Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP

Alan, I agree it's BS but it's going to happen.

I very much hope they do it prior to the election because I guarantee it will get more Dems to get out and vote against trump and the republican senators. If they wait there will be less anger from Dems before the election and that gives trump and the rest of them a better chance of winning. (obviously that's just my opinion).

I, as much as most on the liberal/Moderate leaning side am not excited about the prospect of Trump choosing another justice, it really kinda sucks. That said both parties are acting completely rationally towards this opportunity. Democrats are going to try to paint Republicans as hypocrites and worse - not because they expect them to change their minds or prevent Trumps pick from getting the seat (they know thats unlikely) but to hopefully stir up the base and maybe get some extra votes on Nov 3rd. Republicans will use this as a safety net even if they lose the presidency - now they will likely have a much easier time getting their policies through the courts. Quite honestly , I bet more than a few Repubs would trade this seat for the presidency (w/Trump) gladly. There is actually a pretty good argument that if Trump waited till after the election to choose it would provide a greater incentive for many Republicans to vote for him that might now lean towards Biden.

It absolutely amazes me how people would expect the other side to act any other way then they are now.

By far more interesting is just how conservative the new justice will be - you can't go overboard and risk losing the vote on the seat but you have to appease the base - lots of backroom dealing on this one. I can also see Democrats using the threat of expanding the court (not realistic till after the election) as a way to move the pick to the middle.

am legit intersted wrote:

For people excited that this will be the most conservative court since the 1930s or maybe ever, why are you excited?

I am not looking for a general I want originalist judges.

What types of cases and areas of law do you want the court to rule on and what cases do want the court to overturn?

The court was not conservative in the 1930s. Lol.

A textualist court will force congress to do its job and pass laws instead of relying on activist rulings. It will also provide a necessary check against future president Ilhan Omar's socialist agenda.

am legit intersted wrote:

For people excited that this will be the most conservative court since the 1930s or maybe ever, why are you excited?

I am not looking for a general I want originalist judges.

What types of cases and areas of law do you want the court to rule on and what cases do want the court to overturn?

The liberals have politicized the courts beyond belief. They don't have the guts to pass legislation on their own (and face the voters) so they rely on liberal justices to create law from the bench. Roe V. Wade, for example, is not based on any constitutional text. If you want to pass a law to legalize abortion, then do it. But relying on the courts to do your dirty work is wrong. Fortunately for republicans now, it's also easily overturned.

Even RBG's dying wish is an embarrassing reminder of how the left politicized the courts. "my most fervent wish is that I am not replaced until we have a new president"...WTF. She hates Trump, and she hates the constitution. She even said she prefers other countries' constitutions to ours. RBG and the left want people on the courts to COMPLETELY WRITE the constitution.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

The liberals have politicized the courts beyond belief. They don't have the guts to pass legislation on their own (and face the voters) so they rely on liberal justices to create law from the bench. Roe V. Wade, for example, is not based on any constitutional text. If you want to pass a law to legalize abortion, then do it. But relying on the courts to do your dirty work is wrong. Fortunately for republicans now, it's also easily overturned.

Even RBG's dying wish is an embarrassing reminder of how the left politicized the courts. "my most fervent wish is that I am not replaced until we have a new president"...WTF. She hates Trump, and she hates the constitution. She even said she prefers other countries' constitutions to ours. RBG and the left want people on the courts to COMPLETELY WRITE the constitution

I got bad news for you buddy our constitution was based on other countries constitutions

CarbonFiberJoe wrote:

A textualist court will force congress to do its job and pass laws instead of relying on activist rulings. It will also provide a necessary check against future president Ilhan Omar's socialist agenda.

Ilhan Omar is not eligible under the Constitution.

Are you advocating the constitutional amendment to change the eligibility for the president?

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

The liberals have politicized the courts beyond belief. They don't have the guts to pass legislation on their own (and face the voters) so they rely on liberal justices to create law from the bench. Roe V. Wade, for example, is not based on any constitutional text. If you want to pass a law to legalize abortion, then do it. But relying on the courts to do your dirty work is wrong. Fortunately for republicans now, it's also easily overturned.

