Support NeoGAF

[Pyrokai]

Look, I know that the damage Trump can and will do is going to be awful, but I think what will have the biggest impact are his SCOTUS nomination(s). Because there is always a chance that we correct our wrongs in 2020 (and 2018, too! VOTE in the midterms!!!!) and have a president who corrects the wrongs of Trump just has he is about to undue a lot of Obama's policies.

But the one that will reach far beyond Trump is the Supreme Court.

I know that he's recently said in the 60 Minutes interview that he is pro-life, pro-second Amendment, and is "fine" with the the marriage equality ruling.

So, with that said......what can we expect? Will he truly appoint someone as awful as Scalia?

And more importantly....what does this mean in the more immediate term? Some pending questions:

Most importantly is that three of the Justices he might replace are petty old. Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 78. Do you guys think these 3 people can remain on the bench for the next four years? These are two liberal justices and one swing voter who typically voted with the liberals. I'm so afraid of the worst case scenario of a 7-2 extreme right wing court where he replaces all three of these people + the current vacancy.

If only the vacancy is filled, then we're at least at a net-zero gain of Scalia being replaced by someone just like him, and nothing bad nor good actually happened.

So even if these three stay on for 2 more years, that's two more years of at least status quo decisions being made during those two years.

I dunno......I've been so depressed about everything but as I sort through my feelings, this is the one that terrifies me the most. A Trump presidency has the potential to be 4 disastrous years....OR it could be 40 disastrous years.

I know nothing of the health of these three justices, but man..........pull through, guys. For the good of the country, stay healthy for the next four years.

There's also Clarence Thomas, who is 68......but that would be a net-zero gain. And since he's a bit younger, I didn't bring him up.

Edit: I guess I just was wondering what GAF's own predictions were...

 

[mre]

Most importantly is that three of the Justices he might replace are petty old. Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 78. Do you guys think these 3 people can remain on the bench for the next four years?

Do I think they'll remain on the bench for the next four years? To the extent that they can, yes. I do not expect any of them to resign.

Do I think that they'll all survive four more years? Impossible to predict. Let's hope so.

 

[CazTGG]

It's possible (read: very, very, very, very, very unlikely) that Obama could still appoint Merrick Garland without the Senate's approval, as one legal expert argued the Senate waived their right by not bothering to consider his nomination. The only problem is that doing so would likely involve a Supreme Court ruling that sets a precedent the power of the president the Constitution grants and the Senate in the event that the latter refuses to take action.

EDIT: That should have said "unlikely" and not "likely". My bad!

 

[Futureman]

It's possible (read: very, very, very, very, very likely) that Obama could still appoint Merrick Garland without the Senate's approval, as one legal expert argued the Senate waived their right by not bothering to consider his nomination. The only problem is that doing so would likely involve a Supreme Court ruling that sets a precedent the power of the president the Constitution grants and the Senate in the event that the latter refuses to take action.

woweee. Please tell me this is still possibly happening? It's worth a shot at least, right?

With Democrats not having control of the Senate or House, how much power do they have in stopping a dangerously right Supreme Court nominee from Trump?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

If Trump gets enough support in Congress he could just pass a court-packing plan.

 

[CazTGG]

woweee. Please tell me this is still possibly happening? It's worth a shot at least, right?

With Democrats not having control of the Senate or House, how much power do they have in stopping a dangerously right Supreme Court nominee from Drumpf?

Most of their power would lie in the Supreme Court, so to speak, since a court case such as this would be an interpretation of the Constitution, specifically in regards to determine the power the president and Senate have when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Predicting what the ruling on this would be is pointless at this stage, but it seems like this is the only avenue at this point, not unless Donald Drumpf somehow decides to throw his weight behind Garland for a nomination which is even *more* unlikely (read: you have a greater chance of dying from a shark attack on land than this happening). The only reason I bring this up is because a lot of Obama's actions as of late seem to be an attempt to Drumpf-proof stuff like Planned Parenthood funding. It would make sense for him to consider a Supreme Court ruling that sees Garland fill in the vacant seat which itself would save the Supreme Court should another justice dies in the next 2-4 years.

 

[captive]

woweee. Please tell me this is still possibly happening? It's worth a shot at least, right?

With Democrats not having control of the Senate or House, how much power do they have in stopping a dangerously right Supreme Court nominee from Trump?

obama would have, and should have done it by now. Its already half way through November, there's not enough time.

