely share their ideologies. It becomes a bigger deal the longer a single party controls the White House. If the Dems can stretch this 8 years into 12 or 16, it does seem plausible they can flip the Court.

"Flip the Court", to what end? Largely a media-manufactured issue imo without real world substance.

Whoa. Tell that to 1937 and Justice Hughes.

 

[Don Quixote]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

Breyer parts from the liberals more than Alito from the conservatives.

 

[njherdfan]

"Flip the Court", to what end? Largely a media-manufactured issue imo without real world substance.

You don't think that the Supreme Court's decisions have an impact on people's lives?

Big fan of Cletius, but this comment is off base IMO.

In the last fifteen years the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election, rolled back protections for minority voting, confirmed ACA (and will likely soon gut it), and opened the door wide for unlimited campaign contributions via Citizen's United. That's a pretty big impact IMO.

ETA: they also effectively struck down laws preventing gay marriage.

But also allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. They've made it a lot harder to obtain class certification for class-action lawsuits, made some very interesting 4th Amendment decisions, etc. I think the Supreme Court's decisions have a massive impact on everyday life.

 

[rockaction]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

Breyer parts from the liberals more than Alito from the conservatives.

Breyer and Stevens formed a little law-and-order and anti-IP protection bloc, IIRC.

 

[LAUNCH]

The fact that we know generally how they are going to vote before any part of the case is heard is ridiculous.

 

[joffer]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The fact that we know generally how they are going to vote before any part of the case is heard is ridiculous.

Not sure where you're going here.

 

[thecatch]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

Breyer parts from the liberals more than Alito from the conservatives.

I went and checked the 2013 term stats and this isn't actually true. The distinction is academic though because they both agree with their "liberal" or "conservative" colleagues about 90% of the time at least with respect to the judgment in a case.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

"Flip the Court", to what end? Largely a media-manufactured issue imo without real world substance.

You don't think that the Supreme Court's decisions have an impact on people's lives?

Big fan of Cletius, but this comment is off base IMO.

In the last fifteen years the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election, rolled back protections for minority voting, confirmed ACA (and will likely soon gut it), and opened the door wide for unlimited campaign contributions via Citizen's United. That's a pretty big impact IMO.

ETA: they also effectively struck down laws preventing gay marriage.

I don't deny some decisions have a significant effect on our lives, but I think the political party aspect is overrated. Roe is now over 40 years old despite having a court perceived as a "conservative majority" court most of that time. This conservative court wouldn't overturn the ACA, for just a few examples. I think Bush v Gore really hurt public perception of the Court. I'm probably naive, but I think these justices have more integrity than most people give them credit for.

 

[Fennis]

This last term the Court had the most 9-0 decisions in something like 100 years.

 

[timschochet]

I am probably more pro-liberal on judicial issues than I am on anything else I can think of, so this is good reason for me to vote for the Democrat next time around.

 

[Gawain]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

Breyer parts from the liberals more than Alito from the conservatives.

I went and checked the 2013 term stats and this isn't actually true. The distinction is academic though because they both agree with their "liberal" or "conservative" colleagues about 90% of the time at least with respect to the judgment in a case.

Even the Justices who disagree the most rule the same way in 2 out of 3 cases. It's not like every decision is 5-4.

 

[cstu]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Citizen's United stood by one vote.

 

[timschochet]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Given the fact that for the foreseeable future we are facing gridlock in the legislative branches, I couldn't disagree more with this statement.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't deny some decisions have a significant effect on our lives, but I think the political party aspect is overrated. Roe is now over 40 years old despite having a court perceived as a "conservative majority" court most of that time. This conservative court wouldn't overturn the ACA, for just a few examples. I think Bush v Gore really hurt public perception of the Court. I'm probably naive, but I think these justices have more integrity than most people give them credit for.

Right, even though the court leans conservative, Roberts and Kennedy swing every once in a while which explains your examples. The reason you dismiss the significance of the court is because for a really long time we've had a closely divided court with some potential swing votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way. If one of the Democratic appointees were replaced with another Scalia/Thomas/Alito, the ACA would have been struck down.

And yeah, Roe hasn't been completely overturned, but there are states where there's only one place in the whole state to get an abortion and women have to travel long distances and jump through a bunch of hoops to get one. That's not insignificant.

