• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will Biden pack the court?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ajay said:
And yet, they do care, as has been made clear in recent interviews, etc.
Click to expand...
You seriously believe this guy cares?
be1cf788216dc2abb192007240efbecf.jpg


Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 
K1052 said:
Here is one of the Obergefell lawyers with a stiff dose of realism now that deep red states might be inclined to move on gay marriage with an obliging court.


View attachment 50435
Click to expand...

Absolute truth there. Centrist Dems need to wtf up, quit pretending their GQP counterparts have any semblance of respect for democracy, realize that gay marriage is one of the more searing wounds to their faith based authoritarian pride. Damn right people ought to be worried. Biden and Dems need to get off their asses, do something. We're dealing with a cult that infects government like covid infects a host, there's no ignoring either of them damn it.

 
K1052 said:
Maintaining the fiction that the court is non-partisan is absolutely essential to the Republican project. That's why people like Thomas and Barrett are out there complaining about their actions being covered accurately and put in context that voters might understand.
Click to expand...
Why is Breyer also making the same claim? That there is a difference of judicial philosophies. Not partisanship or backroom deals.
 
jp7794 said:
They have life terms. Why would they care who approves of what they do?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
They care a bit. There is such a thing as a legacy and its not something you can buy or talk your way into.
Will clarence thomas go down as a conservative stalwart and hero? Or in 50 years will a changed society look back and see him as an unethical caveman who dishonored the robe? They do think a bit about these things. There are SCOTUS judges who held up racism and sexism or allowed for concentration camps in the US and etc and we look back at them with shame. I'm sure that played a role into the decision to let the gay marriage case go through by kennedy a few years ago (he could read the tea leaves with how society was changing and didn't want to look bad as someone holding up progress).
 
Faith in mankind in 2021. How cute.

Their legacy is what I am afraid of.



Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
35ce63f422a3e338cd61f6ab8b36c0ec.jpg
 
Last edited:
zinfamous said:
weird how minority rule and gross imbalance of minority power is an unpopular thing, right?
Click to expand...
Funny people acting like it's a new thing. I grew up in Virginia, when you got 30 miles outside of DC, the IMPEACH EARL WARREN signs were everywhere. Of course I was so young I didn't know what the hub bub was all about.
 
hal2kilo said:
Funny people acting like it's a new thing. I grew up in Virginia, when you got 30 miles outside of DC, the IMPEACH EARL WARREN signs were everywhere. Of course I was so young I didn't know what the hub bub was all about.
Click to expand...

I too am old enough to remember the controversy over the Warren Court. It mostly had to do with conservatives objecting to that court expanding (or really, finally recognizing), the rights of people accused of crimes by the state. In those days, it was pissing and moaning over "criminals getting off on technicalities." That's how they regarded the Constitution, as a "technicality." And where were the "rights of the victims," they cried.

Which is one of many reasons I groan every time I hear conservatives talking about "the Constitution." Dismissing cases because the police search someone's private residence without a warrant or probable cause was disrespecting the rights of victims, but making you wear a mask violates your Constitutional rights.

These people wouldn't know the Constitution if it crawled up and bit them on the ass.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I too am old enough to remember the controversy over the Warren Court. It mostly had to do with conservatives objecting to that court expanding (or really, finally recognizing), the rights of people accused of crimes by the state. In those days, it was pissing and moaning over "criminals getting off on technicalities." That's how they regarded the Constitution, as a "technicality." And where were the "rights of the victims," they cried.

Which is one of many reasons I groan every time I hear conservatives talking about "the Constitution." Dismissing cases because the police search someone's private residence without a warrant or probable cause was disrespecting the rights of victims, but making you wear a mask violates your Constitutional rights.

These people wouldn't know the Constitution if it crawled up and bit them on the ass.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite Onion articles:

www.theonion.com

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for...
www.theonion.com www.theonion.com
 
I've noticed that a republican packed court rarely sides with the nonsensical conservative agenda. So really I dont think its a big deal or a problem.
 
shortylickens said:
I've noticed that a republican packed court rarely sides with the nonsensical conservative agenda. So really I dont think its a big deal or a problem.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine how you'd feel this way.

The republican packed court has, to date, ruled that:

  • Businesses can discriminate however they like so long as they cite religion. Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado
  • Businesses don't need to provide minimal health insurance coverage, so long as they cite religion. Burwell v Hobby Lobby
  • That gerrymandering was A-OK and not undemocratic or vote diluting. Rucho v Common Cause
  • That racism is no longer a thing in the south and thus we should allow them to put in racist voter restrictions and districts. Shelby County v Holder
  • Churches are special places where laws can't apply and apparently disease doesn't exist (Pretty much all the COVID-19 cases involving churches)

They've to date resisted siding with the most extreme of the right wing insanity, but they have not resisted extreme new jurisprudence allowing them to overturn and rewrite years of settled law, just because they don't like it.

