The Honorable Chief Judge Merrick Garland

[spurraider21]

yeah, denying equal rights to minorities that the Christian Taliban hate in the name of "religious freedom"

they also held up obama care, allowed gay marriage, struck down anti-abortion law, etc. not calling it a great court, but to act like it's been this oppressive right-wing force is delusional, though we all know you're delusional

[Warlord23]

This could be the case of the dog finally catching the car it was chasing. The religious right has been incessantly whining about Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges. Let Trump nominate a couple more conservative judges. Let's see if the court has the balls to outlaw abortion and gay marriage in the year 2016 and become the laughing stock of the developed world.

Roe v Wade could have been reversed during the Bush admin when the GOP had all branches of government and a conservative Supreme Court, but they didn't do it. They've led the evangelicals on a wild goose chase for decades on abortion, and will probably do the same thing on gay marriage. The only purpose of social wedge issues is to make sure the evangelicals dutifully vote GOP every time.

[spurraider21]

i dont see them overturning roe

[boutons_deux]

they also held up obama care, allowed gay marriage, struck down anti-abortion law, etc. not calling it a great court, but to act like it's been this oppressive right-wing force is delusional, though we all know you're delusional

VRWC SCOTUS

gutted VRA (social rights denied) which rigged America for Repugs,

strictly limited class actions by employees,

allowed faith-based discrimination against women, Hobby Lobby

upheld ACA in name, but gutted it by allowing states to opt out.

citizens-united, allowing the total corruption of politics.

Now that the Repugs will get their VRWC tool(s) onto SCOTUS, there will be all kinds of Repug/VRWC suits to screw Americans more.

[baseline bum]

i dont see them overturning roe

It's going to get effectively overturned at the state level again

[spurraider21]

It's going to get effectively overturned at the state level again

they cant though, roe established a cons utional right... states cant go against that individually. they'd have to knock down roe, i dont see it. they can try to overturn casey v planned parenthood though, and give states the right to regulate it more, but they're not going to wipe out roe

[baseline bum]

they cant though, roe established a cons utional right... states cant go against that individually. they'd have to knock down roe, i dont see it. they can try to overturn casey v planned parenthood though, and give states the right to regulate it more, but they're not going to wipe out roe

They can do it effectively by closing down clinics through crazy regulations just like Texas did.

[spurraider21]

They can do it effectively by closing down clinics through crazy regulations just like Texas did.

but that was a 5-3 decision. even if they had another scalia in, it wasn't going anywhere

[CosmicCowboy]

Makes the Republicans actually look smart, even though they never really expected Trump to win the POTUS.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd be shocked if Roe were actually overturned, but I do agree that the more likely development in the realm of reproductive rights will likely be the affirmation of more and more draconian restrictions on abortion at the state level. Someone will probably try to outlaw abortion and that issue will go up, with the most likely outcome being that even a conservative court acknowledges the right to abortion while also authorizing states to impose limits that don't expressly impair the right, but functionally make obtaining abortions impossible.

The four big areas of law that I think are at risk with a more conservative SCOTUS are: (1) increasingly tight constructions of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to redefine what evidence can and can't be used in convicting accused criminals and in more narrowly assessing what the requirements of due process are; (2) more willingness to impose preemptive effects upon federal laws that displace state law tort remedies; (3) an utter unwillingness to set aside state law limits on voting rights, even when those have deleterious effects on minority groups; and (4) a reworking of First Amendment Establishment Clause jurisprudence that I'd guess will allow more religion in public spaces by public officials by rolling back the application of the endorsement tests that have required either neutrality or pluralism, rather than overt embracing of Christianity.

Just a guess.

[spurraider21]

Makes the Republicans actually look smart, even though they never really expected Trump to win the POTUS.

no, now it sets a bull precedent that is going to be followed for a long time

[baseline bum]

no, now it sets a bull precedent that is going to be followed for a long time

Goodbye to candidates ever releasing tax returns again either.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, I don't see the overturning Roe v Wade. I could see them outlawing most late term abortion and narrowing the interpretation of "danger to the mother".

[boutons_deux]

McConnell shocked, shocked! that Democrats might block Trump SCOTUS nominee

“It’s hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support,” the New York Democrat told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Tuesday night.Asked if he would do his best to hold the seat open, Schumer responded, “Absolutely.” […]

Schumer said Democrats are going to push for a “mainstream” nominee. He noted that Supreme Court nominees are subject to a filibuster, meaning 60 votes are necessary to end debate on the nomination. Republicans hold 52 seats in the new Congress, meaning some Democrats would have to back Trump’s pick for the nomination to move forward.

To which Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took unbelievably hypocritical umbrage:

"The American people simply will not tolerate" Democrats blocking Trump's SCOTUS nominee,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/0...28Daily+Kos%29

[SnakeBoy]

I, for one, will ing laugh my ass off when Obama/Hillary withdraws the nomination. GOP could have confirmed the guy who is actually pretty acceptable to most conservatives, but didn't because they wanted to gamble that they would win the white house.

When they lose the Senate, and lose the presidency, we as Democrats will get to nominate a liberal to replace Scalia.

Elections have consequences.

Poor RandomGuy

[spurraider21]

[boutons_deux]

Mitch McConnell: Democrats Are Creating ‘Manufactured Reasons’ to Slow Down Nominations


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitch-mcc...n-nominations/

[Thread]

Mitch McConnell: Democrats Are Creating ‘Manufactured Reasons’ to Slow Down Nominations


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitch-mcc...n-nominations/

It don't matter an iota. Those confirmations are imminentPERIOD