 

[Don Quixote]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

Breyer parts from the liberals more than Alito from the conservatives.

I went and checked the 2013 term stats and this isn't actually true. The distinction is academic though because they both agree with their "liberal" or "conservative" colleagues about 90% of the time at least with respect to the judgment in a case.

Here is a graphic based on data compiled by the Supreme Court Database: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0. As someone else mentioned, Breyer particularly breaks on law and order issues.

 

[thecatch]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2020, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

Hardly a majority. You have 2 staunch conservatives, 2 moderate conservative, 1 wild card, and 4 flaming left-wing liberals.

Which one of Scalia, Thomas and Alito are you considering not to be a "staunch conservative"?

That is a fair point. Alito had a questionable start, but has settled in lining up with Scalia pretty consistently. Thomas is the most conservative, but Scalia and Alito are still solidly in the conservative camp. The liberals on the court are a tightly bound group who rarely wonder off the island.

Breyer parts from the liberals more than Alito from the conservatives.

I went and checked the 2013 term stats and this isn't actually true. The distinction is academic though because they both agree with their "liberal" or "conservative" colleagues about 90% of the time at least with respect to the judgment in a case.

Here is a graphic based on data compiled by the Supreme Court Database: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0. As someone else mentioned, Breyer particularly breaks on law and order issues.

That's using 2012 term data (I looked at 2013) and has a bit of a subjective element to it. The SCOTUS blog stat packs have good data on justice agreement generally but they don't try to classify liberal/conservative decisions.

 

[butcher boy]

I dont really care about majorities, but this supreme court told the bigots where they can stick their gay marriage restrictions, so as a group they're ok in my book.

 

[Fennis]

This last term the Court had the most 9-0 decisions in something like 100 years.

sorry since 1940

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/opinion/the-supreme-courts-powerful-new-consensus.html?_r=0

FOR years, particularly after the 2000 election, talk about the Supreme Court has centered on its bitter 5-to-4 divisions. Yet it is worth reflecting on a remarkable achievement: The court has agreed unanimously in more than 66 percent of its cases this term (and that figure holds even if Monday’s remaining two cases, on the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage and on public-sector unions, are not unanimous). The last year this happened was 1940.

Instead of worrying about balls and strikes, Chief Justice Roberts has shifted his efforts to a new focus: making all nine justices play ball for the same team. The country, and the rule of law, are better off for it.

 

[joffer]

And yeah, Roe hasn't been completely overturned, but there are states where there's only one place in the whole state to get an abortion and women have to travel long distances and jump through a bunch of hoops to get one. That's not insignificant.

mostly the right has given up on Roe. they're going after abortion rights at the state legislatures, and currently they are having a lot of success.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Given the fact that for the foreseeable future we are facing gridlock in the legislative branches, I couldn't disagree more with this statement.

Certainly a politicized supreme court makes for great television pundit and message board discussion, so anyone with a significant stake in those markets would understandably have some dissonance on this issue.

 

[lombardi]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2024, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

That's an interesting perspective. If I were a liberal I would be much more worried about the next president being a Republican considering the right-ward swing of the pendulum right now and the fact that RBG just went under the knife last week for HEART surgery. I think a lot of people on the left are begging her to retire in time for Obama to get another committed liberal activist through the nomination process before it's too late.

Not that having a Republican in office is any guarantee. Souter was a Bush appointee, Stevens was a Ford appointee. Conservatives also seem to end up with more central swing type justices like Kennedy (Reagan), O'Connor (Reagan), and even to some extant the moderately conservative Roberts (Bush). Liberals haven't had any trouble with their appointments in a LONG time, they're all died in blue leftists... Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Conservatives have their Alito, Scalia, and Thomas but they've whiffed on a few appointments. The court would actually be more conservative than it currently is if the Bush's didn't screw it up so bad.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't deny some decisions have a significant effect on our lives, but I think the political party aspect is overrated. Roe is now over 40 years old despite having a court perceived as a "conservative majority" court most of that time. This conservative court wouldn't overturn the ACA, for just a few examples. I think Bush v Gore really hurt public perception of the Court. I'm probably naive, but I think these justices have more integrity than most people give them credit for.

