So you never answered his question because your initial argument was complete bullshit. Typical. Get your bulshit idea exposed and you turn the opposite way. The Republicans have openly said they will reverse Roe vs Wade and they've never only had 3 liberal judges on the court. This is a fact. You expect us to believe that YOUR party is lying. Do you understand how fkin stupid your argument is?
I don't get it. Are you saying people's arguments don't have merit if they won't bet money on it? I seriously don't follow. A lot of us don't have spare $ these days, FWIW. (shrug). Maybe y'all can pass an even-more-punitive tax bill against those of us in blue states, after you decimated the economy for most of us.
Conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for a long time. If the were going to reverse RvW, why not already? Especially with textualists that could pick apart the actual ruling (which if you go to law school you learn is really weak)
You’re a right wing extremist. Thanks for ending the charade. Can Mitch McConnell Be Stopped? If Republicans give Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat to some Federalist Society fanatic, Democrats should pack the court. By Michelle Goldberg Opinion Columnist Sept. 19, 2020 Two years ago at The Atlantic Festival, Senator Lindsey Graham defended the Republican decision to block President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process is started, we’ll wait to the next election,” Graham said. Now that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, only a month and a half before the 2020 election, the chance that the senator keeps his word seems infinitesimal. (He has already said that after Brett Kavanaugh, “the rules have changed.”) Mitch McConnell certainly has no intention of abiding by the so-called McConnell rule, an invention to justify the Senate’s refusal to consider Garland in March 2016. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” McConnell said then. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But only hours after Ginsburg’s death was announced, McConnell said in a statement, “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” His tortuous excuse is that his made-up rule is meant to apply only when the Senate and the presidency are controlled by different parties. Replacing a progressive icon on the Supreme Court with a hard-core reactionary — one who will overturn Roe v. Wade, decimate civil rights law and fully unshackle big business — is an existential matter for the right. It is both the culmination of decades of conservative activism and perhaps an insurance policy in case the 2020 election itself ends up being decided by the court, like Bush v. Gore. The question now is whether Trump and McConnell can be stopped, and what Democrats should do if they aren’t. Shortly before Ginsburg’s death was announced, Senator Lisa Murkowski told Alaska Public Media that she wouldn’t vote to confirm a new Supreme Court justice this close to the election. The Times’s Jonathan Martin tweeted that another Republican senator, Susan Collins, told him earlier this month that she would oppose seating a new justice in October. Should Collins hold firm — obviously nothing to count on — two more Republican senators would have to defy their leadership to save an already beaten, suffering, riven country from being torn fully in half. There’s a potential twist, because of the special election in Arizona to fill John McCain’s old seat. Mark Kelly, a Democrat, is running against Martha McSally, who was appointed to that seat after McCain’s death. If Kelly wins, as he is favored to, he could be seated as early as Nov. 30. Depending on when the Senate holds confirmation hearings, that could mean only three Republican senators would be required to hold the seat for Joe Biden to fill. It’s doubtful that three Republican senators would show such civic decency, but we should still use every tool at our disposal to demand it of them. Outraged people should take to the streets en masse. Democrats in the Senate may not be able to stop Republicans from shoving a nominee through before the election or during a lame-duck session, but if it happens they should do all in their power to grind Senate business to a halt. And if Republicans do give Ginsburg’s seat to some Federalist Society fanatic, Democrats must, if they win back the presidency and the Senate, abolish the filibuster and expand the court, adding two seats to account for both Garland and Ginsburg. This goes against Joe Biden’s instincts toward bipartisanship and national reconciliation. But if Republicans continue to ruthlessly bend the rules to establish the domination of the minority over the majority, only hardball tactics can restore democratic equilibrium. Republicans will shriek, but their brazen hypocrisy should justify such dramatic moves in the eyes of the public. They’ll be the ones who’ve annihilated whatever legitimacy the court has left. Graham’s words couldn’t be clearer, nor could those of Senator Chuck Grassley, the former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who blocked Garland. Just last month, Grassley said that he “couldn’t move forward” with a Trump nominee this year because of the 2016 standard. If Republicans force a justice on us, it’s because they believe that standards are for suckers, and people who hold power need not be constrained by any pledge or institutional tradition. According to Ginsburg’s granddaughter, the justice made a dying wish: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” It doesn’t matter how exhausted we are, or how difficult the odds. In this hell-spawned year, we can either give up, or give everything we can to stop some of America’s worst men from blotting out the legacy of one of our very best women. nyt.com
Not what I'm saying. I gave him facts , he comes back with chicken little opinion. Fact - A conservative leaning court gave us Roe V Wade. Precedent set - It's NOT going away. The media screaming that a GOP majority is going to strike it down is fearmongering - No matter what the blowhard in chief says about it.
