Here's a Sotomayor quote you won't recognize, ""No matter how liberal I am, I'm still outraged by crimes of violence. Regardless of whether I can sympathize with the causes that lead these individuals to do these crimes, the effects are outrageous." I also didn't know she was nominated to her first judgeship by Bush Sr.
Not looking forward to losing Thomas. He and Scalia are/were outstanding Judges. I don't trust the younger generation. Gorsuch already has gone astray.
Amy will need his knowledge. She will consult her most experimented peers and I’m sure almost always vote with the conservative judges. So keep him there because Knowledge transfer among conservatives is major stuff.
Transgender is listed as a sex/gender in the Constitution? You and Gorsuch must have been issued the New Testament Constitution, as I've never seen it listed.
iirc, Thomas has said he has no plans to retire any time soon.
But maybe if Trump gets another good Constitutionalist onboard, after Amy, he may just change his mind!
Not OP, but Gorsuch uses Positive Law (meaning it has to be in text somewhere) and Thomas uses Natural Law (meaning he judges on philosophy). Scalia was a Positive Law person, Ginsburg a Naturalist.
While Thomas has fortunately been on the correct end most of the time, Natural Law theory has no place on the Supreme Court. After Thomas retires, we should stick exclusively to Positive Law Originalist Intent or Positive Law Original Public Meaning interpreters.
Imo Natural Law is ok so long as it is the natural law of our founding fathers, ie based in the founding values of Christianity, liberty, and those rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Natural law founded this country. Ginsburg's demonic version of natural law should really be called unnatural law.
Positive law is subject to the law makers, which changes with each passing generation. While it makes sense for a judge to rule on positive law (as the law is written), when it comes to striking down laws it may be difficult to do that if only ruling from a positive law standpoint when certain laws are clearly awful for the health and well being of a nation and its citizens. Effectively, positive law can turn into "if it's legal, it's moral" and makes changing poor precedent very difficult.
While I agree with the first paragraph, the argument in the second is flawed: you are still asking for legislation from the bench. That is not the purpose of the courts.
They can rule that a given law is not actually lawful because it violates higher law, that is the majority of the cases that cross the SC. The two highest laws being the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There are many laws in place now that could be struck down entirely because they violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, there is no reason to make an external judgement to 'find a reason' to strike down a dangerous and self destructive policy. Such policies inevitably violate the Constitution in a very clear cut manner that requires pages of mental gymnastics to get around.
But they should not be simply ruling that they don't like a given law because it effects society a certain way. That is where all of our bs problems with judges like RBG and Reeeberts come from. They seem to think the first and second amendments are bad for society and interpret the constitution however they see fit to match whatever ruling they want to make. That isn't a Natural law perspective at all, like you said it's an Unnatural law perspective.
Except for legislating "transgender" into existence as a protected class, when it's really a dangerous mental delusion where men are divorced from even the most blatantly obvious biological reality and live in an imaginary world where they think they are women
I might agree, but people age differently, and with age comes wisdom that is sorely lacking in our politics. Adding an age limit as a means of getting rid of people who have been in politics too long is the wrong solution for the wrong problem.
I don't want young people serving at all if we could help it, while "young over corrupt" seems like an obvious preference, corruption in politics happens over time. The younger they are when they get into politics, the more time they will be exposed to coercion and blackmail attempts.
There should be a minimum age along with a maximum term limit as 'lifetime politicians' are the problem, not their age.
Silly to try to legislate every scenario. Makes more sense to just go back to having the smartest and most successful vote so we have better judgement. You won't be voting between a Communist and a socialist when all the voters are tax payers
Assuming we win this year, Thomas needs to pull a reverse RGB and retire in the next couple of years. No need leaving it up to chance. Especially with Trump being ineligible to run in 2024, the Republican't party is likely to put up someone like JEB! if we're not extra vigilant then all bets are off.
No way will Breyer and Sotomayor give up their seats to Trump. They will go out the RBG route. Thomas and Alito will likely wait until 2023 or 2024. I think they will want to enjoy the Constitutionalist-majority wins for a few years. Winning can be addicting.
Timing depends more on whether we get a Senate majority after this election, and how the 2022 Senate races line up. IIRC the 2022 race is in our favor.
While it's true that this dude is extremely old, if he is even remotely healthy then his "staff" will fulfill all his duties for him. he could still be around for 20~ years
Fucking hell man. We gotta do SOMETHING about cutting these old bastards off at some point. 80 years old? That's insane. They have an army of clerks doing their jobs for them.
When the court was 4 - 4, Roberts made a difference by being a deep-state controlled swing vote.
