Sure, but things do happen, so you never know. If Breyer and Thomas are done during Biden's term, the breakdown goes back to 5-4, and of course we might see Roberts back to being the swing vote on some cases. All isn't lost though, because the court issues unanimous or near unanimous rulings more often than not. The controversial cases will continue to be controversial whatever the breakdown is. I'm curious to see if there's this dramatic shift that people are claiming will happen if Barrett gets confirmed. The SC is usually pretty deliberate in it's decision making, so I'm not convinced there will be a seismic shift. We'll see I guess.Thomas will likely die on the bench. Breyer might retire in late 2021-22 if Biden is elected. Everyone else is “young enough” for 4+ more years.
I think that is critical. If some of the "conservative" justices retire with confidence that Biden will pick qualified replacements and not ultra-liberal sycophants, then the court could be levelled without needing to add additional judges.Well, not all 9 justices are going to live 39 more years. And certainly the breakdown won't be 6-3 for all that long if Biden wins the election and the Senate flips, which at this point has a decent chance of happening. There have been rumors of a couple of justices looking for an off ramp to retire. So I think a 6-3 court isn't going to last more than a year or two. Could be wrong, but that what it seems to me from where I sit.
they'll stick around long enough to tear down everything, then dust their hands on a job well done, mission accomplished, then retire and/or die and leave a legacy of crap for the younger generations. Lets be honest, them overturning most of what is in place won't effect them at all.Thomas will likely die on the bench. Breyer might retire in late 2021-22 if Biden is elected. Everyone else is “young enough” for 4+ more years.
That doesn't bother me tbh. It happens. I'm not reading much into it. I think her more robust answers to say, jurisprudence are more important.
I don’t know how you can be an originalist and not know the 5 rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Maybe this is on the spot forgetfulness, but her follow up response is just odd.
Source or link?There are evidently about seven more talks given by Barrett that weren’t included in her nomination paperwork. I believe this is a function of the whole process being pushed so hard. Republicans are pushing the limits with this, they are holding votes when they shouldn’t be. They really, really shouldn’t move this quickly. It’s a disservice to the American people and Barrett herself. Her tenure will be starting out as tainted by this shoddy process.
I got you @MT15 :I didn’t bother to keep it dave, because it won’t make any difference. The writer says it wasn’t hard to find them by searching Notre Dame’s archives. Just speaks to a general haste or sloppiness, imo. If I see it again today I’ll copy the link.
That's true, but the question was raised over a year ago by Trump himself when he speculated on pardoning himself. I have no doubt that every judge, especially those with Supreme Court ambitions like Barrett, have given thought to the legal justifications for and against it, including case laws that they know.That's true, but they are going to look to theories and ideas from other cases based on the arguments made by both sides. They aren't going to simply say "is it legal for the president to pardon himself," and start digging through old caselaw. They are going to look at the arguments and say "this side says that the law says this...." and they are going to go through caselaw to see if that argument is supported.
So what?That's 100% true. But, the thing to remember is "this is what I think based on this thing" is going to become "they said they would rule this way" if things don't go a certain way.
Jesus was also 33 when he died for your sins, Chuck. You telling me Jesus Christ can't be a federal court judge?This is ri-God-damned-diculous. They truly don't give a shirt.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, on track to get a lifetime federal judgeship, has only been practicing law since 2012 and has never tried a case.www.huffpost.com