Jump to content
IGNORED

Justice Kennedy is retiring


JillyO

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah I can see the GOP salivating over this now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess I should get on birth control now?! As well as preserve all my organs to protect RBG?!

We are so screwed. The supreme court was on the ballots in 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard this while driving back from lunch. I wanted to cry. We are screwed for at least a generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up. It’s going to be open season on me and those like me. All the people on that list fuck face assembled would love to see me and people like me fucked over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are they judges for life? We are going to be stuck with monsters forever now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

I give up. It’s going to be open season on me and those like me. All the people on that list fuck face assembled would love to see me and people like me fucked over.

 

Same with my little brother. Thank God we live in a blue state because at least there are some state laws that can protect him. I’m genuinely worried for those in red states though - they don’t even have that.

My only hope is that Democrats somehow manage to stall long enough, but I don’t know if that’s possible. My husband mentioned the next Democratic President could always bump the Court to 11 Justices, but there have been 9 since 1869 and I just don’t see that happening. 

On the up side, I’m back to no longer feel conflicted or bad about ending some friendships over this election or Presidency. That’s literally the only upside to this though. I’d rather continue feeling conflicted and bad forever rather than have this be our reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On the up side, I’m back to no longer feel conflicted or bad about ending some friendships over this election or Presidency. That’s literally the only upside to this though. I’d rather continue feeling conflicted and bad forever rather than have this be our reality. 


I didn’t feel bad with ending friendships before this happened. Now every Branch Trumpvidian deserves whatever they get.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

We are so screwed. The supreme court was on the ballots in 2016. 

I know my friend, I know. :shakehead:

 I remember completely losing my mind back in 2016 when some people were all "I hate Hillary, you can't ask me to vote for her!!" and those of us in the reality-based world were saying through gritted teeth " You are voting for the future of the Supreme Court, so choose wisely ". :angry-cussingblack:

 

So, which Faux News host will Trump try to nominate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

Someone listed that it would someone similar to Rudy Guillani which wouldn't surprise me. 

I gave the disgust reaction, but this is what I really wanted to post: :jawdrop:

I've also seen Judge Jeanne Pirro's name bandied about. Just hit me over the head with a shovel if that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

So I guess I should get on birth control now?! As well as preserve all my organs to protect RBG?!

We are so screwed. The supreme court was on the ballots in 2016. 

Call me Chicken Little but I wouldn't bet against a ruling overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, depending on who Cheeto Benito nominates.  Birth control may not continue to be a legal option in some states, in that case.   I mean, we're talking the ultra-hard-right "there is no right to privacy" crowd here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dramallama said:

Call me Chicken Little but I wouldn't bet against a ruling overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, depending on who Cheeto Benito nominates.  Birth control may not continue to be a legal option in some states, in that case.  

In which case, an IUD may be an option people in those states may want to seriously consider. It won’t last forever, but it’s a better bet than the pill if Griswold v. Connecticut is overturned.

ETA: Also, Bloomberg and the LA Times are reporting that Brett Kavanaugh is apparently the front runner.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/appellate-judge-d-c-circuit-seen-early-favorite-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist-203121934.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this may not be as terrible as we all think. Gather around team, I'm going to try and give you a pep talk:

 

It is really unlikely that in the next two and a half years a "perfect" abortion case like Roe v. Wade manages to make it through all of the lower courts and to the Supreme Court. That will take years, and my understanding is that there are no current cases in the queue. Same goes for Griswold v. Connecticut.

But the biggest reason? Precedent. It's not just about a judge's personal abortion belief (Kennedy personally disagreed with abortion but voted to uphold abortion rights twice).  Five judges would have to be willing to go against forty years of court precedent. Something that very, very few justices do.

If there is some on-fire justice hell bent on overturning Roe, they still have to make it through the confirmation process (Maybe the Democrats will find their spines sometime before then and stop rolling over?)

And even then, justices constantly surprise us in their rulings. Even Scalia was very supportive of defendants' rights and also supported the legality of burning the flag. Republicans long rued the day they appointed Souter, because he came down as "liberal" in so many decisions. 

I'm not saying we're safe. But we might be okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Okay, this may not be as terrible as we all think. Gather around team, I'm going to try and give you a pep talk:

 

It is really unlikely that in the next two and a half years a "perfect" abortion case like Roe v. Wade manages to make it through all of the lower courts and to the Supreme Court. That will take years, and my understanding is that there are no current cases in the queue. Same goes for Griswold v. Connecticut.

