If Ruth Bader dies, and we put another conservative on the high court, we can overturn Roe V. Wade and FINALLY get abortion illegal
another reason to vote Trump
Posts
Total:
44
Just a reminder: There was also a conservative majority when Roe v. Wade was decided.
It's also worth noting that the large majority of the country supports a women's right to an abortion. If you seriously threaten that, it would be a great way to wipe out the republicans.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Actually, overturning Roe V Wade would most likely have it codified as a constitutional amendment. Careful what you wish for.
Fun fact: Nixon had appointed 4 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court by the time they had to rule on whether or not the White House could withhold self-incriminating tapes about the Watergate scandal. Hypothetically, all 4 of those judges he appointed would only have to convince one other judge to let it slide and allow Nixon to remain in office for the remainder of his second term.
Instead, 3 of the 4 voted against Nixon while the fourth abstained, resulting in an 8-0 ruling that effectively doomed Nixon as president.
-->
@Imabench
Do you think the judges appointed by trump have the same level professionalism? I mean one of them is an accused sex offender who used to love "boofing". I don't think Trump picked them based on their suitability for the job. I think they were picked based on how partisan they were.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well everyone was some sort of idiot in college, I highly doubt that that behavior would persist unchanging for the next 40 years or however old he is now. The fact that Supreme Court judges are damn near impossible to remove from service outside of retirement or death also gives them a solid shield to act and judge however they desire, so anybody Trump picked to be an ultimate 'yes man' has full power to do what they believe is right instead with zero risk of backlash.
Partisanship is another thing. I fully believe that justices are being picked based on how far they lean, especially since Congress is now retarded enough to allow justices to be picked by a majority vote, rather then the 60 vote threshhold used in the past, making it open season on stacking the Supreme Court with any extremist that one political party could force into confirmation with a majority vote. Could Gorsuch swing to the right and vote based on his political beliefs? Absolutely, but I highly doubt he would do so because of blatant unprofessionality. Again though, they have full immunity to do whatever they think is right, and there have been times where justices broke ranks with ideology and voted for the other side.
-->
@Imabench
Yeah it is unclear to me whether they have the integrity to stand up to trump or not.
Another thing to keep in mind is that consequences don't necessarily have to be direct. Supreme court justices have to live in the real world. And if all the people you rub shoulders with think you are a piece of crap, that will make your life more difficult. While it is true that they can't be removed for ruling the wrong way, they could certainly be ostracized from their chosen community if they make a "bad" decision. To some people that is an important thing. That can certainly put pressure on them to rule one way or another.
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's why the elites created gated communities.
As seen in the fourteenth amendment: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; the government can nether deny someone their rights to include health care decisions, nor force them to surrender their liberties by having abortions or rounding all the men up to be neutered to prevent abortions (less invasive on the men...). Given the history of abused powers even when it violated the constitution, there is no reason to doubt removing these limitations would lead to even greater abuse.
-->
@Barney
Roe V Wade is a constant reminder of why the Congress does not work. People would support an amendment to allow abortions, but Congress punts it to the SCOTUS.
-->
@Barney
yeah all they have to do it make it illegal for a doctor to perform a non medical reason abortion, very simple really.
I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade would actually make abortion illegal. It would get rid of the federal mandate that there cannot be strong restrictions on access to abortion.
It would leave the decision on the legality of abortion up to the states, which I am in favor of. Some states would outlaw it completely or restrict it strongly, while others will allow it up until term without any health concerns even necessary. That is how it should work. We need more federalism.
-->
@Imabench
Instead, 3 of the 4 voted against Nixon while the fourth abstained, resulting in an 8-0 ruling that effectively doomed Nixon as president.
A shame, really.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes. Special criminals are special.
-->
@disgusted
"It isn't illegal if the president does it"
-->
@bmdrocks21
How so?
-->
@disgusted
That was more or less a Nixon quote lol. Super out of context, but it is fun to use.
A sitting president cannot be indicted, though.
-->
@bmdrocks21
A sitting president cannot be indicted, though.
This actually isn't true. There is no law that says that he can't. The only reason they don't is because the justice department wrote a memo in 1973 saying they shouldn't.
So the only thing standing between Trump and a criminal charge is an internal memo.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yeah, it would just break precedent.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but it would break precedent.
True. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be perfectly legal to do so. We live in an age where precedent means very little. Trump and the republicans wipe their asses with precedent regularly.
-->
@HistoryBuff
True. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be perfectly legal to do so. We live in an age where precedent means very little. Trump and the republicans wipe their asses with precedent regularly.
If you are talking about Obama's nomination, they were following the Biden rule.
