-:Undertaker:-
24-09-2020, 12:33 AM
US Supreme Court: Republicans have numbers to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Death of 87 year old Justice Ginsberg has reduced liberal wing of court down to three
1307127554717954050
US President Donald Trump has said he will name his nominee for Supreme Court justice by the end of the week, and urged the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm his choice before the presidential election.
The plan has launched a high-stakes battle ahead of the 3 November vote.
Mr Trump wants to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart who died on Friday aged 87, with a conservative.
He appears to have secured enough support in the Senate.
This would cement a right-leaning majority on the US's highest court, where justices serve for life or until they choose to retire.
The ideological balance of the nine-member court is crucial to its rulings on the most important issues in US law, with decisions made in recent years on immigration, carbon emissions and gay marriage.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/06/16/us/supreme-court-key-cases-2019-promo-1560726705697/supreme-court-key-cases-2019-promo-1560726705697-articleLarge-v4.jpg
Already in a single term he has chosen 2 justices for the powerful Supreme Court... most Presidents only have the opportunity to pick one or two in their entire two-terms in office. If he replaces Ginsburg that will be 3 in his first term... which could very well reach 5 if he wins another term as Breyer is in his 80s and Thomas (chosen by Ronald Reagan) may choose to retire while a Republican is in the White House.
Essentially this would mean for many decades to come the President would be shaping American politics despite having left office.
In my view, Democrats have brought this on themselves by making the Supreme Court a vehicle for wildly interpreting "rights" to cover a range of political matters when they ought to be decided on the state level. The Supreme Court shouldn't be deciding abortion/gay marriage or any other overtly political matters, leave that to each state via the ballot box. A conservative court should bring some restraint to an institution that has acted far outside its remit for too long.
Thoughts?
Death of 87 year old Justice Ginsberg has reduced liberal wing of court down to three
1307127554717954050
US President Donald Trump has said he will name his nominee for Supreme Court justice by the end of the week, and urged the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm his choice before the presidential election.
The plan has launched a high-stakes battle ahead of the 3 November vote.
Mr Trump wants to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart who died on Friday aged 87, with a conservative.
He appears to have secured enough support in the Senate.
This would cement a right-leaning majority on the US's highest court, where justices serve for life or until they choose to retire.
The ideological balance of the nine-member court is crucial to its rulings on the most important issues in US law, with decisions made in recent years on immigration, carbon emissions and gay marriage.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/06/16/us/supreme-court-key-cases-2019-promo-1560726705697/supreme-court-key-cases-2019-promo-1560726705697-articleLarge-v4.jpg
Already in a single term he has chosen 2 justices for the powerful Supreme Court... most Presidents only have the opportunity to pick one or two in their entire two-terms in office. If he replaces Ginsburg that will be 3 in his first term... which could very well reach 5 if he wins another term as Breyer is in his 80s and Thomas (chosen by Ronald Reagan) may choose to retire while a Republican is in the White House.
Essentially this would mean for many decades to come the President would be shaping American politics despite having left office.
In my view, Democrats have brought this on themselves by making the Supreme Court a vehicle for wildly interpreting "rights" to cover a range of political matters when they ought to be decided on the state level. The Supreme Court shouldn't be deciding abortion/gay marriage or any other overtly political matters, leave that to each state via the ballot box. A conservative court should bring some restraint to an institution that has acted far outside its remit for too long.
Thoughts?