Right, even though the court leans conservative, Roberts and Kennedy swing every once in a while which explains your examples. The reason you dismiss the significance of the court is because for a really long time we've had a closely divided court with some potential swing votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way. If one of the Democratic appointees were replaced with another Scalia/Thomas/Alito, the ACA would have been struck down.

And yeah, Roe hasn't been completely overturned, but there are states where there's only one place in the whole state to get an abortion and women have to travel long distances and jump through a bunch of hoops to get one. That's not insignificant.

Unless the Democrats also get control of the Senate, what is the possibility that anyone nearly as liberal as Ginsberg will be confirmed? Pretty slim, IMO.

Your point about the state restrictions kind of proves Cletius' point, IMO. The decisions of state legislatures have a far more profound on most American's lives than the decisions of the Supreme Court. Even with abortion rights recognized, state legislatures can effectively write them away in those states where they are profoundly unpopular. Courts rarely make sweeping decisions, so when a legislature is frustrated at the courthouse, they just go an nibble away at the right somewhere else.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The Notorious RBG has already survived two cancer scares while on the bench. I'm thinking she might be unkillable, but if I'm wrong, I support propping her up Weekend at Bernie's style. What the hell, it works for Thomas.*

* That's a joke, I don't care whether Thomas makes comments at oral argument.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't deny some decisions have a significant effect on our lives, but I think the political party aspect is overrated. Roe is now over 40 years old despite having a court perceived as a "conservative majority" court most of that time. This conservative court wouldn't overturn the ACA, for just a few examples. I think Bush v Gore really hurt public perception of the Court. I'm probably naive, but I think these justices have more integrity than most people give them credit for.

Right, even though the court leans conservative, Roberts and Kennedy swing every once in a while which explains your examples. The reason you dismiss the significance of the court is because for a really long time we've had a closely divided court with some potential swing votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way. If one of the Democratic appointees were replaced with another Scalia/Thomas/Alito, the ACA would have been struck down.

And yeah, Roe hasn't been completely overturned, but there are states where there's only one place in the whole state to get an abortion and women have to travel long distances and jump through a bunch of hoops to get one. That's not insignificant.

Unless the Democrats also get control of the Senate, what is the possibility that anyone nearly as liberal as Ginsberg will be confirmed? Pretty slim, IMO.

Your point about the state restrictions kind of proves Cletius' point, IMO. The decisions of state legislatures have a far more profound on most American's lives than the decisions of the Supreme Court. Even with abortion rights recognized, state legislatures can effectively write them away in those states where they are profoundly unpopular. Courts rarely make sweeping decisions, so when a legislature is frustrated at the courthouse, they just go an nibble away at the right somewhere else.

Nobody with Ginsburg's background would manage to get through today, but that doesn't mean somebody that would vote like Ginsburg couldn't get through. They would just go through the same bull#### "balls and strikes" stuff as Roberts and Alito. Then once they got to the Court they could vote however they wanted. It's unfortunate that we have to constantly go through this charade, but apparently that's how it has to be.

I believe Texas's new abortion law will end up as a petition for cert, just like a bunch of these other restrictions have. The state legislature thing only works if the Court lets it.

 

[timschochet]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Given the fact that for the foreseeable future we are facing gridlock in the legislative branches, I couldn't disagree more with this statement.

Certainly a politicized supreme court makes for great television pundit and message board discussion, so anyone with a significant stake in those markets would understandably have some dissonance on this issue.

This doesn't really touch upon your point, nor does it back up your original statement.

The political landscape of this country, for the near future, is like this: Democrats have an increasing advantage in Presidential politics. Republicans have an increasing advantage in Congressional politics. Neither looks to change anytime soon- demographics, specifically the growing Latino population, will ensure that Dems will win the Presidency most of the time over the next few decades. And gerrymandering which took place in the last 10 years will ensure that Republicans will continue to hold a firm grasp on the House, while the Senate will go back and forth. This means that trying to get major legislation done by any President, such as Obamacare, (or it's repeal) is a non-starter. It also means that when a President campaigns for office with hundreds of promises, you can anticipate that very few of them are going to happen.

Therefore the SC nominees takes on heightened importance. It is the one thing where you know that the next President can make a decisive impact.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The supreme court nomination factor is the most consistently and excessively overrated aspect of presidential elections.