And they aren't done yet. 2023, they'll reverse roe v wade. That paves the way for really fun things like allowing states to ban the sale of contraceptives. Don't think they want to do that? See the hobby lobby case where these christian nut jobs think contraceptives are a sin. That's literally the next thing after they overturn roe.
 
Last edited:
Cogman said:
And they aren't done yet. 2023, they'll reverse roe v wade. That paves the way for really fun things like allowing states to ban the sale of contraceptives. Don't think they want to do that? See the hobby lobby case where these christian nut jobs think contraceptives are a sin. That's literally the next thing after they overturn roe.
Click to expand...
No, after Roe vs Wade they are going after Obergefell v. Hodges, they have basically said as much.
If they really want to go after contraceptives, it will be the same ruling as the one that overturns Roe vs Wade, and done under the same premise.
 
SMOGZINN said:
No, after Roe vs Wade they are going after Obergefell v. Hodges, they have basically said as much.
If they really want to go after contraceptives, it will be the same ruling as the one that overturns Roe vs Wade, and done under the same premise.
Click to expand...
All they need is someone to file their challenges through the Fifth Circuit, which has no problems whatsoever ignoring existing precedent.
 
Cogman said:
I can't imagine how you'd feel this way.

The republican packed court has, to date, ruled that:

  • Businesses can discriminate however they like so long as they cite religion. Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado
  • Businesses don't need to provide minimal health insurance coverage, so long as they cite religion. Burwell v Hobby Lobby
  • That gerrymandering was A-OK and not undemocratic or vote diluting. Rucho v Common Cause
  • That racism is no longer a thing in the south and thus we should allow them to put in racist voter restrictions and districts. Shelby County v Holder
  • Churches are special places where laws can't apply and apparently disease doesn't exist (Pretty much all the COVID-19 cases involving churches)

They've to date resisted siding with the most extreme of the right wing insanity, but they have not resisted extreme new jurisprudence allowing them to overturn and rewrite years of settled law, just because they don't like it.

And they aren't done yet. 2023, they'll reverse roe v wade. That paves the way for really fun things like allowing states to ban the sale of contraceptives. Don't think they want to do that? See the hobby lobby case where these christian nut jobs think contraceptives are a sin. That's literally the next thing after they overturn roe.
Click to expand...
Don't forget it also created a huge multi-factor test for the remaining part of the voting rights act that has no basis in the statute and is pretty much designed to let states fuck over minorities.

20 years ago the Supreme Court said that the most important thing was that the recounts needed to stop and that was before the Federalist society had gotten its dark money web fully set up and integrated into the federal judiciary.
 
SMOGZINN said:
No, after Roe vs Wade they are going after Obergefell v. Hodges, they have basically said as much.
If they really want to go after contraceptives, it will be the same ruling as the one that overturns Roe vs Wade, and done under the same premise.
Click to expand...

While Roe was founded on the same principle as the the ruling that prevented state governments from banning contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), it can't be used to immediately make such laws legal. In order for that to happen you'll need some redneck state to pass a contraceptive ban law and have that law challenged up to the SC.

They'll definitely have a good shot of succeeding and they'll cite the mississippi case in support of there "States should be allowed to get involved in the bedroom".

I agree, though, that Obergefell is likely on the docket to be overturned. Just, AFAIK, Utah hasn't passed a new anti-gay marriage law. That has to happen first.
 
ElFenix said:
Don't forget it also created a huge multi-factor test for the remaining part of the voting rights act that has no basis in the statute and is pretty much designed to let states fuck over minorities.

20 years ago the Supreme Court said that the most important thing was that the recounts needed to stop and that was before the Federalist society had gotten its dark money web fully set up and integrated into the federal judiciary.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the Rucho decision was just insane. It puts a lie to every "originalist" on the court claiming to just be reading the text and calling balls and strikes.

They are political activists with agendas and they are barely even trying to hide it now.
 
Well now that the idea of court packing is a thing, you can bet republicans will do exactly that as soon as Donald Trump is back in charge. It doesn't matter that republicans control the high court now, they will want even more control. It is not a matter of will they but a matter of when will they. All they need is this Mitch McConnell congress, and a republican president, then the court will be expanded by republicans with installing republican justice after republican justice.

But until that day, republicans will continue to scare the masses with insisting it is the democrats wanting to do this.
 
sportage said:
Well now that the idea of court packing is a thing, you can bet republicans will do exactly that as soon as Donald Trump is back in charge. It doesn't matter that republicans control the high court now, they will want even more control. It is not a matter of will they but a matter of when will they. All they need is this Mitch McConnell congress, and a republican president, then the court will be expanded by republicans with installing republican justice after republican justice.

But until that day, republicans will continue to scare the masses with insisting it is the democrats wanting to do this.
Click to expand...
With the 5-1-3 split the Republicans don't really want or need to pack anything. Making the USSC 12 or 13 members would just weaken it's power. We'd be better off to take the Senate in 2022 and replace a retired member in 2024 when a Republican gets elected President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top