Support NeoGAF

[xStoyax]

Americans want the President to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, a new Supreme Court justice before the 2018 midterm elections — by a staggering 2-to-1 margin, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

According to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll:

More than six in 10 Americans, or 62 percent, said Trump’s nominee, who will be announced on Monday, should be confirmed or rejected before the elections in which control of the House and Senate are at stake. About three in 10, or 33 percent, said the Senate should wait until after the elections, the poll found.
…
The vast majority of Republicans surveyed, 85 percent, said the Senate’s vote on the nominee should take place before the election. Roughly six in 10 Independents, or 61 percent, agreed. However, more than half of Democrats, 55 percent, believe the voting on a new justice should wait.​

Source

 

[diablos991]

Why aren’t we allowed to mess with the Supreme Court on even years?

Oh right... stupid political agendas... just replace the judge and move onto fixing the country.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think people are seeing some of the positive change they want and they'd like the President to install a judge who will continue our country down that path. Nothing mysterious.

 

[Death Dealer]

Why aren’t we allowed to mess with the Supreme Court on even years?

Yeah no good reason. Democrats like to abbreviate the "McConnell/Biden rule". We shouldn't nominate a SC judge during a presidential election year, became, no SC nominees during an election year. Which is ridiculous, since every other year is an election year. The chance of the democrats even taking the senate is low. So odds are nothing would change after the election. I think they just want to use it as a campaign issue. Vote for democrats, so we can keep the SC in balance. But if Trump gets his pick beforehand, it's not nearly as effective of an issue. What could they say ? Vote for Democrats so we'll have a say when RBG drops dead ?

 

[Amory]

This seems...incorrect. I see you linked to a Breitbart article rather than the poll, and the Breitbart article doesn't have a link to the poll data itself. Do you have a link?

Edit: Nevermind, i found it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...want-vote-trump-supreme-court-nominee-n888451

Shrug, looks legit I guess. Surprising. Would've thought the % of democrats wanting to wait until post election would be much higher.

 

[PkunkFury]

This seems...incorrect. I see you linked to a Breitbart article rather than the poll, and the Breitbart article doesn't have a link to the poll data itself. Do you have a link?

Edit: Nevermind, i found it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...want-vote-trump-supreme-court-nominee-n888451

Shrug, looks legit I guess. Surprising. Would've thought the % of democrats wanting to wait until post election would be much higher.

I'm guessing most decent people don't want the government playing political games, regaurdless of their affiliation. Thus, most want the seat filled immediatly

A relevant comparison would be how many wanted Scalia's seat filled immediately in 2016: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/scotus-nomination-what-polls-say/
Some of the polls linked show similar numbers, whereas others preferred the games. Seems wording of the question changes results

 

[Arkage]

I'd imagine if there were polls in February of 2016 asking if Obama should replace the justice the majority would've said yes. Most voters don't give much of a shit about Supreme Court shenanigans and Republicans have taken advantage of that fact. Now the court will be solidly conservative rather than moderate, with the inevitable partisan lean now that there will be no more swing vote on the court. Of course, the supreme court has been conservative for the vast majority of the past 70 years. Republicans clearly play the life-appointment game better than democrats and benefit substantially from it. Looking at you, RBG, who clearly should've retired in the mid-Obama years as she'll be lucky to last 2 more years under Trump let alone if there's another 4.

 

[Bolivar687]

This whole thing is such an enormous clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions. The Democratic senators in Trump states are so fucked no matter what they do. And if he nominates Amy Barrett, they can't help but come across as bigoted against women and Catholics for railroading her. And anything less than adamant opposition will cause their base to absolutely EXPLODE, and not just the resistance but many of their most tried and true donors in the wealthy abortionist lobby.

It's just so crazy to me how all these petty things Democrats did years ago for trivial reasons have all come back to fuck them so hard years down the line.

 

[PkunkFury]

It's just so crazy to me how all these petty things Democrats did years ago for trivial reasons have all come back to fuck them so hard years down the line.

I'm confused that you would post this in a thread about immediately filling a supreme court vacancy. Would you also label the republicans blocking hearings to fill a supreme court vacancy for 9 months in 2016 as a "petty thing"?
The Democrats aren't even blocking this (they won't be able to)

 

[Bolivar687]

I'm confused that you would post this in a thread about immediately filling a supreme court vacancy. Would you also label the republicans blocking hearings to fill a supreme court vacancy for 9 months in 2016 as a "petty thing"?
The Democrats aren't even blocking this (they won't be able to)

No, I would absolutely lump that in with the other petty things with respect to the courts that came back to absolutely burn the Democrats alive.

