The Supreme Court and the 2016 Presidential Election

Yeah that's pretty much a nightmare scenario for the constitution and for civil liberties.

 

If the winner in November serves two terms, they will shape the court and leave an indelible stamp on America's future.

 

where does garland fit in to this or is it assumed that he will not be confirmed?

 

Ummm, the Republicans have control of the Senate. They (along with the HoR) attempted two shutdowns of the government in opposition to Obama's spending bills. Don't think they would have a problem doing the same with a Democratic nominated judge.

 

Outside of slavery/racial/segregation issues, when has the court completely reversed course on a previous ruling? A conservative court had no problem with gay marriage and individual mandate. Unless Heller and Roe v. Wade are in trouble, why should I care?

 

Reversing the ban on the death penalty comes to mind initially.

 

You shouldn't be concerned about the prospect of a conservative dominated SCOTUS, but you really should be concerned about the prospect of a liberal dominated SCOTUS.....that's when rights start to die.

 

Eh...

What makes this country great is how it balances between left and right. We really have to get over this idea that the other side is pure evil and needs to be abolished and dominated. When the country goes too far left OR right, then we will have issues. If it teeters between the two then it will continue to thrive as both have good ideas.

The country or rather it's politicians have been on the right for a while now. For people that htink Obama is some radical liberal I wonder what they would have thought of FDR.

Hell Teddy Roosevelt was of the Republican party and you look at his policies were far more to the left than anything Obama has done.

Will be just fine with 5-4 liberals as it were 5-4 conservatives. If it were 7-2 either way then perhaps we'd have a problem.

 

Heller was a complete reversal - the court had never previously ruled that there was an individual right to bear arms.

 

My previous question was more this. Is it even possible to overturn huge ruling like Roe v. Wade and Heller to kill rights?

All the confirmation hearings I watched the nominees said previous decisions have to be respected.

 

That doesn't constitute a reversal does it?

 

I'm not saying that one side is pure evil, I'm saying that one side is anti-civil rights because of an ideology that puts the state over individuals.

FDR was a fool that extended the great depression with bad social policies and repeatedly had his programs shut down due to them violating the constitution. The policies that they managed to turn into a giant tax so as to not be struck down by the SCOTUS are some of our biggest problems in this country today....like Social Security. Future generations will say the same about Obamacare. It was something that was unconstitutional that was turned into a giant tax so that it wouldn't be shut down and it'll be a disaster for future generations.

 

There's ways of doing it. Specific cases can't be heard again, but similar cases can be and they could overturn those cases in a roundabout way. You can bet if Garland is confirmed it'll just be a matter of time before they take a case in order to start eroding the ruling on Heller.

 

You're right, it wasn't a reversal, it was the invention of something new, but nothing was really reversed or overruled, at least at the SCt level.

Citizens United was an absolute and complete reversal of an issued decided 7 years prior in McConnell v. FEC.

 

Thanks

 

Who's rights? What rights?

Liberal/progressive actions have resulted in the rights of women to vote, equality under the law for minorities, protection of women's rights to their bodies, etc...

All pretty good things under in my book.

I'm a minority who didn't grow up with guns, but I just don't see how that particular hot button rights issue holds a candle to all the good that progressive policies/rulings have done.

 

Equal rights isn't a "progressive" idea. Any constitutionalist that knows what they are talking about also supports those things. Liberal/"progressive" ideas generally strip individual rights in efforts to strengthen the federal government.

You can get bad ideas from both Republicans and Democrats, so sticking to the platform of a party is pointless. If you don't support the 2nd amendment, you don't support any of them. If you don't support equal protection, you don't support any of the constitution. "Conservative" justices are less likely to erode individual liberty in favor of empowering the state and let's not forget that it was a "conservative" SCOTUS that ruled in favor of gay marriage, not a "progressive" one.