But the biggest reason? Precedent. It's not just about a judge's personal abortion belief (Kennedy personally disagreed with abortion but voted to uphold abortion rights twice).  Five judges would have to be willing to go against forty years of court precedent. Something that very, very few justices do.

If there is some on-fire justice hell bent on overturning Roe, they still have to make it through the confirmation process (Maybe the Democrats will find their spines sometime before then and stop rolling over?)

And even then, justices constantly surprise us in their rulings. Even Scalia was very supportive of defendants' rights and also supported the legality of burning the flag. Republicans long rued the day they appointed Souter, because he came down as "liberal" in so many decisions. 

I'm not saying we're safe. But we might be okay. 

I hope you're right.  But Trump's voter base has been salivating for this chance for DECADES, and with re-election coming up in 2 more years, I doubt his team is going to risk giving them anything but exactly what they want.  And if they do, the Supreme Court is going to be HARD right for the next GENERATION, it really doesn't matter who wins in 2020 or 2024 or....  As far as Senate Dems go, they're in the minority and Mitch McConnell has the nuclear option.  A better hope is probably for a couple of the remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate to grow a spine.

Didn't at least one state just pass a law outlawing abortion completely (or close to it)?  Bingo, a potential case.  Yeah, it might take a while, but Supreme Court appointments are for life, so just nominate justices who are sufficiently young...

Sure, most sane justices wouldn't go against 40 years of precedent, but I don't have faith that we're going to get someone sane.  More like a member of the Mike Pence True Believers Club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dramallama said:

I hope you're right.  But Trump's voter base has been salivating for this chance for DECADES, and with re-election coming up in 2 more years, I doubt his team is going to risk giving them anything but exactly what they want.  And if they do, the Supreme Court is going to be HARD right for the next GENERATION, it really doesn't matter who wins in 2020 or 2024 or....

Didn't at least one state just pass a law outlawing abortion completely (or close to it)?  Bingo, a case.

The Supreme Court has many other older justices who may retire after 2020 and would need replacements nominated. Thomas and Alito aren't spring chickens.

No state has outlawed abortion completely. That would violate Roe. Even if there were the perfect case, it takes years and years for something to make it through the Supreme Court. If it even makes it there at all. The vast majority of these cases are slapped down in lower courts because there is such a clear precedent. 

And, "there is no right to privacy" is certainly not an ultra-hard right tenet. (I know we're liberals here, but we need to educate ourselves and be honest about what the other side believes and not treat them like some generalized bugaboo). Most people who genuinely subscribe to a "hard right" intellectual ideology (which doesn't make up the core of Trump supporters, who in reality are populists) are actually very resistant to the government invading their privacy. The exception being a theocrat. Who would not make it through hearings.

Hell, even Scalia, the ultimate extreme traditionalist, was very supportive of search and seizure protections for individuals on the basis of his belief in an inherent right to privacy.

Justices are not MAGA hat wearing illiterates shouting "Lock her up." They've served as judges for a long time and must be experts at constitutional law. I'm not saying they are all demi-gods who can do no wrong and are above influence, but they have to display a deep understanding of the law, and that level of education has made a lot of them a lot more nuanced in their views than a lot of people give them credit for.

We don't even know how Gorsuch would rule on an abortion case. There is some evidence, since he emphasizes precedent so much, that he may actually go the way of Kennedy and Souter and align with the more liberal judges. 

I'm not saying I'm not concerned, but the Supreme Court is not a like a quickie wedding in Vegas. It is a very laborious, nuanced process for a damn good reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

That would violate Roe.

Several states still have laws completely outlawing abortion on their books, they just can't enforce them at the moment.  Nothing's saying a state can't pass a law doing that, they just can't enforce it, and many states have recently passed or attempted to pass "heartbeat bans" and the like.  

Hearings only matter when the Senators are willing or able to vote against the nominee.  Without a filibuster on nominees ("nuclear option") the minority Dems can't do anything.  Like I said, the best hope is probably a couple of the remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate balking at a total theocrat for a nominee is probably a better hope.

Justices don't HAVE to have a whole lot.  Traditionally the Senate has taken very seriously its obligation to ensure they're qualified and have expertise in Constitutional law, but I'd argue that we're not necessarily living in a traditional political climate right now and I'm not holding my breath for appointment-hungry hard-right Republican Senators to hold up their end of that obligation.  Hell, the Constitution doesn't even specify that justices have to be lawyers at all.