Biden tried to lay the groundwork for that to deny Bush a pick when he didn't even have a vacancy, and it was largely Democrats who have made confirmation votes so contentious. During Alito's hearings, then-senator Barack Obama openly said on the Sneate floor that he would not consider Alito's credentials in his vote.

In a similar way, forcing Cocaine Mitch's hand by filibustering the Scalia replacement was so unthinkably idiotic, when that was a conservative replacing a conservative, and it was always the next one that mattered.

Finally, if Trump nominates Amy Barrett, you already have the comments from Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin last year. I mean, holy shit. They were trying to intimidate a Circuit Court nominee and now that's going to taint a Supreme Court confirmation hearing with religious animus against 20% of the population, which they have no choice but to go scorched earth on if they want any hope of retaining the base.

They really doused themselves in gasoline over so many meaningless trifles and now the match is being lit on an appointment that will last decades.

 

[PkunkFury]

No, I would absolutely lump that in with the other petty things with respect to the courts that came back to absolutely burn the Democrats alive.

Biden tried to lay the groundwork for that to deny Bush a pick when he didn't even have a vacancy, and it was largely Democrats who have made confirmation votes so contentious. During Alito's hearings, then-senator Barack Obama openly said on the Sneate floor that he would not consider Alito's credentials in his vote.

Exactly, there was no vacancy, you even italicized it. Pretending this is all on the democrats is patently dishonest. Republicans actively upheld a supreme court seat vacancy for nine months so they could be the ones to fill it

In a similar way, forcing Cocaine Mitch's hand by filibustering the Scalia replacement was so unthinkably idiotic, when that was a conservative replacing a conservative, and it was always the next one that mattered.

Cocaine Mitch, really? And wouldn't the sensible reason for democrats to filibuster Gorsuch be that the vacancy opened over 1 year prior and should have been filled by the previous administration?

Finally, if Trump nominates Amy Barrett, you already have the comments from Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin last year. I mean, holy shit. They were trying to intimidate a Circuit Court nominee and now that's going to taint a Supreme Court confirmation hearing with religious animus against 20% of the population, which they have no choice but to go scorched earth on if they want any hope of retaining the base.

They really doused themselves in gasoline over so many meaningless trifles and now the match is being lit on an appointment that will last decades.

I really don't understand what you are getting at. There are certainly concerns that religious interests could find there way into courts and rule based on religious beliefs rather than the constitution. Separation of church and state is part of our government for a reason. Imagine if this country becomes muslim majority in 50 years, would you want muslim clerics ruling on the supreme court in favor of sharia practices? The government is setup with the understanding that cultures/religions change, but rights are inalienable.

My stance here is that the majority of people see political games for what they are regardless of the party involved, hence the support for both Scalia and Kennedy's seats to be filled immediately in then polls referenced in this thread. You seem to be pretending that partisan blocking of judges is something only democrats are responsible for, which we can easily prove is not the case as it was major headlines in 2016. They are both playing these games. Perhaps we should try to fix the system, so partisan judges don't need to be fought for, rather than cheering when our team gets a pick, and accusing the other team of playing foul

 

[Captain Zyrain]

My stance here is that the majority of people see political games for what they are regardless of the party involved, hence the support for both Scalia and Kennedy's seats to be filled immediately in then polls referenced in this thread. You seem to be pretending that partisan blocking of judges is something only democrats are responsible for, which we can easily prove is not the case as it was major headlines in 2016. They are both playing these games. Perhaps we should try to fix the system, so partisan judges don't need to be fought for, rather than cheering when our team gets a pick, and accusing the other team of playing foul

I didn't get that at all from his posts. He explained how the Democrats inadvertently screwed themselves over years ago by playing politics. The Republicans absolutely played politics, but they just played them better (or got lucky).

The issue with Barrett is more about optics.. the Democrats are screwed if they do, screwed if they don't in this case. The #Resist movement won't allow for any inch to be given (even though the Republicans don't need an inch), but if they go super hard at whoever gets nominated, it could further alienate the moderates in the Democrat party. If they go easy, since it doesn't make a difference, the #Resist people will be further up in arms. It's not an enviable position to be in.