Given the fact that for the foreseeable future we are facing gridlock in the legislative branches, I couldn't disagree more with this statement.

Certainly a politicized supreme court makes for great television pundit and message board discussion, so anyone with a significant stake in those markets would understandably have some dissonance on this issue.

This doesn't really touch upon your point, nor does it back up your original statement.

The political landscape of this country, for the near future, is like this: Democrats have an increasing advantage in Presidential politics. Republicans have an increasing advantage in Congressional politics. Neither looks to change anytime soon- demographics, specifically the growing Latino population, will ensure that Dems will win the Presidency most of the time over the next few decades. And gerrymandering which took place in the last 10 years will ensure that Republicans will continue to hold a firm grasp on the House, while the Senate will go back and forth. This means that trying to get major legislation done by any President, such as Obamacare, (or it's repeal) is a non-starter. It also means that when a President campaigns for office with hundreds of promises, you can anticipate that very few of them are going to happen.

Therefore the SC nominees takes on heightened importance. It is the one thing where you know that the next President can make a decisive impact.

I think my comment is relevant to and does back up my original statement that the perception of a politicized supreme court, particularly as it relates to presidential elections, is largely a media-manufactured spectacle and is overrated in importance to our day to day experience. Here we are two years before an election and we're analyzing life expectancy. We read about Scalia viciously attacking Sotomayor, but in reality they're off hunting together, having a laugh.

 

[cstu]

Conservative Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 78 and are part of a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.

If a Democrat wins the next two elections they will be 88 by 2024, which means it's likely that both will retire in that time and be replaced by liberal Justices.

The Court could go from a 5-4 Conservative majority to a 6-3 Liberal majority and be filled with four new young Justices (Ginsberg and Breyer should retire in that time as well).

That's an interesting perspective. If I were a liberal I would be much more worried about the next president being a Republican considering the right-ward swing of the pendulum right now and the fact that RBG just went under the knife last week for HEART surgery. I think a lot of people on the left are begging her to retire in time for Obama to get another committed liberal activist through the nomination process before it's too late.

Not that having a Republican in office is any guarantee. Souter was a Bush appointee, Stevens was a Ford appointee. Conservatives also seem to end up with more central swing type justices like Kennedy (Reagan), O'Connor (Reagan), and even to some extant the moderately conservative Roberts (Bush). Liberals haven't had any trouble with their appointments in a LONG time, they're all died in blue leftists... Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Conservatives have their Alito, Scalia, and Thomas but they've whiffed on a few appointments. The court would actually be more conservative than it currently is if the Bush's didn't screw it up so bad.

Very worried about it. Scary to me what path this country could go down with a Republican controlled government.

 

[cstu]

I think my comment is relevant to and does back up my original statement that the perception of a politicized supreme court, particularly as it relates to presidential elections, is largely a media-manufactured spectacle and is overrated in importance to our day to day experience. Here we are two years before an election and we're analyzing life expectancy. We read about Scalia viciously attacking Sotomayor, but in reality they're off hunting together, having a laugh.

Are the effects of Citizens United a media-manufactured spectacle?

 

[lombardi]

I don't deny some decisions have a significant effect on our lives, but I think the political party aspect is overrated. Roe is now over 40 years old despite having a court perceived as a "conservative majority" court most of that time. This conservative court wouldn't overturn the ACA, for just a few examples. I think Bush v Gore really hurt public perception of the Court. I'm probably naive, but I think these justices have more integrity than most people give them credit for.

Right, even though the court leans conservative, Roberts and Kennedy swing every once in a while which explains your examples. The reason you dismiss the significance of the court is because for a really long time we've had a closely divided court with some potential swing votes. It doesn't necessarily need to be that way. If one of the Democratic appointees were replaced with another Scalia/Thomas/Alito, the ACA would have been struck down.

And yeah, Roe hasn't been completely overturned, but there are states where there's only one place in the whole state to get an abortion and women have to travel long distances and jump through a bunch of hoops to get one. That's not insignificant.

Unless the Democrats also get control of the Senate, what is the possibility that anyone nearly as liberal as Ginsberg will be confirmed? Pretty slim, IMO.

