Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (7 Viewers)

EmBeeFiveOhFour said:

Kennedy was 82 years old when he retired in July 2018 and there was at least a chance that the GOP could've lost control of the Senate a few months later and he couldn't be replaced. Plenty of people suggested that RBG retire in 2013 based on her age and the potential loss of Senate control, and she chose not to (resulting in a disastrous outcome). I don't there is any conspiracy apart from the right-leaning justices being more strategic about maintaining power. Would anyone at all be surprised to see Clarence Thomas step down and be replaced within a week in a lame duck session if the GOP loses both the presidency and Senate next week? I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

I had not considered Thomas retiring after the election. It makes too much sense, so I would put money on that. The only question is how low would Republicans stoop. It is hard to get much lower, but there may still be room to stoop lower. I think that would guarantee court expansion, plus there will have to be revisions to the judicial nomination laws, after the court has expanded with young liberals. After that, then laws to limit the size and imposition of term limits via rotation to lower courts, and requiring a minimum amount of time as a judge.

I just came across this bit of info:
Last month, three Democrats in the House introduced a bill to instill 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, granting presidents two nominees during each of their terms

zztop said:

I just came across this bit of info:
Last month, three Democrats in the House introduced a bill to instill 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, granting presidents two nominees during each of their terms

Click to expand...

To assure each president gets 2 nominees during a 4 year term, the justices' terms would have to be 16 years. The bill would have to allow the justices to be re-assigned to a lower court, because judges are constitutionally lifetime appointments. Would it be retroactive? I would hope it also includes a lower age limit, because I don't think supreme court justices will feel comfortable going back to a lower court. I think it should be 50, then all would be at least 66 when their term ends. Hopefully, this will encourage nominees that are at least in their mid 50s, since then they'll be in their 70s upon ending their term, and they will feel comfortable retiring, rather than going to a lower court.

MT15 said:

I don’t necessarily believe it. But it’s possible, with the way this man operates. So, I don’t think it’s totally crazy either.

ETA: Reading the article posted by NE, it does acknowledge that the Trump administration tried to convince Kennedy to retire. So the only real speculation was whether the arm twisting included reference to his son.

Click to expand...

His son was in the bank a decade ago, so I can't see how that adds up.

Girl Scout backlash
=================
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.

The original tweet, posted Wednesday evening, said, “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”

The post featured an image of Barrett, who was confirmed Monday and sworn in at the court on Tuesday; along with currently serving justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor; former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Barrett’s predecessor, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The post was quickly attacked by critics who view Barrett, a conservative, as a potential threat to civil liberties and women’s rights..........

Optimus Prime said:

Girl Scout backlash
=================
A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.

The original tweet, posted Wednesday evening, said, “Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789.”

The post featured an image of Barrett, who was confirmed Monday and sworn in at the court on Tuesday; along with currently serving justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor; former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Barrett’s predecessor, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The post was quickly attacked by critics who view Barrett, a conservative, as a potential threat to civil liberties and women’s rights..........

Girl Scouts tweet, then delete post about Amy Coney Barrett

A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters.

apnews.com

Click to expand...

At least it wasn't the Boy Scouts.

(came across this today)

About one week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the bench, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case concerning discrimination against LGBTQ people on the basis of religious liberty.

The case involves the right of a Catholic group working as a city contractor to not place foster children into homes with same-sex couples. During arguments today, the court appeared likely to side with the group, CNBC reported.


The case involves Catholic Social Services, a group that worked as a contractor for the city of Philadelphia to place children into foster homes, but would not work with same-sex couples. The city of Philadelphia stopped working with the group, saying they were violating an anti-discrimination law, prompting the group to sue the city.

The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, represents a "legal supernova clash" between the rights of LGBTQ people and the First Amendment right to religious liberty, according to Doron Kalir, professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.

"This is really as big as they come I think in terms of legal battles," Kalir told Insider. He said the case could be "a serious blow to the rights of Obergefell," referring to the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage in the US.

seems like it was only a matter of time


At midnight on Wednesday, in an unsigned 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. The five most conservative Republican-appointed justices refused to block Texas’ abortion ban, which allows anyone to sue any individual who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks, which is when the vast majority of operations occur. There is no exception for rape or incest. The decision renders almost all abortions in Texas illegal for the first time since 1973. Although the majority did not say these words exactly, the upshot of Wednesday’s decision is undeniable: The Supreme Court has abandoned the constitutional right to abortion. Roe is no longer good law.

Sharia law comes to America with thunderous applause from the right.

The Texas Taliban strikes again…. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned- PACK IT, STACK IT, SHELLACK IT , TALLYWHACK IT… there are no rules anymore






.

ACB definitely earning her moniker of ‘Amy Coathanger Barrett’

Are women in TX going to be forced to marry their rapists too?

SystemShock said:

Are women in TX going to be forced to marry their rapists too?

Click to expand...

Of course, but the way they'll phrase it is as a punishment for the rapist and financial support for the woman.

Yeah, I have a major problem with this.

As observed elsewhere, the natural result of this is that Red states will shortly enact laws identical to this one which will is a defacto overruling of Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Personally I think abortion is... shall we say... not the 'ideal' choice. That said, I'm vehemently against religious doctrine being codified in the law. There really is no difference between this and what happens in the Middle East -- just a different flavor of ice cream. Other Western Democracies understand that.

I wonder how many that applaud this move are also ones that like to say "my body my choice" when it comes to not vaccinating

Silvio Dante/Frank Tagliano not having this!

Taurus said:

Of course, but the way they'll phrase it is as a punishment for the rapist and financial support for the woman.

Click to expand...

Good ol' Texanistan.