The coming GOP shaping of the Judiciary

[Kazukian]

There are 99 judicial vacancies and the USSC vacancy pending, the reshaping of the judiciary will last for decades.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/how-will-trump-reshape-judiciary-232744

"Mitch McConnell’s refusal to confirm many of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees has set the table for Donald Trump to dramatically reshape the judiciary over the next four years, as the Republican Senate set a modern record for the fewest confirmations of lifetime judicial appointees.

The Senate GOP confirmed just 20 lifetime judicial appointments to circuit and appeals courts in its two years in the majority, the lowest number by far in the last 28 years, according to a Congressional Research Services report obtained by POLITICO. That means that President-elect Trump will have major sway over the courts next year, starting with the Supreme Court and going all the way down to the district level."

 

[rudder]

This is why I hoped Hillary would not get elected. obama loved his progressive judges and i am thankful the GOP congress did at least one thing to stop this.

People cry.. well obama never came after your guns why are you so afraid of Hillary. Well look at the second amendment. It does not say a whole lot. My current gun rights are based on supreme court interpretations. obama never had a liberal anti-2A supreme court. Hillary getting elected would have guaranteed an anti-second amendment court. This is also something that will last longer than a presidential term. We don't need idealogues in the court system. We need people who understand the constitution and will make decision based on that versus politics.

 

[Commodus]

This is why I hoped Hillary would not get elected. obama loved his progressive judges and i am thankful the GOP congress did at least one thing to stop this.

People cry.. well obama never came after your guns why are you so afraid of Hillary. Well look at the second amendment. It does not say a whole lot. My current gun rights are based on supreme court interpretations. obama never had a liberal anti-2A supreme court. Hillary getting elected would have guaranteed an anti-second amendment court. This is also something that will last longer than a presidential term. We don't need idealogues in the court system. We need people who understand the constitution and will make decision based on that versus politics.

"We don't need ideologues in the court system." But you know damn well that Trump and crew won't appoint relatively neutral people, either. Remember, this is the guy who talked about getting Roe v. Wade overturned (not sure that he can, but still), claimed a judge couldn't do his job because of his Mexican heritage, and has shown that he genuinely doesn't understand constitutionally protected free speech. You're avoiding theoretical problems by running into the open arms of guaranteed problems.

I doubt that Clinton would have taken advantage of a favorable court to neuter the Second Amendment. At most, it would have meant that regulation that had already passed Congress would withstand a Supreme Court challenge. She couldn't have asked it to change things on its own.

 

[Kazukian]

This is why I hoped Hillary would not get elected. obama loved his progressive judges and i am thankful the GOP congress did at least one thing to stop this.

People cry.. well obama never came after your guns why are you so afraid of Hillary. Well look at the second amendment. It does not say a whole lot. My current gun rights are based on supreme court interpretations. obama never had a liberal anti-2A supreme court. Hillary getting elected would have guaranteed an anti-second amendment court. This is also something that will last longer than a presidential term. We don't need idealogues in the court system. We need people who understand the constitution and will make decision based on that versus politics.

That secretly recorded "Heller got it wrong" pissed of a ton of people, I will never trust her after that audiotape leaked.

 

[Kazukian]

"We don't need ideologues in the court system." But you know damn well that Trump and crew won't appoint relatively neutral people, either. Remember, this is the guy who talked about getting Roe v. Wade overturned (not sure that he can, but still), claimed a judge couldn't do his job because of his Mexican heritage, and has shown that he genuinely doesn't understand constitutionally protected free speech. You're avoiding theoretical problems by running into the open arms of guaranteed problems.

I doubt that Clinton would have taken advantage of a favorable court to neuter the Second Amendment. At most, it would have meant that regulation that had already passed Congress would withstand a Supreme Court challenge. She couldn't have asked it to change things on its own.

She said she wanted to overturn Heller. I don't care how you spin that, it was a pivotal moment for 2A supporters.

 

[theeedude]

Dems will have to add more seats to SCOTUS to rebalance it after Trump.

 

[Mandres]

This is why I hoped Hillary would not get elected. obama loved his progressive judges and i am thankful the GOP congress did at least one thing to stop this.

People cry.. well obama never came after your guns why are you so afraid of Hillary. Well look at the second amendment. It does not say a whole lot. My current gun rights are based on supreme court interpretations. obama never had a liberal anti-2A supreme court. Hillary getting elected would have guaranteed an anti-second amendment court. This is also something that will last longer than a presidential term. We don't need idealogues in the court system. We need people who understand the constitution and will make decision based on that versus politics.

Genuinely curious - do you think that the right to keep and bear arms should extend to surface-to-air missiles?

 

[pcgeek11]

Dems will have to add more seats to SCOTUS to rebalance it after Trump.

Not a chance in hell.

 

[Commodus]

She said she wanted to overturn Heller. I don't care how you spin that, it was a pivotal moment for 2A supporters.

Well, it's more complicated than some make it out to be.

She says the decision was about protecting toddlers, which is true... but it was also about a broader ban on unregistered guns. It's hard to say whether she was really seeking the broader ban or just thought that it was wrong to toss out protections for kids.

My question: would she do that now? Remember, her stance on gay marriage changed, too. I'm not wholly convinced that Clinton in the presidency would have run roughshod over the Second Amendment, or even could have. I'm not convinced that Trump will do as much damage to civil liberties as he threatens... but the threatening is still more concerning than speculation over what Clinton might do.

 

[Sonikku]

This is why I hoped Hillary would not get elected. obama loved his progressive judges and i am thankful the GOP congress did at least one thing to stop this.

