The future of SCOTUS

[Whoosh]

So a few hours ago in another thread I mentioned in an offhand way the importance of considering potential SCOTUS appointees when voting in the presidential election. This is a topic I really think is far more hugely critical than is often acknowledged or discussed.  Just now, an event that must clearly be seen as directed by some much higher force occurred - I just got an email from a friend who knows my interest in this topic with a link to an article written today about the future of SCOTUS.  I think it is a pretty dang good article and I would love to hear thoughts from y'all if you care to share.

http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/other-view-why-the-next-supreme-court-vacancy-will-favor/article_d56b5765-1113-574d-bcad-d407328cd397.html

[Whoosh]

And just in case you need a wry laugh after reading that one, I present the 2015 Scotus Awards.  I nominate the following award and quote as the thing that will make me laugh through this day.  I totally forgot how funny some of this dissent was.

• Award - The Platinum Chalice for Most Unhinged Justice
• Winner - Scalia
• Case - King v Burwell (Obamacare)
• Sage Quote - "Words no longer have meaning"
• Note Well - later in this very same dissent he called the majority opinion "interpretive jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce"

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-blum/the-2015-scotus-awards_b_8890976.html

[SilverBeach]

Good topic and yes the impact of a SCOTUS appointment lasts far beyond the years a POTUS is in office.

[violynn]

I've *always* voted with SCOTUS in mind.  Watching the Clarence Thomas hearing brought me into the world of SCOTUS and why apptmnts were so important.  Now I watch the SC members and their ages, interest in retiring, and leanings very closely.  Having a Republocan heavy SC terrifies me, even more than Trump being President - and I cannot emphasize how strongly that does worry and scare me.  Our President has Congress and the American public to answer to, SC has no one.  Not to mention the difference in term limits.

[bashfulpixie]

17 minutes ago, violynnkelly said:

I've *always* voted with SCOTUS in mind.  Watching the Clarence Thomas hearing brought me into the world of SCOTUS and why apptmnts were so important.  Now I watch the SC members and their ages, interest in retiring, and leanings very closely.  Having a Republocan heavy SC terrifies me, even more than Trump being President - and I cannot emphasize how strongly that does worry and scare me.  Our President has Congress and the American public to answer to, SC has no one.  Not to mention the difference in term limits.

I feel the exact same way.  RBG is continuing to hang on, but democrats need to vote and get the word out to the more apathetic among them just how very important this election is. Even though I feel like they're two sides of the same coin most of the time, Dems are by far the lesser of two evils to me. They need to take the WH and Senate (since we all know that the House has been gerrymandered into oblivion). This will have decades and decades of repercussions and so many are too stupid to realize it.

[ShepherdontheRock]

This is why I get really mad at people who claim "both sides are equally bad." Um, hello.

Also, to be honest, I feel like RBG's reasoning in putting off retirement is slightly selfish. You're going to wait until you possibly drop dead? You're going to risk that happening with a Republican senate and White House? When Barack has had that chance to find a perfectly adequate replacement for you?

I don't know, I think with age maybe her reasoning's gone a bit. Of course, if that lead her to her latest decisions, I guess I won't complain too hard.

[bashfulpixie]

I didn't say they were equally bad (if that was directed my way).  I said they were two sides of the same coin.  They both bend to the wills of the lobbyists and they both answer to corporations over their constituents.  But I'd take a dem over a GOPer any day of the week, because at least they try to help everyone else sometimes, rather than taking them "screw them, I got mine, now what can I do to get more for me" mentality that the GOPers tend to have.

With regards to RBG, the only thing I can think of is that she is afraid that with the current House/Senate makeup, it would be a complete stalemate and we'd end up short a justice, giving those three nut jobs (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) sitting on the bench more power. I don't know.  The whole situation is so messed up

[Whoosh]

With regard to RBG, I can see what you are saying and have thought the same myself.  I don't view it as selfishness, however, but as something else - maybe baseless optimism?  I really think, based on things she has said over the years, that she truly believes ANYONE that has a chance of being confirmed to the SCOTUS bench will be significantly more conservative than she is.  I think she would have preferred to retire long ago and I often wonder what that would be like - to have a job where you feel a moral and ethical obligation to work long past the time when your personal preference would be to retire and enjoy the benefits of a lifetime of hard work and service.  I think she is hanging on with the hopes that the situation will change for the better and she won't have to have these worries and sense of obligation to stay.  I just don't quite know if that hope is reasonable any longer.  Very sad and scary situation for me, personally, to think about. 

I did think she was waiting out the marriage issue and would retire soon after that was decided if it happened during Obama's presidency.  I must say I was surprised it had not happened yet.  This article does clear things up for me in that regard.  I mean, if she is fairly certain that her seat will remain empty if she does retire, the best thing she can do for the country is to tough it out and keep casting those much needed votes for sanity.  I really am starting to wonder - in 30 years will I be talking to the next generation saying "ah yes, my late 40s and early 50s were the time when we effectively didn't have a Supreme Court and things went a bit haywire".

[Geechee Girl]

The trifecta of bigotry (Scalia, Alito, Thomas) can retire any day now. They way they vote as one mind scares me in regards to the future of women's health and civil rights. I'm all for SCOTUS having term limits. 

[bashfulpixie]

20 minutes ago, Geechee Girl said:

The trifecta of bigotry (Scalia, Alito, Thomas) can retire any day now. They way they vote as one mind scares me in regards to the future of women's health and civil rights. I'm all for SCOTUS having term limits. 