 

[LegendOfKage]

The issue with Barrett is more about optics.. the Democrats are screwed if they do, screwed if they don't in this case. The #Resist movement won't allow for any inch to be given (even though the Republicans don't need an inch), but if they go super hard at whoever gets nominated, it could further alienate the moderates in the Democrat party. If they go easy, since it doesn't make a difference, the #Resist people will be further up in arms. It's not an enviable position to be in.

It's called a double bind, and Trump loves using these. Frame an issue in a way where no matter what they choose, your opponent loses.

 

[Rentahamster]

I kinda wish the rules about this were more clear and specific so that this doesn't devolve into a political posturing circus every time this happens.

 

[PkunkFury]

I kinda wish the rules about this were more clear and specific so that this doesn't devolve into a political posturing circus every time this happens.

That's essentially what I'm getting at. Both parties turn this into a turd, and you can't blame them. SCJ seats are the top prize in the political game. In a hyper-partisan setting, you're representatives aren't doing their job if they aren't playing these games. I suspect everyone would benefit if we could fix things so the game didn't need to be played (including the justices).

I didn't get that at all from his posts. He explained how the Democrats inadvertently screwed themselves over years ago by playing politics. The Republicans absolutely played politics, but they just played them better (or got lucky).

The issue with Barrett is more about optics.. the Democrats are screwed if they do, screwed if they don't in this case. The #Resist movement won't allow for any inch to be given (even though the Republicans don't need an inch), but if they go super hard at whoever gets nominated, it could further alienate the moderates in the Democrat party. If they go easy, since it doesn't make a difference, the #Resist people will be further up in arms. It's not an enviable position to be in.

maybe the bolded is the pivot point I'm missing. It seems odd that the democrats have screwed themselves by playing politics, while the Republicans are rewarded for it. But I suppose that is the nature of American politics. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way

and agreed about the Barrett optics. It's really no different than what the dems tried to setup by picking Sotomeyer. The hope was that blocking her would upset the hispanic vote, so Republicans would let her through.

While I agree with your post, as it's well organized and reasonably argued, I still don't agree that the democrats are being punished for doing petty things and have doused themselves in gasoline over so many meaningless trifles. Being denied an opportunity to chose a SCJ nominee in today's landscape is not a meaningless trifle, and they are most certainly not the only political party employing petty tactics

 

[Fox Mulder]

The Republicans were dirty stealing the empty Scalia seat, but whatever. The sitting President should be able to fill supreme court seats and voters have shown they don't really care about it as much as Dems do.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

The Republicans were dirty stealing the empty Scalia seat, but whatever. The sitting President should be able to fill supreme court seats and voters have shown they don't really care about it as much as Dems do.

They were pragmatic. Something Democrats generally pretend to be and use as a buzzword to deflect criticism.

 

[Captain Zyrain]

maybe the bolded is the pivot point I'm missing. It seems odd that the democrats have screwed themselves by playing politics, while the Republicans are rewarded for it. But I suppose that is the nature of American politics. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way

and agreed about the Barrett optics. It's really no different than what the dems tried to setup by picking Sotomeyer. The hope was that blocking her would upset the hispanic vote, so Republicans would let her through.

While I agree with your post, as it's well organized and reasonably argued, I still don't agree that the democrats are being punished for doing petty things and have doused themselves in gasoline over so many meaningless trifles. Being denied an opportunity to chose a SCJ nominee in today's landscape is not a meaningless trifle, and they are most certainly not the only political party employing petty tactics

The Democrats made a big change in 2013:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

To help get their picks through without the Republicans holding them up.

Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” McConnell told reporters, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”

Seriously, it reads like a Star Wars prequel book. I really hope McConnell screams "I AM THE SENATE!" when the Republican judge gets confirmed in a couple months.

But anyway, at the time, the Democrats changed the rules to suit their wants and needs, without really thinking about future consequences. The Dems accused the Republicans of unfairly holding back nominees (probably true) and the Republicans accused the Dems of trying to stack courts (also probably true).

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.

“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

After the vote, Reid told reporters that his views on the issue had evolved — from eight years ago, when Republicans held the majority and he led the fight to protect the filibuster. He acknowledged that he wouldn’t mind seeing the supermajority requirement abolished for everything but that there were not enough votes in his caucus to support such a move.