Your point about the state restrictions kind of proves Cletius' point, IMO. The decisions of state legislatures have a far more profound on most American's lives than the decisions of the Supreme Court. Even with abortion rights recognized, state legislatures can effectively write them away in those states where they are profoundly unpopular. Courts rarely make sweeping decisions, so when a legislature is frustrated at the courthouse, they just go an nibble away at the right somewhere else.

Nobody with Ginsburg's background would manage to get through today, but that doesn't mean somebody that would vote like Ginsburg couldn't get through. They would just go through the same bull#### "balls and strikes" stuff as Roberts and Alito. Then once they got to the Court they could vote however they wanted. It's unfortunate that we have to constantly go through this charade, but apparently that's how it has to be.

I believe Texas's new abortion law will end up as a petition for cert, just like a bunch of these other restrictions have. The state legislature thing only works if the Court lets it.

Funny how you use Roberts and Alito as your examples but ignore the Kagan and Sotomayor.

I actually thought Roberts confirmation hearing had some substance and he has been more free thinking than any of the other three above.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I think my comment is relevant to and does back up my original statement that the perception of a politicized supreme court, particularly as it relates to presidential elections, is largely a media-manufactured spectacle and is overrated in importance to our day to day experience. Here we are two years before an election and we're analyzing life expectancy. We read about Scalia viciously attacking Sotomayor, but in reality they're off hunting together, having a laugh.

Are the effects of Citizens United a media-manufactured spectacle?

It's kind of a weird choice for a liberal boogeyman, IMO. It's not even the worst campaign finance decision from Roberts.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think my comment is relevant to and does back up my original statement that the perception of a politicized supreme court, particularly as it relates to presidential elections, is largely a media-manufactured spectacle and is overrated in importance to our day to day experience. Here we are two years before an election and we're analyzing life expectancy. We read about Scalia viciously attacking Sotomayor, but in reality they're off hunting together, having a laugh.

Are the effects of Citizens United a media-manufactured spectacle?

It's kind of a weird choice for a liberal boogeyman, IMO. It's not even the worst campaign finance decision from Roberts.

What decision are you thinking of?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think my comment is relevant to and does back up my original statement that the perception of a politicized supreme court, particularly as it relates to presidential elections, is largely a media-manufactured spectacle and is overrated in importance to our day to day experience. Here we are two years before an election and we're analyzing life expectancy. We read about Scalia viciously attacking Sotomayor, but in reality they're off hunting together, having a laugh.

Are the effects of Citizens United a media-manufactured spectacle?

I think way more is made of Citizens United than its worth, particularly as it relates to presidential SCOTUS appointments. Kelo is another good example. If anything, the main effect of Kelo was to spur legislative action on a state and local level.

The main point though is how all this relates to a presidential election. O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts? Anyone voting for Hilary in 2016 thinking they're taking a step toward reversing Citizen's United is misguided imo.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Man, I had no idea how old some of these justices are. I knew they were getting up there, but damn. 4 of them were born in the 30s. I figured Ginsberg was that old but had no idea on the others.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Nobody with Ginsburg's background would manage to get through today, but that doesn't mean somebody that would vote like Ginsburg couldn't get through. They would just go through the same bull#### "balls and strikes" stuff as Roberts and Alito. Then once they got to the Court they could vote however they wanted. It's unfortunate that we have to constantly go through this charade, but apparently that's how it has to be.

I believe Texas's new abortion law will end up as a petition for cert, just like a bunch of these other restrictions have. The state legislature thing only works if the Court lets it.

Funny how you use Roberts and Alito as your examples but ignore the Kagan and Sotomayor.

I actually thought Roberts confirmation hearing had some substance and he has been more free thinking than any of the other three above.

Yeah, I could have used Kagan and Sotomayor too, but the "balls and strikes" thing was from the Roberts confirmation. Every nominee has to pretend they've never thought about any of this #### before, even though every thinking person has. The whole thing is silly.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think way more is made of Citizens United than its worth, particularly as it relates to presidential SCOTUS appointments.

Well, campaign finance regulation is actually an area where we've seen a pretty clear shift in the court based on the replacement of a single justice. O'Connor was part of a 5-4 majority that upheld McCain-Feingold. Then Alito replaced her and pretty much every campaign finance ruling has gone the other way 5-4.