Now that the court is 5 - 3, Roberts' vote no longer matters as outcomes of 6 - 3 or 5 - 4 are exactly the same. The deep-state control over Roberts is eliminated. I expect to see a lot more 6 - 3 decisions.
And now that it doesn't make any difference, I'd expect Breyer and Sotomayor to start looking at the exit door. Four more years is a long time to wait when you have so few left. Better to spend them at home with family.
That would just leave Kagen as the lone hard core liberal. It won't be a lot of fun to always be on the wrong side of 8 - 1 decisions and having to write all of the desenting opinions. I wouldn't want to work like that, and I'll bet she won't either.
Would Thomas step down? He might, just to make sure the constitutional court holds steady for a few more decades. But it won't change the balance anytime soon.
As much as I would love it if Trump can nominate another six members of the SCOTUS. It is unseemly to do a death watch for every SCOTUS justice. Please do not do this. I know you think it's funny, and it is, but SCOTUS justices should not be subjected to this type of rhetoric. We should never do anything that would even hint that we wanted SCOTUS justices to die. I, just as much as any other right winger, have my doubts about the death of Justice Scalia, but we really need to dial back on the outright death watches for SCOTUS justices. Do not do that.
Sotamayor better keep an eye on her diabeetus
Sodamajor
Prime Rona candidate
I fucking hate that word so much I dont know why. It's an irrational hatred. Maybe the people I heard first saying it made me cringe so hard
It's the reason why we're facing martial law, not irrational.
I mean that nickname. "The 'rona". If it's that dangerous why does it have a cutesy little nickname? These people are lunatics
Is it really that dangerous? I think the world communist dictatorship being rolled out using a cold as an excuse is much more dangerous.
Fat liberal landwhale. Shocking isn't it?
Here's a Sotomayor quote you won't recognize, ""No matter how liberal I am, I'm still outraged by crimes of violence. Regardless of whether I can sympathize with the causes that lead these individuals to do these crimes, the effects are outrageous." I also didn't know she was nominated to her first judgeship by Bush Sr.
She planning a vacations to any fancy ranch resorts?
Nah, just kidding. We’re not democrats.
Oh! That sucks!
With adrenochrome inventories at historical lows, there may be some challenges ahead for the DNC, Hollywood and other elites.
Using that logic, replacing Clarence Thomas would get him 5 fucking scoops!
Not looking forward to losing Thomas. He and Scalia are/were outstanding Judges. I don't trust the younger generation. Gorsuch already has gone astray.
Nobody lives forever. Thomas stepping down will give us another 30 years on SCOTUS instead of some RGB clone
Amy will need his knowledge. She will consult her most experimented peers and I’m sure almost always vote with the conservative judges. So keep him there because Knowledge transfer among conservatives is major stuff.
can he not step down but also consult?
Consult on the actual cases in court.
Well yeah but retire before Trump's 3rd term is up
Transgender is listed as a sex/gender in the Constitution? You and Gorsuch must have been issued the New Testament Constitution, as I've never seen it listed.
🤣
Originalism isn’t applied to statutory law.
iirc, Thomas has said he has no plans to retire any time soon. But maybe if Trump gets another good Constitutionalist onboard, after Amy, he may just change his mind!
Gorsuch is a rock star - IMHO. Thomas, not so much. Breyer? The worst of the worst.
Why do you prefer Gorsuch to Thomas?
Not OP, but Gorsuch uses Positive Law (meaning it has to be in text somewhere) and Thomas uses Natural Law (meaning he judges on philosophy). Scalia was a Positive Law person, Ginsburg a Naturalist.
While Thomas has fortunately been on the correct end most of the time, Natural Law theory has no place on the Supreme Court. After Thomas retires, we should stick exclusively to Positive Law Originalist Intent or Positive Law Original Public Meaning interpreters.
Imo Natural Law is ok so long as it is the natural law of our founding fathers, ie based in the founding values of Christianity, liberty, and those rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Natural law founded this country. Ginsburg's demonic version of natural law should really be called unnatural law.
Positive law is subject to the law makers, which changes with each passing generation. While it makes sense for a judge to rule on positive law (as the law is written), when it comes to striking down laws it may be difficult to do that if only ruling from a positive law standpoint when certain laws are clearly awful for the health and well being of a nation and its citizens. Effectively, positive law can turn into "if it's legal, it's moral" and makes changing poor precedent very difficult.
While I agree with the first paragraph, the argument in the second is flawed: you are still asking for legislation from the bench. That is not the purpose of the courts.