So basically they got bit on the ass for something they created, Republicans even warned them at the time.

Had the Supreme Court justices all decided to retire in 2013 after this, Obama could have gotten to nominate all the Justices! But no one did, so he didn't. This is where "bad timing" comes into play.

 

[PkunkFury]

The Democrats made a big change in 2013:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...65cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

To help get their picks through without the Republicans holding them up.





Seriously, it reads like a Star Wars prequel book. I really hope McConnell screams "I AM THE SENATE!" when the Republican judge gets confirmed in a couple months.

But anyway, at the time, the Democrats changed the rules to suit their wants and needs, without really thinking about future consequences. The Dems accused the Republicans of unfairly holding back nominees (probably true) and the Republicans accused the Dems of trying to stack courts (also probably true).



So basically they got bit on the ass for something they created, Republicans even warned them at the time.

Had the Supreme Court justices all decided to retire in 2013 after this, Obama could have gotten to nominate all the Justices! But no one did, so he didn't. This is where "bad timing" comes into play.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I thought we were talking about Supreme Court nominees though. As far as I'm aware, the filibuster still existed for SCJ. Didn't the dems use it against Gorusch and at that point the republicans removed it? Bare in mind, I have no doubt Dems would've killed the filibuster in 2016 if it would've put Garland through. I don't think either party saw any further use for the filibuster in this climate. This is why they both used it in ways they knew would get it thrown out for optics.

Concerning the 2013 decision, I don't know the ins and outs of what the Republicans were filibustering as it was quite a bit, but I am aware that they were employing the tactic much more than it had been used previously. It's entirely possible the Democrats went this route because their hand was forced. After all, when the rally cry of one party is that "government is inefficient, incapable, doesn't work" it doesn't necessarily make that party look bad to their constituents when they gum up the process so that it indeed doesn't work. This may actually be the answer to my earlier query as to why "democrats have screwed themselves by playing politics, while the Republicans are rewarded for it":

I'm not really sure what you are getting with your post as I agree with the bolded, with the addendum that Republicans also have probably tried to stack the courts in the past and Dems have also probably unfairly held back nominees. I have no doubt either party would've done the same in the other's position. Much like in the future I suspect we will see another party with the majority in the senate block future nominees for an inordinate period of time, the same way the Republicans did in 2016. I'm not sure how any of this helps the country

We could keep going back and forth, as this article (from the same source you used earlier) points out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ilibuster-lets-debate/?utm_term=.45f4bbb41560

Thus, I don't think blaming any specific party makes sense here. In fact, I agree with the above article's conclusion that the filibuster was doomed anyway. It's circumstance that put each party in the positions to use the tools they had available. Since we're on a gaming forum, it's no different than complaining about cheap tactics in fighting games. This is why, once again, the stance I'm taking in this thread is that pettiness is not limited to one political party in this situation, and that an honest party would be looking for new rules that prevent these games in the future, rather than simply abusing or tearing down what exists

 

[Captain Zyrain]

Were such an "honest party" to exist, they would be promptly voted out of existence by the "dishonest" parties in power.

When it comes to DC politics, I tend to think the politicians themselves are almost to a T very alike. They want to stay in power, keep their jobs and perks, and vote accordingly. I think there are some true believers, of course, but I think a lot of them get used to the life and want to keep it going. This leads to a lot of back and forth between the two parties, as either side knows if they accomplish 100% of their goals, why would anyone need them in office? They need the other side as a foil, someone to point fingers at, to keep the votes and campaign contributions coming.

I always wondered why the Democrats could get nothing done with super-majorities in Obama's first term, and likewise why Trump and the Republicans are doing far less than they should with majorities now.

Anyway this is OT and just wild speculation, but I think it's more incentive for an "honest party" to never survive.

 

[oagboghi2]

I'm confused that you would post this in a thread about immediately filling a supreme court vacancy. Would you also label the republicans blocking hearings to fill a supreme court vacancy for 9 months in 2016 as a "petty thing"?
The Democrats aren't even blocking this (they won't be able to)

Excuse me, it's the democrats who have popularized the idea of using the Supreme Court to get around congressional roadblocks. It's the democrats who hide behind court ruling instead of trying to pass laws. If you treat the supreme court as a tool to get what you want, eventually it will bite you in the ass becuase you can't predict a liberal/moderate court going on forever.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Biden tried to lay the groundwork for that to deny Bush a pick when he didn't even have a vacancy, and it was largely Democrats who have made confirmation votes so contentious. During Alito's hearings, then-senator Barack Obama openly said on the Sneate floor that he would not consider Alito's credentials in his vote.