 

[Futureman]

obama would have, and should have done it by now. Its already half way through November, there's not enough time.

I thought he had to do it when the Senate is on break next month or something...?

 

[Eidan]

It's possible (read: very, very, very, very, very likely) that Obama could still appoint Merrick Garland without the Senate's approval, as one legal expert argued the Senate waived their right by not bothering to consider his nomination. The only problem is that doing so would likely involve a Supreme Court ruling that sets a precedent the power of the president the Constitution grants and the Senate in the event that the latter refuses to take action.

Obama seriously doesn't have the guts to do it.

 

[SirClinksAlot]

Do I think they'll remain on the bench for the next four years? To the extent that they can, yes. I do not expect any of them to resign.

Do I think that they'll all survive four more years? Impossible to predict. Let's hope so.

Pretty much. Aint no way Notorious RBG is gonna retire and let nutjob take her seat but at that age you just never know what will happen.

 

[KHarvey16]

Obama seriously doesn't have the guts to do it.

Having "guts" is a rather childish simplification, don't you think?

 

[The Albatross]

It's possible (read: very, very, very, very, very likely) that Obama could still appoint Merrick Garland without the Senate's approval, as one legal expert argued the Senate waived their right by not bothering to consider his nomination. The only problem is that doing so would likely involve a Supreme Court ruling that sets a precedent the power of the president the Constitution grants and the Senate in the event that the latter refuses to take action.

This would almost definitely be a bad thing. And, Obama has already reached out to Trump in an effort that genuinely seems to be in the interest of the country, and not his own/party's selfish interest, and so doing something like this would spoil any of those efforts to moderate Trump (which... at least in some ways, seemed to have been productive).

 

[Skellig Gra]

woweee. Please tell me this is still possibly happening? It's worth a shot at least, right?

With Democrats not having control of the Senate or House, how much power do they have in stopping a dangerously right Supreme Court nominee from Trump?

No chance Obama tries that move. Things are already on a knife edge, this would just make things worse.

 

[Kill3r7]

I think RBG will mentally tough it out but whether or not her body will cooperate no one knows. Breyer will stick around. Kennedy is the true wildcard as has been the case throughout his time on the court. If I had to guess he would be the one most likely to retire especially since he made some noise about retiring over the last couple of years.

EDIT: I also think Justice Thomas retires.

 

[Mr. X]

Obama has a hard on for the democractic process, he won't do it.

 

[captive]

I thought he had to do it when the Senate is on break next month or something...?

If it's the same article I read, it said he should give them 90 days and if they haven't done anything then he will declare they have consented by not doing anything or something along those lines.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

This would almost definitely be a bad thing. And, Obama has already reached out to Trump in an effort that genuinely seems to be in the interest of the country, and not his own/party's selfish interest, and so doing something like this would spoil any of those efforts to moderate Trump (which... at least in some ways, seemed to have been productive).

Seemed to have been productive? :jnc

After meeting with Obama, Trump has put Bannon in the White House and still has a Murderer's Row of Horror lined up for Cabinet.

Here's my take on the Trump/Obama meeting. Trump choked.

Just like he choked when he went to Mexico.

He will literally say whatever it is you want to hear. He will tell the nation that it's time for unity and that he's listening to Obama while stacking his Cabinet with alt-right nutjobs.

Please don't let this man's outward-facing words trick you into thinking he's suddenly pivoting to the middle or will cater to the moderates. He is a serial liar, and in face-to-face confrontations he has no fucking spine. Just like any bully, he's a fucking coward at his core.

 

[TalonJH]

It's possible (read: very, very, very, very, very likely) that Obama could still appoint Merrick Garland without the Senate's approval, as one legal expert argued the Senate waived their right by not bothering to consider his nomination. The only problem is that doing so would likely involve a Supreme Court ruling that sets a precedent the power of the president the Constitution grants and the Senate in the event that the latter refuses to take action.

He wouldn't do it. As much as his enemies make him out to be a dictator, he's not that kind of person.

He'll give it to them even though It should have been his choice. He won't want to cause trouble when he knows how rough this trasition is going to be.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Can they add more seats to the supreme Court even if Obama appoints someone?