And you know what I meant by the right to privacy - hard right justices like Scalia don't believe one exists for things like sex and abortion/birth control even if they're not ok with illegal police searches.   They argue that no rights exist which are not specifically listed in the Constitution.  It addresses illegal search and seizure, but not bodily autonomy.

I AM educated, thank you very much, I'm just not as much of an optimist as you apparently are.  I don't find "well things were ok in the past, they'll be ok this time" a convincing argument.

But it's all speculation until a nominee is announce and then eventually confirmed.  I'm a "worst case scenario" kind of person.  I freak out about the worst of all possible outcomes and then just hope that's not what happens.  And hopefully midterm elections will make the landscape look a little better than it does currently.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dramallama said:

Several states still have laws completely outlawing abortion on their books, they just can't enforce them at the moment.  Nothing's saying a state can't pass a law doing that, they just can't enforce it, and many states have recently passed or attempted to pass "heartbeat bans" and the like.  

Hearings only matter when the Senators are willing or able to vote against the nominee.  Without a filibuster on nominees ("nuclear option") the minority Dems can't do anything.  Like I said, the best hope is probably a couple of the remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate balking at a total theocrat for a nominee is probably a better hope.

Justices don't HAVE to have a whole lot.  Traditionally the Senate has taken very seriously its obligation to ensure they're qualified and have expertise in Constitutional law, but I'd argue that we're not necessarily living in a traditional political climate right now and I'm not holding my breath for appointment-hungry hard-right Republican Senators like Ted Cruz to hold up their end of that obligation.  

And you know what I meant by the right to privacy - hard right justices like Scalia don't believe one exists for things like sex and abortion/birth control even if they're not ok with illegal police searches. 

I AM educated, thank you very much, I'm just not as much of an optimist as you apparently are.  I don't find "well things were ok in the past, they'll be ok this time" a convincing argument.

Yes, states can do a lot to restrict abortion. Which is why it's so important to vote in state elections. The President doesn't control what happens on a statewide level. (My reminder to everyone to freaking vote in November!!!)

The Dems may be a minority, but there are quite a few swing vote Republicans who like to mix things up (looking up hopefully towards Maine). 

And most high ranking conservative judges do support the precedent of a right to privacy extending to consensual sex and birth control.

Scalia even once wrote an opinion that concluded that the First Amendment does not require the government to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. Something that is pretty relevant to the birth control mandate.

I didn't say you weren't educated. But I do think you unfairly represented conservative ideology in your comment about privacy. Just like you unfairly represented my argument with the "things were okay in the past so they'll be okay this time" paraphrase. 

I'm really not being that much of an optimist. I think I'm being a realist and acknowledging how complicated the machinations of the Supreme Court actually are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

The Dems may be a minority, but there are quite a few swing vote Republicans who like to mix things up (looking up hopefully towards Maine). 

We agree on that, at least. Don't fail me now, Susan Collins.

Meanwhile I'm going to have nightmares of something happening to RBG.  If she needs a body to attach her head to in order to stay alive, I volunteer as tribute.  It's not the best but it is much younger than hers.  Same offer exists for Stephen Breyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been watching the news today and now I'm all depressed. Babies in cages, trade war, lies about N Korea and how Trump fixed everything NOT.  All kinds of bullshit in the White House.  I think the States is in the middle of another civil war, red vs blue. Stupid fucking fundys think Trump is God's soldier...Jesus.

I'm reading a good novel, "The Plot against the President " by Sam Bourne published in UK.  It's like the Day of the Jackal for today.  Impeach the Trump asshole. Please.

America Canada still loves you!  Please get well soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that was Iowa that passed that bullshit fetal heartbeat bill.  I can still hear that piece of feces Governor Kimmy and her ghoulish buddy Shannon Lundgren laughing themselves sick over this because they want it to go to the Supreme Court and get Roe overturned.  I'm leaving the state of Iowa because my life is considered to not be worth jack shit to the likes of either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

initial reaction: this news was like the final nail in the coffin to me. judicial branch was my last hope. Maybe it's because I'm the only one in my personal life that reaaally follows politics, but it feels like a lot of people have no idea of the significance of what just happened. democrats don't know how to rally together and define a message, I'll be surprised if they manage to take back the house. as someone in their early 20s, at least the next 20 years of my life just turned super bleak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.