Do you really, really think that this affected Republican behavior whatsoever?

 

[PkunkFury]

Excuse me, it's the democrats who have popularized the idea of using the Supreme Court to get around congressional roadblocks. It's the democrats who hide behind court ruling instead of trying to pass laws. If you treat the supreme court as a tool to get what you want, eventually it will bite you in the ass becuase you can't predict a liberal/moderate court going on forever.

Excuse you, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Why on Earth do you think only the Democrats are using the supreme court to their advantage? The Democrats haven't even had an advantage in the Supreme Court for decades

The Supreme Court has largely leaned conservative since 1971. 1971 was the last time the the SC had a majority of liberal appointed judges. Yes, that means all recent Supreme Court rulings have been made by a conservative court, including Roe vs. Wade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideol...Court_justices#Ideological_leanings_over_time

The reason Democrats are concerned about Kennedy's retirement is that he has become a centrist on many issues in his older years, thus he is frequently the deciding vote. Though bare in mind that Kennedy is still a conservative and has generally continued to vote as such, particularly in some key decisions for Republicans, such as Citizens United

Please show receipts as to how "only the democrats hide behind court rulings". I need only site Bush vs. Gore to find an obvious instance of Republicans hiding behind their court advantage. I've also mentioned Citizens United, and there are hundreds more. And Republicans should hide behind this advantage, as mentioned above, this is a game and the factions are playing to win. You also clearly didn't read any of the above discussion, in which we've demonstrated both sides playing political games with the court system. Feel free to refute something that's actually being discussed rather than drive by posting

 

[Bolivar687]

Exactly, there was no vacancy, you even italicized it. Pretending this is all on the democrats is patently dishonest. Republicans actively upheld a supreme court seat vacancy for nine months so they could be the ones to fill it

That's the point - these were all unforced errors, in which the Democrats created the vocabulary now employed by the Republicans, gamesmanship notwithstanding. You could argue they'd have fabricated another excuse (I'd probably agree) but that does not diminish the irony of laying the groundwork now being used against them, when there's now actually something to lose.

Cocaine Mitch, really?

Yep.

And wouldn't the sensible reason for democrats to filibuster Gorsuch be that the vacancy opened over 1 year prior and should have been filled by the previous administration?

Not at all. It was a pointless display of partisanship and weakness. Gorsuch was a well-qualified candidate who's demonstrably closer to the center than the justice he replaced. They would have been much better served banking that credibility for this inevitable opening. Had they forfeited the filibuster now, it would have at least presented some veneer of credibility.

There are certainly concerns that religious interests could find there way into courts and rule based on religious beliefs rather than the constitution. Separation of church and state is part of our government for a reason. Imagine if this country becomes muslim majority in 50 years, would you want muslim clerics ruling on the supreme court in favor of sharia practices? The government is setup with the understanding that cultures/religions change, but rights are inalienable.

I really couldn't disagree with you more. Doctrine and tradition are a very serious part of Catholic faith. Using that against them is among America's most ancient justifications for bigotry. Feinstein's repulsive display of animus was a regression back to the nativism of America's Know-Nothing Era, where it was similarly used to exclude Catholics from public life. Its disdain for freedom of worship evokes images of Roman repression, where early Christians were forced into public displays of apostasy to demonstrate their fitness for society. It may have also been illegal.

It will get much worse optically if Trump puts her back in front of the same senators for round two. Emotions are going to run high and misogynistic vitriol from the left is unavoidable. The Republicans are going to sit back and let the Democrats show all of America how they in fact have no qualms at all about railroading a well-qualified woman out of a position of power, solely on the basis of her faith. You may not think all this is consistent or fair but you can't deny the position Feinstein unintentionally put them in, and for no valuable reason at all.

