the idea that anything and everything can be handled constitutionally is about as clear a sign someone is an idiot as you can get.

maybe second only to the idea that if a founding father rematerialized that he'd not think advancements like tanks, the internet, modern medicine, healthcare, etc are worthy of changing direction from their 1770s ideals.

I'm not a judge, nor do I have a law degree. I do know that if a law blatantly defies the Constitution, or an interpretation of a previous decision is inserting something that does not exist in the constitution, then it can and should be challenged. Likewise any decision that was based on scientifically incomplete data. Yes, Roe vs Wade would be up for revisitation should somebody push it forward, though that doesn't guarantee it'd be overturned. No, gay marriage would not.

This is one of the interesting things about Trump's two current picks. They are not big on attempting to write law from the bench. And as Scalia's understudy, I do not believe Barrett would be either. Nor have the current two been overly large on interpreting anything in such a way that would in any way violate state rights (even the most lefty states such as California) unless the state is blatantly violating the Constitution or clearly Constitutional Federal Statutes.

I just am not worried like many are. So-called "conservative" members of SCOTUS are not and have never been known to attempt to use the bench to benefit a particular party or state. Nor do I believe a current Trump nominee would be.

I do agree that Ginsburg should be replaced by a woman, as I think that there are both men and women in the nation, and interaction between the two should have some balance, and how things are interpreted will be somewhat different.

My only concern is that we do NOT have an activist as a sitting member of SCOTUS. People who try to force things to happen are never a good pick when appointing to a seat that is supposed to provide balance between the legislative and executive branches of government.

If they aren't writing law from the bench they aren't doing their jobs.

@bold is obvious.

Also, all of Trump's nominations are right wing activists supported by a right wing think tank.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Sep 21 2020 02:27pm

Trump says he will name Supreme Court replacement for Ginsburg by Saturday

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg/trump-says-he-will-name-supreme-court-replacement-for-ginsburg-by-saturday-idUSKCN26C1UE







WoOt!!!

And here I thought this was a topic about SCOTUS, not Congress.

This is exciting stuff. If Trump can get a conservative justice and make it 6-3, I don't have to worry about voting Republican for AT LEAST a decade.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter who's running things. There's an underlying pathway that this country is following.

Which party is in power is nothing more than the icing on the cake. The cake itself is still the same. Our system of checks and balances, keeps it that way.



/edit But hell with the Dems.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 21 2020 02:33pm

it will also cement the "well at least he got us some justices" sheepish response to "what did trump get done in his 4-8 years anyways" for decades to come.

Not entirely certain. Not really worried about Dems either. The "progressive" aka socialist/communist left is a bit of a concern. More than them though, the megaconglomerate companies that control the majority of media.

As companies like Google, Disney, etc. control more and more of not only our standard media, but social media and other basic communications platforms, and attempt to enforce rules to limit communication (even between friends and family) that is Constitutionally protected, there's a problem. So my concern would be who puts the checks and balances on that. Pretty sure it won't be dems, not convinced it'll be republicans.

undid the unconstitutional forced taxation on a “free” healthcare product i didnt ask for, dont forgot that one