They are about to do that in NC.

https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-supreme-court-33e0873acb30#.7w948zs1r

 

[Escape Goat]

Obama should have appointed Garland and sent the lawsuit up to the Court. The Senate waived its right to advise and consent by not doing anything. Hold a vote. Do something but don't be children about it.

 

[samn]

Obama is a wimp and a dweeb.

 

[collige]

So, with that said......what can we expect? Will he truly appoint someone as awful as Scalia?

I honestly don't think this is possible.

 

[Trickster]

Can they add more seats to the supreme Court even if Obama appoints someone?

They are about to do that in NC.

https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-supreme-court-33e0873acb30#.7w948zs1r

That is so gross. Crazy how republicans manage to retain as strong a foothold in the US, when they are so selfserving

 

[Fox Mulder]

I find it funny that he wants a new scalia and overturn of roe v wade, but states gay marriage is a settled issue.

He gets two justices and they're gone.

 

[Calamari41]

Justice Thomas has mentioned very recently that he is considering retirement. I believe that with his ideological cohorts in firm control of picking his replacement, he'll be doing so soon.

 

[SnakeXs]

He wouldn't do it. As much as his enemies make him out to be a dictator, he's not that kind of person.

He'll give it to them even though It should have been his choice. He won't want to cause trouble when he knows how rough this trasition is going to be.

Not letting the SC sway tot he extreme right is far more worrisome than a tiny transitional bump in the road. Will him relenting his appointment make him Republican's new friend? No. And even if it did, he's out.

 

[Angry Grimace]

He's going to get 2 or possibly three people in there.

It sucks, but people tend to overestimate how much the SCOTUS directly affects their lives. The Court has been conservative for a long time. For every Obergefell v. Hodges there are dozens or even hundreds of cases that are decided on straight conservative grounds, but people don't even know what they are. The reality is that, even assuming a staunchly Conservative court comes into being, the vast majority of progressive causes don't fundamental Constitutional questions about their existence.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

That is so gross. Crazy how republicans manage to retain as strong a foothold in the US, when they are so selfserving

Our, hopefully, new dem governor will be voted out at the end of his first term because of this. The people here will have no clue the reason things are still shit is because of the Republicans. They will blame it on the Democrats somehow.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

My prediction: besides filling the scalia seat, either kennedy or thomas or both will retire during the next two years. Kennedy is old and both have been on the bench forever.

Id be surprised if Breyer or RBG retired while trump's in office, but it could happen. Just not very likely.

 

[Heshinsi]

Obama seriously doesn't have the guts to do it.

What does he have to lose though?

 

[mre]

Can they add more seats to the supreme Court even if Obama appoints someone?

Yes; the number of SCOTUS justices is set by a bill passed by Congress in the 1860s. It is entirely within Congress' power to pass a bill changing this number.

FDR had a plan to do something similar in the 1930s. Here's the wikipedia link on FDR's "court packing plan": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
He wasn't going to permanently increase the size of SCOTUS, but was going to, essentially, preemptively appoint the replacements for any justice over the age of 70.

 

[Skinpop]

it's insane to me that they serve for life.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Id be surprised if Breyer or RBG retired while trump's in office, but it could happen. Just not very likely.

I'm more worried they'll die, specfically RBG

 

[Calamari41]

it's insane to me that they serve for life.

The idea that Senators and Supreme Court Justices die of old age while in office is definitely disconcerting.

 

[Kill3r7]

it's insane to me that they serve for life.

Why? You want continuity and a court that's is not beholden to POTUS or Congress. The issue arises when dealing with Justices who allow their political beliefs interfere with their interpretation of the constitution. Not much would change if Justices had terms.

 

[Trickster]

I'm more worried they'll die, specfically RBG

This, seriously. Of any election, the democrats lost the one where republicans will likely be able to set the court in their favour for decades. I honestly feel so bad for the vast majority of americans who will be left with a court that will vote against their interests.

I honestly think that the scotus situation is the worst thing for democrats about this whole election.

 

[Downhome]

When all is said and done, President Trump will appoint at least 1-3 judges, even if it takes him 8 years to do so.

 

[HerbertBirdsfoot]

RBG should have retired before 2014. There was quite a lot of noise among liberals that she should have done so but she did not. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and it was her decision but she totally should have.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Really have to hope that Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy can hang on. At least for two years, and hopefully the Dems can take back the senate in the midterms and stonewall any Trump nominee until 2021 if one or more doesn't make it four years.