My stance here is that the majority of people see political games for what they are regardless of the party involved, hence the support for both Scalia and Kennedy's seats to be filled immediately in then polls referenced in this thread. You seem to be pretending that partisan blocking of judges is something only democrats are responsible for, which we can easily prove is not the case as it was major headlines in 2016. They are both playing these games. Perhaps we should try to fix the system, so partisan judges don't need to be fought for, rather than cheering when our team gets a pick, and accusing the other team of playing foul

No, I think we can call this for what it is. The courts were never supposed to be this important and it's the advocacy bar that brought us to this point. Constutionalism is genuinely something a lot of people really do care about and the landmark cases being decided against or outside of Constitutional grounds is generally a weapon of the left. The conservative decisions you later cited are really not the same thing at all. Bush v. Gore was not a radical creation of new substantive law and Citizens United has helped its fair share of liberal and progressive special interests.

I wish we could fix this as well. Maybe the whole things has been irreversibly poisoned but I'm not sure it's something that a few decades of strict constructionism won't fix.

 

[oagboghi2]

Excuse you, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Why on Earth do you think only the Democrats are using the supreme court to their advantage? The Democrats haven't even had an advantage in the Supreme Court for decades

The Supreme Court has largely leaned conservative since 1971. 1971 was the last time the the SC had a majority of liberal appointed judges. Yes, that means all recent Supreme Court rulings have been made by a conservative court, including Roe vs. Wade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideol...Court_justices#Ideological_leanings_over_time

The reason Democrats are concerned about Kennedy's retirement is that he has become a centrist on many issues in his older years, thus he is frequently the deciding vote. Though bare in mind that Kennedy is still a conservative and has generally continued to vote as such, particularly in some key decisions for Republicans, such as Citizens United

Please show receipts as to how "only the democrats hide behind court rulings". I need only site Bush vs. Gore to find an obvious instance of Republicans hiding behind their court advantage. I've also mentioned Citizens United, and there are hundreds more. And Republicans should hide behind this advantage, as mentioned above, this is a game and the factions are playing to win. You also clearly didn't read any of the above discussion, in which we've demonstrated both sides playing political games with the court system. Feel free to refute something that's actually being discussed rather than drive by posting

So wise of the Democratts. We've had multiple democratic presidents and multiple democratic congresses, and very few attempts to turn any of these issues into actual law. You've been coasting on court decisions like Roe v Wade for decades, and now there is a chance that will go away. I guess they thought Kennedy would live forever.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Super Mario]

Let's get back to the real world. The politicians are voted into power to support their base. You're crazy if you think they aren't going to use the law to their advantage to take every possible win. If they don't, their base will vote them out, and replace them. Save all of the fairness BS for Facebook tearjerker posts.

Back on topic, if even an NBC poll wants Trump to pick someone, it must be great odds. Americans are tired of Liberal justices finding new interpretations in the Constitution that even the founding fathers knew nothing about.

 

[PkunkFury]

Let's get back to the real world. The politicians are voted into power to support their base. You're crazy if you think they aren't going to use the law to their advantage to take every possible win. If they don't, their base will vote them out, and replace them. Save all of the fairness BS for Facebook tearjerker posts.

Where is anyone in this thread tearjerking for fairness?

Back on topic, if even an NBC poll wants Trump to pick someone, it must be great odds. Americans are tired of Liberal justices finding new interpretations in the Constitution that even the founding fathers knew nothing about.

NBC does not poll their fans, why would you think they would try to establish a biased poll? They found the same information that various polls found when Scalia's seat was vacant. That American people don't want court seats sitting vacant.

And once again, the Supreme Court has not been liberal since 1971. Why would Americans be tired of liberal justice activism when it literally hasn't been affecting them for 50 years? This makes no sense.

And you can make the same statement about conservative judges: "Americans are tired of Conservative justices finding new interpretations in the Constitution that even the founding fathers knew nothing about.". Do you honestly believe that founding fathers would have wanted corporations to have the same rights as people? I'd love to see you spin that, but it happens. I'm also curious what liberal court decisions you think the founding fathers would've been against?

So wise of the Democratts. We've had multiple democratic presidents and multiple democratic congresses, and very few attempts to turn any of these issues into actual law. You've been coasting on court decisions like Roe v Wade for decades, and now there is a chance that will go away. I guess they thought Kennedy would live forever.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

I doubt that even with the brief democratic supermajority under Obama the democrats could have gotten abortion law passed. And considering the (conservative) court had already ruled on it, there was no need to. If the new Supreme Court makes abortion illegal across the country, you can bet that that will change. Most people do not support an absolutionist view of abortion in either direction, and support for abortion in general is higher than against. This is why I suspect the new Supreme Court will not fully overturn Roe vs. Wade. At most they will allow states to make the decision