Precedent shouldn't really be broken unless necessary. If Trump should go to jail, impeach him then handle all of that. Don't indite him while in office.
And I would say that the Democratic platform is entirely based on breaking precedent. Bernie said he wants to rotate the Supreme Court, which is obviously breaking precedent due to its blatant unconstitutionality.
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you are talking about Obama's nomination, they were following the Biden rule.
What does that mean? To my knowledge, no one had ever refused to hold hearings for a supreme court judge because a president was in the last year of their term. they even later acknowledged (and laughed about) that this reasoning had been a lie.
Precedent shouldn't really be broken unless necessary. If Trump should go to jail, impeach him then handle all of that. Don't indite him while in office.
Donald trump is an unprecedented president. He has committed numerous crimes in office and his party has made it clear they will do everything in their power to prevent him being punished for it. If the normal method of dealing with an issue is completely blocked, then you have to use an irregular one. I'm not arguing that trump should be charged with a crime now, but I think mueller should have done it.
Bernie said he wants to rotate the Supreme Court, which is obviously breaking precedent due to its blatant unconstitutionality.
It is unprecedented. But the constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't add a term limit. it says they "shall hold their offices during good behavior". Many interpret that to mean they cannot be removed for any reason. But that is only 1 interpretation.
But even if it was unconstitutional, it's not like the US constitution hasn't been changed multiple times. I don't understand why some people think that the Constitution is set in stone. If what has been laid out in the constitution isn't working properly or is being abused, then amend the constitution so that it works.
-->
@HistoryBuff
What does that mean? To my knowledge, no one had ever refused to hold hearings for a supreme court judge because a president was in the last year of their term. they even later acknowledged (and laughed about) that this reasoning had been a lie.
It was referring to a 1992 speech by Joe Biden to president Bush telling him to not put a new Supreme Court justice in because there was an election coming up. The winner should decide, not the lame duck. Either that or he should put a moderate candidate in.
Donald trump is an unprecedented president. He has committed numerous crimes in office and his party has made it clear they will do everything in their power to prevent him being punished for it. If the normal method of dealing with an issue is completely blocked, then you have to use an irregular one. I'm not arguing that trump should be charged with a crime now, but I think mueller should have done it.
What crimes are you specifically referring to?
It is unprecedented. But the constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't add a term limit. it says they "shall hold their offices during good behavior". Many interpret that to mean they cannot be removed for any reason. But that is only 1 interpretation.But even if it was unconstitutional, it's not like the US constitution hasn't been changed multiple times. I don't understand why some people think that the Constitution is set in stone. If what has been laid out in the constitution isn't working properly or is being abused, then amend the constitution so that it works.
It means they can only be removed if they start abusing their power somehow. That essentially never happens, though. If anything it would be activist judges, typically liberals, who abuse their power by passing laws through the courts instead of just interpreting the law.
The Constitution isn't set in stone, but it generally shouldn't be amended to be something it wasn't meant to be.
Would you support Bernie Sanders' blatant desire to try to stack the court? He obviously wants to pass laws that are forbidden according to our foundational document.
-->
@bmdrocks21
It was referring to a 1992 speech by Joe Biden to president Bush telling him to not put a new Supreme Court justice in because there was an election coming up. The winner should decide, not the lame duck. Either that or he should put a moderate candidate in.
Interesting. But no one refused to hold hearings to block the nomination. Also, Obama did pick a moderate that conservatives could agree to. The republicans still refused to hold a hearing.
What crimes are you specifically referring to?
Multiple counts of obstruction of justice, bribery, threatening witnesses, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of federal election law
It means they can only be removed if they start abusing their power somehow. That essentially never happens, though.
That is the common interpretation of what it means. But it doesn't explicitly say that.
If anything it would be activist judges, typically liberals, who abuse their power by passing laws through the courts instead of just interpreting the law.
Then you should support reforming the supreme court. That would mean liberals couldn't just cram it full of lifetime appointment far left wing judges to reinterpret the law. But i'm guessing you wouldn't support that because conservatives have already managed to do this.
The Constitution isn't set in stone, but it generally shouldn't be amended to be something it wasn't meant to be.
Oh please. most of the right wing only cares about the constitution when it is useful to them. The constitution was never meant to allow people who own automatic weapons either. But lots of right wing people argue that it should.
Would you support Bernie Sanders' blatant desire to try to stack the court?
How does rotating the supreme court stack it? It just keeps people from picking a young, extremist judge to try to force the law in one direction against the will of the people? I don't know if that method is the best way to resolve the current problems, but something needs to be done to stop the current attempts to stack the court.