Yeah that Gargland character was just a liberal hack. Bastard doesn't even deserve a hearing for a down vote.

 

[Kazukian]

Well, it's more complicated than some make it out to be.

She says the decision was about protecting toddlers, which is true... but it was also about a broader ban on unregistered guns. It's hard to say whether she was really seeking the broader ban or just thought that it was wrong to toss out protections for kids.

My question: would she do that now? Remember, her stance on gay marriage changed, too. I'm not wholly convinced that Clinton in the presidency would have run roughshod over the Second Amendment, or even could have. I'm not convinced that Trump will do as much damage to civil liberties as he threatens... but the threatening is still more concerning than speculation over what Clinton might do.

Oh hell, even politifact calls that rationale a half truth, and if she changed her mind, the campaign would have been a time to announce her change of heart. The woman doesn't even know the difference between full automatic weapons and semi automatic. She said Heller got it wrong, that's enough for me.

 

[Maxima1]

Not a chance in hell.

The Constitution doesn't say how many there should be. There's no way this country will go 30+ yrs with a conservative SC!

 

[pcgeek11]

The Constitution doesn't say how many there should be. There's no way this country will go 30+ yrs with a conservative SC!

Why not?

 

[Maxima1]

Why not?

There's going to be a revolution at some point with a Bernie-like candidate. Bernie, btw, would have beat the dog doodie out of Trump.

 

[theeedude]

Not a chance in hell.

All it takes is an act of Congress signed by the President. Not a very high threshold.
Rosevelt used a threat of just such act to get SCOTUS to play ball with the New Deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
So it will be up to SCOTUS to play ball with New Deal 2.0 or get more chairs.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There's going to be a revolution at some point with a Bernie-like candidate. Bernie, btw, would have beat the dog doodie out of Trump.

Bernie IS dog doodie.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why not?

Because it does not represent the will of the American people. The primary process ensures that GOP politicians are moving further and further to the right wing fringe, yet the minority of Americans who support their extreme ideologies is shrinking. Look at issues like a higher minimum wage, Medicare, and most ACA provisions, (e.g., preexisting conditions, age 26, etc.) and note how the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with the official GOP position. GOP politicians keep getting elected due to a small number of wedge issues, but the broader GOP platform is increasingly unpopular.

 

[theeedude]

He is just assuming Democrats are going to be too nice to do it. But after what the GOP did with Garland, that's not a safe bet. If GOP can obstruct their way to a majority, Democrats can court-pack their way to one. Again, all it takes is an act of Congress, nothing about 9 justice SCOTUS in the Constitution.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ] She said Heller got it wrong, that's enough for me.

Single-issue voters like you are destroying America. That's not hyperbole. It's a sad fact. By fixating on one issue and ignoring everything else, you enable the election of corrupt ideologues instead of good leaders who are committed to balancing America's many competing issues. This is why the parties push a few, very emotional wedge issues instead of generally good governance.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He is just assuming Democrats are going to be too nice to do it. But after what the GOP did with Garland, that's not a safe bet. If GOP can obstruct their way to a majority, Democrats can court-pack their way to one. Again, all it takes is an act of Congress, nothing about 9 justice SCOTUS in the Constitution.

So if this is accurate why doesn't Donald Trump and the incoming House/Senate just nominate 7 new Supreme Court Justices? Thanks for the tip.

 

[theeedude]

So if this is accurate why doesn't Donald Trump and the incoming House/Senate just nominate 7 new Supreme Court Justices? Thanks for the tip.

He can if he wants to.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

He can if he wants to.

Well it would certainly dilute the impact of the extreme left Justices that Obama brought to the Supreme Court. Worth thinking about.

 

[theeedude]

Well it would certainly dilute the impact of the extreme left Justices that Obama brought to the Supreme Court. Worth thinking about.

Sure, again it's between him and Congress, nothing in the Constitution to stop it, and same for Democrats when they take over.

 

[Maxima1]

Single-issue voters like you are destroying America. That's not hyperbole. It's a sad fact. By fixating on one issue and ignoring everything else, you enable the election of corrupt ideologues instead of good leaders who are committed to balancing America's many competing issues. This is why the parties push a few, very emotional wedge issues instead of generally good governance.

It's pretty pathetic, too, since hunting will still be around (lol Kagan hunted with Scalia), which means at most it affects semi-autos and detachable magazines. The irony is that the 2nd Amendment is only being applied to the states because of the 14th Amendment. The Founders left the states to do what they want with gun regulation as the BoR only limited the federal government. It's also asinine to think that the 14th gives a blanket ban on regulating firearms, too, which wasn't even held until the NRA promoted this baseless claim around the 1970's and on. Even Scalia admits regulation was possible, so it shows how weak the argument is. Many of those same dolts have no problem regulating full-auto even though semi-auto is superior in many situations.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's pretty pathetic, too, since hunting will still be around (lol Kagan hunted with Scalia), which means at most it affects semi-autos and detachable magazines. The irony is that the 2nd Amendment is only being applied to the states because of the 14th Amendment. The Founders left the states to do what they want with gun regulation as the BoR only limited the federal government. It's also asinine to think that the 14th gives a blanket ban on regulating firearms, too, which wasn't even held until the NRA promoted this baseless claim around the 1970's and on. Even Scalia admits regulation was possible, so it shows how weak the argument is. Many of those same dolts have no problem regulating full-auto even though semi-auto is superior in many situations.

As if the new restrictions on ammunition, such as requiring permits and/or waiting periods has nothing to do with it. How about restrictive and extreme taxation on firearms and ammunition? How about extreme storage requirements? How about a reciprocity Bill for concealed carry permits nation wide? Just in case you didn't know the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.