i'd need to see a study to back that up, i dont think it's true. if it were, id want the 5-4 split all the more. young people are stupid and impulsive, their viewpoints shouldnt be followed without due consideration.

regardless, the 5-4 sweetspot makeup of the USSC isn't about democracy, it's about maintaining a properly running check and balance to the system. 4 liberal justices that need to convince a single conservative that "now is the time". this is how it should work.

LMAO

means to an end types always give me the heebie jeebies

job of the court is to pass judgment. deciding on idividual cases through judicial review wasn't even part of the judicial branch's original job

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Sep 19 2018 01:04pm

This touches on some of that:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/amp/2018/03/new-survey-young-staying-liberal-conservatives-dying-off.html

I'd prefer 5 liberals and 4 conservatives (or maybe even 6-3 liberals). That's just me...

Young people have great ideas, some bad ones too, but i'll take the good with the bad.

If rowe vs wade is repealed that will be taking america backwards, also ACA implications, more dark/foreign money in politics, want me to go on? Those are all steps in the wrong direction in my opinion.

you should read a book on the USSC and how it works. you might not change your stance but you'll at least understand the fundamental change to how the US govt works that you're ignorantly in favor of. 5C-4P is objectively the best makeup. and it has nothing to do with demographics, it has to do with how incremental change works and why that's best for a court that sets precedent for the entire nation. you seem to have some pretty serious biases that you can't get past.

as to the NYMag survey, thats a hard pass from me dog. i actually thought you had something.

the reason I wanted kav from Trumps list to begin with is because he is probably least likely to participate in getting rid of RvW

I don't think it's very likely and it would be a zoo if they ever took it up

I really don't think he or the court is truly a threat to it at this time

but but but i watched a CNN clip where a panel speculated wildly about how him refusing to call RvW "the law of the land" means he's a pro life single platform judge that Trump and all the other racists are aiming directly at the USSC.

the stories written off that single response are ignorant, and the people eating it up need a civics class.