Yeah. The Congress passed McCain-Feingold, but the activist court overturned it with Citizens United. And the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act but the activist court overturned it with Shelby County v. Holder. Why don't those activist justices let the Congress to do their job?

BS wrote:I can also see Democrats using the threat of expanding the court (not realistic till after the election) as a way to move the pick to the middle.

If the Democrats overplay this card before the election, I think it will hurt Biden.

I bet most left leaning voters are uncomfortable with court packing, even if they approve of the threat being used as a deterrent. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign basically boils down to "Biden wants to destroy the fabric of America", and Democrat calls for court packing will play into this.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

The liberals have politicized the courts beyond belief. They don't have the guts to pass legislation on their own (and face the voters) so they rely on liberal justices to create law from the bench. Roe V. Wade, for example, is not based on any constitutional text. If you want to pass a law to legalize abortion, then do it. But relying on the courts to do your dirty work is wrong. Fortunately for republicans now, it's also easily overturned.

Yeah. The Congress passed McCain-Feingold, but the activist court overturned it with Citizens United. And the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act but the activist court overturned it with Shelby County v. Holder. Why don't those activist justices let the Congress to do their job?

Both laws were in fact unconstitutional. Sorry to break it to you.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

CarbonFiberJoe wrote:

A textualist court will force congress to do its job and pass laws instead of relying on activist rulings. It will also provide a necessary check against future president Ilhan Omar's socialist agenda.

Ilhan Omar is not eligible under the Constitution.

Are you advocating the constitutional amendment to change the eligibility for the president?

I'm joking - or am I? I'm not even sure if she's eligible for citizenship.

yeah I forgot the part of the constitution that only granted black people 3/5 personhood but granted corporations full equal status

Almost There wrote:

yeah I forgot the part of the constitution that only granted black people 3/5 personhood but granted corporations full equal status

Yeah you should probably read up on history then. Article 1 second 2 and the first amendment respectively.

It looks like roe v wade and grievance against liberals is all you have explained here.

The court hears a lot of types of cases.

I was looking for more specifics areas of law.

Labor - rights or powers of unions, environmental law, healthcare laws or specificities ACA, civil rights, Limits or Powers of the president, interpretations of the amendments ect.

Are there certain areas of law you are excited to rule on?

If it is to rule against socialism can you give an example?

For all the talk, and excuses and dragging about the old quotes one thing remains. The Republicans denied a sitting president a Supreme Court pick. They denied the voters of that president a pick.

That’s all we need to know. The rest is just talk

APA and Patent Act jurisprudence need respectively some serious work and a wholesale overhaul.

Especially the Patent Act will continue to be a disaster because the court will always be non-technical—and yes technical understanding is required to provide context for and therefore understanding of the constitutional questions; also it is essential for resolving lower court variabilities and correcting disastrous CAFC decisions.

The APA is a big deal, that nobody among john q. public has any idea. It is HUGELY important.

RSTUV Anon wrote:

For all the talk, and excuses and dragging about the old quotes one thing remains. The Republicans denied a sitting president a Supreme Court pick. They denied the voters of that president a pick.

That’s all we need to know. The rest is just talk

Actually Obama got his pick, they just weren't interested in confirming him because they don't have to. They are not obligated to confirm every pick.

CarbonFiberJoe wrote:

Almost There wrote:

yeah I forgot the part of the constitution that only granted black people 3/5 personhood but granted corporations full equal status

Yeah you should probably read up on history then. Article 1 second 2 and the first amendment respectively.

I like your 7th grade understanding of the constitution. I'm sure it serves you well on Facebook Q groups.

"The people" is not the same as a corporation. Otherwise, there would be no need for a legal entity. Futhermore, decisions like Heller affirmed an INDIVIDUAL right. A corporation in not an individual. (it is a single entity but that is not a person)

Great self own

Like I said it’s all talk. The pick was never considered therefore he didn’t “get”it.

Maybe it’s a fairytale you tell yourself so that you can pretend to be mad when the Dems add four seats to the Supreme Court.

With originality we can get slavery back. Is that what some of you are all excited about?