I'm all for all government jobs having term limits.  A person who has been in Congress 30-40 years have nothing in common with the "common man" whose interests they're supposed to be representing.

[Howl]

Justice Roberts was appointed for his youth as much as anything else.  He'll be around a long, long, long, long, long time.  

[Whoosh]

Alito (conservative), Kagan (liberal), Roberts (moderate to conservative), Sotomeyer (liberal), and Thomas (extreme conservative) are all quite relatively young.  Thomas is the oldest of that bunch (mid 60s).  Kagan is the youngest of them all (mid 50s).  When viewed that way, the Court really needs a younger liberal to balance that situation a bit more.  I always figure that Scalia and RBG, both born in the 1930s, kind of balance each other out and may well step down from the bench in fairly close proximity time-wise.  The other two born in the 1930s who would be expected to be leaving on the sooner side are Kennedy (moderate) and Breyer (liberal) which would mean a more conservative Justice might be in order (though I don't want to see that and I think Thomas and Alito require a LOT of balancing).

ETA - I totally ran with my desire for a liberal Justice and wrote something downright silly in that last sentence as a result.  I corrected it unhappily.

[ShepherdontheRock]

13 hours ago, bashfulpixie said:

I didn't say they were equally bad (if that was directed my way).  I said they were two sides of the same coin.  They both bend to the wills of the lobbyists and they both answer to corporations over their constituents.  But I'd take a dem over a GOPer any day of the week, because at least they try to help everyone else sometimes, rather than taking them "screw them, I got mine, now what can I do to get more for me" mentality that the GOPers tend to have.

With regards to RBG, the only thing I can think of is that she is afraid that with the current House/Senate makeup, it would be a complete stalemate and we'd end up short a justice, giving those three nut jobs (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) sitting on the bench more power. I don't know.  The whole situation is so messed up

It wasn't necessarily directed at you. I just know a lot of people who insist OMG THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST AS BAD and then go vote for Ron Paul because he's "libertarian."

And I do agree about the lobbyist thing. I think, at this point, taking money from corporations at this point is the way dems are surviving- I can't see how else they'd realistically compete with people who are getting money from the Koch Brothers and their ilk. (I don't share the optimism of some of my peers that candidates like Bernie Sanders could realistically win over swing voters without the big money corporate rakes in)

I think the Dems are our best shot at getting a better SCOTUS that could overturn citizens united, though. Which is why, even though I'm actually not particularly enthusiastic about Hillary, I'll still vote for her, as well as to keep the Dem Senators in my state in. And sit and pray for no scandals, 9-11 style terrorist attacks, or economic slumps.

[bashfulpixie]

Yeah, I realize that I have to vote Dem, even if it isn't something I'm super enthused about sometimes.  Otherwise it just opens the door for more GOP, and things have gotten way too bad for that. So I'll vote straight Dem on my ballot.

I wish there were more viable options than just two parties.  We need a multi-party system and maybe that would help all the gridlock.  We also need to ban lobbying and have major campaign finance reform and overturn Citizens United.  But one step at a time.

[Whoosh]

12 hours ago, Whoosh said:

  The other two born in the 1930s who would be expected to be leaving on the sooner side are Kennedy (moderate) and Breyer (liberal) which would mean a more conservative Justice might be in order (though I don't want to see that and I think Thomas and Alito require a LOT of balancing).

ETA - I totally ran with my desire for a liberal Justice and wrote something downright silly in that last sentence as a result.  I corrected it unhappily.

So I know I am probably talking to myself here, but for some reason I confused myself and wanted to try again.  If Kennedy and Breyer both stay on for a bit, that might indicate a more conservative influence would be called for to balance things.  If they both retire, we would want a more liberal justice if the goal is a somewhat balanced court.  So, overall I think I was right before the edit, but somehow I got to arguing with myself.   

[ShepherdontheRock]

TBH I don't think we should paint all lobbying with the same brush. My issue with it is when it's clear that the lobbyists are trying to buy congresspeople away from what their voters voted for.

Of course I realize this translates into "Lobbying is okay as long as they're lobbying for something I agree with." lol

[Whoosh]

I agree with you there ShepherdontheRock, so you must be right

But seriously, of all the many things I would like to see happen in the world, I think getting Citizens United overturned is critical in terms of maintaining any kind of reasonableness or sanity in the US political system.  Obviously, that is not everyone's opinion or Citizens United would never have been decided the way it was.  How some of these people get appointed to the bench is beyond me.  Kind of kidding with that last statement, kind of not.

It really is a bizarre ruling to me.  To some, it may make sense to say that Corporations should be protected under the First Amendment and maybe they should.  It doesn't make sense to me.  It makes less sense to me than when former Justice Roberts tried to argue that trees should have standing in court.  Having standing means that you can bring a cause of action before the court.  No matter how strongly I feel about marriage equality, I would not be able to bring a cause of action on that issue unless I had standing (roughly some actual interest in the case).  When people are incapacitated or for some reason not able to act for themselves, others can bring the case before the court on their behalf.  What former Justice Roberts was saying was basically that I should be able to bring a lawsuit in which I, on behalf of the tree, am asking that the court step in and protect the rights of the tree.  Regardless of what people's opinions are on that, these are both huge, huge issues.  The issues are different, but the bottom line is the tree lost - corporations won.  I think it is very problematic for the future of our nation.

ETA - to actually state my point - I REALLY think we need a president who can get some liberal voices on the bench.