 

[HerbertBirdsfoot]

I think it's unlikely that Trump won't replace Breyer and/or RGB.

But some conservatives are worried that he'd appoint a conservative to replace Scalia but then horse trade on the next pick. Just for the power plays. He loves to make deals. He makes the best deals.

 

[HerbertBirdsfoot]

Really have to hope that Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy can hang on. At least for two years, and hopefully the Dems can take back the senate in the midterms and stonewall any Trump nominee until 2021 if one or more doesn't make it four years.

The dem map for 2018 senate is f-ed. It's impossible to imagine unless there's a very huge anti-Trump wave.

 

[Calamari41]

I think it's unlikely that Trump won't replace Breyer and/or RGB.

But some conservatives are worried that he'd appoint a conservative to replace Scalia but then horse trade on the next pick. Just for the power plays. He loves to make deals. He makes the best deals.

If anything, he has to horse trade with the far right wing of the Republican party. Not the left wing of the Dems. The Republicans have the power to pass or not pass whatever he wants. All the Dems have is the filibuster, which has been severely weakened recently and could easily be killed any time. And even that might not matter, because as long as nothing catastrophic happens between now and 2018, there's as much a chance of the Republicans having a supermajority in the Senate as there is of the Dems taking the Senate back.

 

[Delusibeta]

I would anticipate at least one liberal judge will be replaced at some point in Trump's presidency. I would also expect a second to be replaced in the subsequent term.

Really have to hope that Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy can hang on. At least for two years, and hopefully the Dems can take back the senate in the midterms and stonewall any Trump nominee until 2021 if one or more doesn't make it four years.

Considering that the vast majority of the vulnerable Senate seats being contested in 2018 are Dems, I would expect that they will be doing extremely well if they manage to keep the total number of seats they have the same.

 

[jfkgoblue]

If anything, he has to horse trade with the far right wing of the Republican party. Not the left wing of the Dems. The Republicans have the power to pass or not pass whatever he wants. All the Dems have is the filibuster, which has been severely weakened recently and could easily be killed any time. And even that might not matter, because as long as nothing catastrophic happens between now and 2018, there's as much a chance of the Republicans having a supermajority in the Senate as there is of the Dems taking the Senate back.

I'd argue that a Republican supermajority is far more likely than the Dems restating the Senate.

 

[RPGCrazied]

I just hope none of them die.

 

[Calamari41]

I'd argue that a Republican supermajority is far more likely than the Dems restating the Senate.

Yeah I agree, I just didn't want to risk being yelled at, heh.

 

[HerbertBirdsfoot]

SCOTUS is likely gone but put it in your outlook calendar to vote in 2018, folks. Way more important than protesting anything Donald Trump does.

This is America and everyone has a voice, but protesting is not necessarily an effective way to win in American politics. Case in point, 1968 and 1972 elections.

 

[Skinpop]

Why? You want continuity and a court that's is not beholden to POTUS or Congress. The issue arises when dealing with Justices who allow their political beliefs interfere with their interpretation of the constitution. Not much would change if Justices had terms.

they are appointed by politicians, so that point is moot. I think it's ok to have a single rather long term, like 8 years or something but for life doesn't make any sense to me. in sweden they sit on 1 year terms, and that seems to work pretty well.

 

[Eidan]

Having "guts" is a rather childish simplification, don't you think?

It is, but it was the only alternative to "spineless" that I could think of at the time. I apologize. I guess I'm just becoming increasingly frustrated thinking about the "dirty tricks" Democrats are hesitant to ever attempt that Republicans revel in taking advantage of.

 

[Blader]

My initial depressing instinct is that a liberal Supreme Court is lost for decades, if not my entire lifetime. The conservative justices are all notably younger than the liberal ones + Kennedy. The worst case scenario, even if Trump only serves one term, would be to replace RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer with conservatives (making for a 7-2 conservative majority with no swing votes) and maybe replacing Thomas with a younger conservative. Even if a Democrat were to be elected in 2020 and serve eight years after that, they'd need to wait for Roberts and Alito to age out just to bring the court back to a 5-4 conservative lean.

So, basically, just pray RBG, Breyer and Kennedy don't retire or die in the next four years AND Dems win back the White House and Senate.

...fuck.