He obviously wants to pass laws that are forbidden according to our foundational document.
Again, you make it sound like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times already. It's not like changing it is in any way unprecedented. When something needs to be changed, it should be changed. The right is currently working hard to stack the courts with hard right wing judges so that the law will be reinterpreted in their preferred way, even though it is against what many of the american people want. That is a problem. If liberals were doing that you would up in arms about it.
If laws need to be changed, they should pass laws to do it. They shouldn't use lifetime judge appointments to get their way in an anti-democratic fashion.
-->
@bmdrocks21
the "nuclear option" started the downward spiral on precedent imo thank Harry Reid who I can't say enough bad things about
-->
@HistoryBuff
Interesting. But no one refused to hold hearings to block the nomination. Also, Obama did pick a moderate that conservatives could agree to. The republicans still refused to hold a hearing.
If they would have agreed to it, then I would assume that they would have held a hearing. Polls generally showed a Trump loss, so they would have wanted to put in a moderate rather than whoever Hillary would have put in. That being said, I don't know much about the potential candidate.
Multiple counts of obstruction of justice, bribery, threatening witnesses, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of federal election law
Well, doesn't obstruction of justice need to have an actual crime? The Mueller Report didn't really accuse him of anything, so he couldn't obstruct a false investigation. I don't know much about your other claims.
Then you should support reforming the supreme court. That would mean liberals couldn't just cram it full of lifetime appointment far left wing judges to reinterpret the law. But i'm guessing you wouldn't support that because conservatives have already managed to do this.
Well, I support how it is for the reason most people support it. I think lifetime appointments shield them from backlash for making unpopular, yet correct interpretations. If a liberal judge made a good interpretation of the law which a conservative president had personal problems with, he shouldn't be able to fire them. That would give the president supreme power over the judicial system.
Oh please. most of the right wing only cares about the constitution when it is useful to them. The constitution was never meant to allow people who own automatic weapons either. But lots of right wing people argue that it should.
I can't speak for other conservatives' reasoning on why they do what they do. But, for instance, when new technology comes into place that the Founding Fathers wouldn't know about, we try to pass laws that are in the same spirit as the Founding Fathers would have had. The Second Amendment, from how I interpret it, is to prevent government tyranny and infringement on rights. Preventing us from having rifles would make that essentially impossible.
How does rotating the supreme court stack it? It just keeps people from picking a young, extremist judge to try to force the law in one direction against the will of the people? I don't know if that method is the best way to resolve the current problems, but something needs to be done to stop the current attempts to stack the court.
They don't have to vote a certain way, though, because they don't have to worry about appeasing the president for job security. Bernie said he wanted to rotate them because of Roe v. Wade overturning. If that isn't a call to ideologically alter the court in the liberal direction, I don't know what it.
Again, you make it sound like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times already. It's not like changing it is in any way unprecedented. When something needs to be changed, it should be changed. The right is currently working hard to stack the courts with hard right wing judges so that the law will be reinterpreted in their preferred way, even though it is against what many of the american people want. That is a problem. If liberals were doing that you would up in arms about it.If laws need to be changed, they should pass laws to do it. They shouldn't use lifetime judge appointments to get their way in an anti-democratic fashion.
I don't appreciate when liberals wipe their ass with the Constitution every time it gets in the way of their excessive government intervention. If Californian's want free health care, let them have it. If people in Georgia don't want it, don't make them pay for it. FDR's stupid judges allowed the federal government to intervene in everything they wanted. You know why they ruled in his favor after previously calling his plans unconstitutional? He tried to stack the courts.
I didn't see any liberals complaining about the liberally stacked courts before because they cared about ideological balance. I don't care for partisan BS. I don't support changing the rules because the other side benefits from them now. The Democrats made it so the Senate only needs a 51 majority to end filibusters, but now complain that we push things through. It is absurd.
And how have right-wing judges reinterpreted laws against the will of the people so far?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the "nuclear option" started the downward spiral on precedent imo thank Harry Reid who I can't say enough bad things about
I am afraid I don't know much about him. Do tell.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Harry Reid was the leader of the senate democrats (who held majority in 2013) who is the one who implemented the nuclear option which allowed for simple majority confirmation of executive branch nominations and federal judicial nominations. This did not include Supreme Court appointments, which was later implemented by the republican majority.
The context behind this move was that republicans were stonewalling appointments with filibusters in an unprecedented fashion.
Or in otherwords, there were shitters on both sides
-->
@dustryder
Or in otherwords, there were shitters on both sides
Yeah, pretty much. They both make rules for short-term convenience and then cry when it is used against them. Gotta love politics! :D