Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Why would a true, government-loathing conservative want to lose the right to a defense attorney when charged by a potentially rogue, unfair government?

I seriously don't get this, beyond my normal head-shaking of the modern political era.

 

The supreme court members know the outcome before they issue their dissents, it's not like it's a blind vote, one or two of them will often take a dissenting position just to write a brief, as they seem to feel they need to write devil's advocate opinions in both directions if they agreed to take the case in the first place, this isn't new and has been a trend for a very long time.

We only really get what they really believe in those 5-4 decisions.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/christine-...ear-awards-honoring-champions-against-1374120
Let’s hope she stays in the public eye.

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/...everse-death-sentence-for-mississippi-inmate/

Excerpt:

Opinion analysis: Justices reverse death sentence for Mississippi inmate
In 2010, Curtis Flowers stood trial for the 1996 murders of four people in a Mississippi furniture store. The local district attorney, Doug Evans, who is white, struck five of the six potential black jurors in the jury pool, resulting in a jury with just one black member. Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death. Today the Supreme Court threw out Flowers’ conviction, with seven justices agreeing that the jury selection in his case violated the Constitution.

The court’s opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, depicted Flowers’ case as one that broke “no new legal ground.” Instead, the court characterized the ruling as a fairly straightforward application of the Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, holding that prosecutors cannot discriminate based on race when using their peremptory strikes, which allow them to remove jurors without providing a reason, to what they described as the “extraordinary facts” of Flowers’ case.

***
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, in an opinion that was joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should never have agreed to review Flowers’ case in the first place. He alleged that the case didn’t meet the justices’ traditional criteria for granting review, and he seemed to suggest that the justices might have taken up the case because it hailed from the south – which, quoting an opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia, he described as a “familiar object[] of the Court’s scorn” – or because of the media attention that the case had garnered. But in any event, Thomas continued, prosecutors had good reasons – that had nothing to do with race – for striking the five black jurors at Flowers’ final trial. And to the extent that the court relied on the prosecution’s conduct at Flowers’ earlier trials, Thomas added, that story “might make for an entertaining melodrama, but it has no basis in the record.”
​

more at the link

 

great article

 

This is probably one thing that is going to affect the election and Trump's chances.

Just like I think Democrats should leave gun rights alone...Republicans should leave Abortion rights completely alone...but they can't help themselves. This is such an easy message should the SCOTUS rule on party lines here for the Democrats and you can see Schumer already revving up that engine here. Trump is already bad with suburban white women and this is likely going to destroy him with this demographic.

I mean something like only 30% of republicans even want to overturn Roe V Wade so this is appealing hard to the hard right religious base.

Would have started a new thread for this but I figure it'll be a big story whenever they rule on the case.

 

There are probably more Democrats that are pro life than Republicans that are pro choice.

 

If you define Pro-life/Pro-choice as for abortion or against abortion that certainly isn't true.

It only polls well with one group, Christians, evangelicals.



Even among Republicans in general it does not poll well.


While this case would not be overturning Roe V Wade, the DNC is going to tell the nation that it is the first in many cases (which it is) that would ultimately weaken abortion rights across the nation...and I think Chuck is right here that it won't sit well with a lot of the electorate.

 

Except the parties theoretically amass power to do something with that power. If they sit on it because they are always scared of the next election, they'll never achieve anything they were elected to do. The GOP is famous for doing that, but the Dems repeatedly do big things when they get power (and then lose that power).

 

I'm saying running on taking guns away will make it so the Democrats never get the power to do it in the first place. It's just not the hill you want to die on right now.

 

Couldn't you apply that same argument for Bernie's policies?

For half the country, taking away firearms is as scary if not more scary than the word "socialism".

Making gun regulations a priority will be a bad idea in my opinion. Sure, Biden should at least mention that he's for universal background checks but the moment he goes into any sort of "assault rifle" bans and gun confiscation, he's going to scare a lot of potential voters away.

There are a lot of socially moderate to left wing people who own firearms, who own ar-15s etc. There are plenty of moderate Republicans also who own these type of firearms.

Biden needs to stay away from Beto.

 

I agree with that. I was more speaking to the GOP and abortion - that's a post-election decision. They have the power, so now they to decide whether to use it.

Sure - but Bernie's policies only have support from about half the Democratic Party, let alone a majority across the board. If you're going to force through controversial things - think Obamacare, Clinton's assault weapons ban, etc - you better have near 100% support of the Democratic Party. And then you have to accept you'll get your ass kicked in the next election, unfortunately.

To clarify - I am NOT suggesting Dems run on taking away guns.

 

Well that is true. Trump picked Pence and ran hard on SCOTUS so they could do this exact thing. I think it ramped up his base but I think they should be a lot more cautious this time.

I'm hoping they go through with it, I really do, I've been saying since 2016 that I dare this SCOTUS to start handing pro-lifers wins and they are going to find out they are appeasing a small 30% base and further drive away white women and such a decision will be perfect to drive home to dismayed young voters and progressives and Bernie Supporters that we can't have 4 more years of Trump right as the primary ends.

 

Roberts went after Trump for something similar and Is right to go after Schumer as well. There are still certain rules and decencies that should be observed.

 

Schumer was quoting Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing, when he momentarily thought he was some sort of pasty John Wick:

Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. You sowed the wind and the country will reap the whirlwind.​

Meanwhile Trump spent last week threatening Sotomayor and RBG on Twitter and Roberts... does nothing.

This is the John Roberts we have. Calling balls and strikes...when it suits him.

Otherwise he does John Roberts things, which is to afflict the powerless on behalf of the powerful.

That is the John Roberts we have.

That is his legacy.

 

lol what a incredibly disingenuous post all around.

 

I see no evidence for this claim. Schumer's office released a statement that makes no mention of quoting Kavanaugh.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...s-referencing-justices-paying-political-price