US Supreme Court: Republicans have numbers to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

President Trump on death of Justice Ginsburg: "She just died? Wow. I didn't know that...She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I'm actually sad to hear that." pic.twitter.com/6oKuL671qO

— CSPAN (@cspan) September 19, 2020

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.

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?

[dbgtz]

should be delayed as it was for obama

[FlyingJesus]

Is it not in the interests of the country to have a split so that law ISN'T interpreted entirely by one side? Having it 6/3 isn't going to be a restraint on the court at all, if anything it'll give them more power to pursue particular ideologies along party lines

[-:Undertaker:-]

Is it not in the interests of the country to have a split so that law ISN'T interpreted entirely by one side? Having it 6/3 isn't going to be a restraint on the court at all, if anything it'll give them more power to pursue particular ideologies along party lines

It depends what a conservative court would do.

Do you think a conservative dominated court would ban abortion across America, or do you think it would return the issue to the states?

[FlyingJesus]

Either of those options is tantamount to removing women's rights as we all know that many states would immediately make it illegal entirely if they could. Not wanting a discussion about the ethics of abortion here as that isn't the point, but in any situation (including how things were with Ginsberg there) it will always have a slight swing one way because of there being 9 spots and no-one being completely impartial however hard they try - nothing wrong with that as it stops total deadlocks but too much one way or the other is not good, especially when it's people literally appointed by the President at the time. It's already a bad system when they can't be removed, but there ought to at least be some balance to it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Either of those options is tantamount to removing women's rights as we all know that many states would immediately make it illegal entirely if they could. Not wanting a discussion about the ethics of abortion here as that isn't the point, but in any situation (including how things were with Ginsberg there) it will always have a slight swing one way because of there being 9 spots and no-one being completely impartial however hard they try - nothing wrong with that as it stops total deadlocks but too much one way or the other is not good, especially when it's people literally appointed by the President at the time.

That's the whole debate though isn't it.

You and half of America view it as a "right", whilst me and the other half of America view it as unethical "killing".

If you're happy to have the Supreme Court rule on all 50 states that it is a right, then you also have to accept if the new court rules the baby has a right to life across all 50 states. While the court was leaning left it had no qualms about imposing its will on Texas and Alabama, and now a conservative dominated court might feel the same about exercising its power on New York and California.

Alternatively, both sides - and it is more conservatives that accept this and liberals will not - could accept this is should be a state-only issue.

It's already a bad system when they can't be removed, but there ought to at least be some balance to it

Thank god we have an unwritten constitution and work by conventions.

[FlyingJesus]

No-one's forcing people to have abortions Dan, that's a completely ridiculous analysis and exactly why I said I didn't want to get into that issue - you're incapable of proper discussion without going off on tangents. What we're discussing here is balance in lawmaking, which is exceptionally important but looks about to be disrupted and broken for several decades to come. It's a fact that the supreme court can rule over any state, that's why they're the SUPREME court and not a state court. Imbalance in that, especially where there's no actual checks against those in the post, is bad for everyone

[-:Undertaker:-]

No-one's forcing people to have abortions Dan, that's a completely ridiculous analysis and exactly why I said I didn't want to get into that issue - you're incapable of proper discussion without going off on tangents.

The issue as conservatives see it isn't that anyone is forced into an abortion, it is whether abortion constitutes murder and whether the constitution covers the rights of the unborn baby. Given liberals on the other side of the fence decided to sweep away states rights when it came to this issue and ruled in their favour, hypothetically what is to stop/why should a conservative court show the same restraint in regards to California and New York being pro-abortion states?

What we're discussing here is balance in lawmaking, which is exceptionally important but looks about to be disrupted and broken for several decades to come.

I would agree that the system in America isn't very good, and the only solution I can see to it is a Supreme Court that refuses to rule on political matters and simply hands them back to the states each time, as the constitution seemingly intended from the Founders. That said, easier said now than done as SCOTUS has been expanding its scope for over a century now and each political tribe wants its hands on the increasingly powerful institution.

It's a fact that the supreme court can rule over any state, that's why they're the SUPREME court and not a state court. Imbalance in that, especially where there's no actual checks against those in the post, is bad for everyone

I would say that the name isn't important and doesn't denote the actual scope of the court. I know the American Supreme Court was intended to be powerful by the Founding Fathers so as to prevent a repeat of how they in the colonies were treated by the Imperial Parliament which led to the revolution, but to give another example: our own much weaker Supreme Court in Britain isn't actually "supreme" in constitutional terms at all (Parliament and the Crown are) but was still given the silly title by that idiot Blair.

It's Her Majesty's Government - but Her Majesty doesn't actually run the government. A lesson for SCOTUS perhaps.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Rumours but yet not confirmation of President Trump's SCOTUS pick:

Breaking News: President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative favorite, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. https://t.co/5RKWoXPlx4

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 25, 2020