I do prefer a 5-4 court and don't much like the idea of Trump replacing RBG - I do believe it is an eventuality that he does do so. My point is that even if he does , the sky isn't going to fall and these cases that have long been decided are not going to be upended. What may change is those things that come before the court in the future - Yet to be heard. RvW is all but set in stone no matter what Trump says to pander to his base. RvW is about as immovable an object as there is in the universe.
Interesting to see someone still possibly believing in trickle down, despite 40 years of proof it doesn't work. Or is it just wanting more for himself and less for others? The classic social liberal/ mistaken economic conservative.
Something has to be done about the anachronism of the Court -- a major defect or out outdated Consitution.
Regardless of what happens, I hope the Dems stack the courts and push through a liberal agenda including gutting the 2nd Amendment and they take all of your guns by force if necessary.
Don't look for the S. Ct to overturn Roe. The abortion and LGBTQ issues for the most part is just a distraction to get working class Evangelicals to vote for the elite and trickle up. Yeah and those damn Canadians are doing so much better with the Virus.
So here is my thing, you seem to hold democrats to an entirely different standard. You said that if the court was 5-4 liberal, it would change for a lot of people. You're not going to find many liberals wanting to do away with the 2nd amendment, like, look for quotes on that. You'll find people that want to make it harder to get certain weapons, as is the case and makes sense, I'm sure you don't agree that your every day man should be able to buy Rocket launchers, right? Another discussion for the next mass shooting I guess. But, Trump the person that picked the last two SCOTUS judges can literally say "I'm trying to overturn Roe V Wade" and it is just brushed off as it can't happen. So why isn't this same standard given to democrats? Has Biden said he wants to take away the 2nd amendment? Why would a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS literally change America but a 5-4 Conservative one won't? It is also not that immovable, all they have to do is vote on a case that would return power back to the states and it's gone. Just like that. When someone tells me they are going to do something, over and over and over again, I believe they will do it. Not only that, but there are also several...numerous...cases that are moving through the courts targeting at weakening abortion rights. This is what they are and what they will do. Not only on abortion rights, but making it harder to vote as well.
Your facts are quite frankly dishonest because you're giving more credit to the ONE conservative and even said that liberals were fighting against LGBT+ rights??? 4 Liberals on the court supported gay marriage, joined by one conservative. That's what I was referring to. IDGAF honestly about what the SCOTUS did then, those people aren't alive now and the SCOTUS wasn't so partisan then. It's still the least partisan branch of government (Changing thanks to Trump...) but the people on this SCOTUS... 3 of those people on there today...dissented lol. TODAY. Those people are on the bench TODAY. These are the people that said "No, those people cannot have those rights..." and who knows about Gorsuch and Kav, I have a feeling Gorsuch would have sided with the majority, at least he's said as much IIRC... Which liberal on the bench 'fought' against LGBT+ rights and voting rights as you said? Like I had this conversation before with bobby and it's sad Liberals can't even get credit for fighting for LGBT+ rights for all these years, we finally get a big case like that and now conservatives take all the credit as if they were for it all along.
Regardless of what happens, I hope the Dems stack the courts and push through a liberal agenda including nationalizing healthcare.
Wouldn’t that depend on if the judges care and honor precedence? Trump is an easy example where precedence die regularly, that was once consider -that got to be- pandering but his actions showed he meant many of the things he said. He could and more likely will again nominate a judge that doesn’t care about precedent. We also do have recent history that this court didn’t care for some precedence in the citizen united case. https://www.insidernj.com/u-s-supreme-court-reversed-some-precedents-in-citizens-united/ There will be future cases in a 6-3 court about abortions. Currently, there are at least 16 anti-abortion cases in the pipeline. Many real potential chances in the future for the court to break some precedents on abortion. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/abortion-supreme-court.html
You know what trickle's down? Piss...all while the money goes up. Only a fool believes in Reaganomics.