They can rule that a given law is not actually lawful because it violates higher law, that is the majority of the cases that cross the SC. The two highest laws being the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There are many laws in place now that could be struck down entirely because they violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, there is no reason to make an external judgement to 'find a reason' to strike down a dangerous and self destructive policy. Such policies inevitably violate the Constitution in a very clear cut manner that requires pages of mental gymnastics to get around.
But they should not be simply ruling that they don't like a given law because it effects society a certain way. That is where all of our bs problems with judges like RBG and Reeeberts come from. They seem to think the first and second amendments are bad for society and interpret the constitution however they see fit to match whatever ruling they want to make. That isn't a Natural law perspective at all, like you said it's an Unnatural law perspective.
Constitutional law is built upon natural law.
Positive law can be incorrect (see Roe v Wade).
Thomas is the greater jurist.
Natural Law wants to overturn Roe?
Derp
Not an argument.
“X justice has been one of the best justices we’ve ever had but his legal philosophy is bad for us” can easily be summed up as “derp”
Why don’t you like Thomas, Pede?
Except for legislating "transgender" into existence as a protected class, when it's really a dangerous mental delusion where men are divorced from even the most blatantly obvious biological reality and live in an imaginary world where they think they are women
Thomas is absolutely the best justice in the past fifty years.
As long as we keep the senate.
THIS
Interesting. Did he say that?
He's said for years that he doesn't want to die in office.
That may not be up to him
Things happen
Don't forget replacing traitor John Roberts
80 seems a reasonable cap for anyone in politics. I'd prefer younger but President Trump is a Rock star. People should not be dying in their posts.
At the very least, a mental evaluation that is required to be publicly displayed. Americans should know if the official/justice/etc. is all there.
I might agree, but people age differently, and with age comes wisdom that is sorely lacking in our politics. Adding an age limit as a means of getting rid of people who have been in politics too long is the wrong solution for the wrong problem.
I don't want young people serving at all if we could help it, while "young over corrupt" seems like an obvious preference, corruption in politics happens over time. The younger they are when they get into politics, the more time they will be exposed to coercion and blackmail attempts.
There should be a minimum age along with a maximum term limit as 'lifetime politicians' are the problem, not their age.
Silly to try to legislate every scenario. Makes more sense to just go back to having the smartest and most successful vote so we have better judgement. You won't be voting between a Communist and a socialist when all the voters are tax payers
fr, she has a health condition that gives a life expectancy of someone her age only 3 or 4 more years.
If she followed her doctor's advice she could of course live longer but to my eyes she hasn't lost weight since her big health scare a few years ago
And she likes to drink.
average lifespan of a woman with t1 diabetes
Sotomayor is about 66.5 years old
Im wondering if he will retire just because is gonna stop swinging. Need Roberts to retire sooooooo bad also. 6 scoooooooooooops!
If re-elected then GEOTUS stands to be able to make appointments to replace:
Breyer, if he wants to retire and realizes the dems won't win in 2024 either
Thomas, if he wants a well-deserved retirement
Roberts, after his extortion comes to light and he resigns
Sotomayor, she's an obese diabetic
Kagan, if it comes to light that she was a go-between in the extortion of Roberts
That's the best possible outcome. The likely outcome is that GEOTUS will get to make one or two more appointments.
I like your optimism. But can't do any of it unless we hold the Senate. VOTE!
True, but in 2022 there's a lot more dem seats up for election.
That's a little over optimistic. I think the best case scenario for his 2nd term is Thomas, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Maybe Alito if he wants.
No way Roberts or Kagan step down.
Kagan would never, true. Roberts, we'll see, as it depends on the nature of the extortion.
Unfortunately this is a pipe dream.
Well, I'm going to dream that. And I do dream that. It's a great dream. But the pipe I leave to Hunter.
It'll be a sad day losing based Thomas. I really hope he's browsed this site before.
Thoughts on Alito? He's got a lot of life left.
There was a rumor that Alito was stepping down this past summer. Turns out it was BS or he changed his mind I guess.
I'd be good with reducing a certain 2% demographic's 22% representation in the SCOTUS (was 33% before RBG assumed room temperature).
Don't forget the crypto. When the vote is wrong, it was always 3 Jews, a crypto, and Roberts
:o -why can't i hold all these supreme court justice picks
Assuming we win this year, Thomas needs to pull a reverse RGB and retire in the next couple of years. No need leaving it up to chance. Especially with Trump being ineligible to run in 2024, the Republican't party is likely to put up someone like JEB! if we're not extra vigilant then all bets are off.
Thomas is getting up there. So probably 5 scoops
I think the the supreme court will endup being six scoops.
Breyer + Alito and Thomas ( making sure to keep those seats conservative for the next several decades)
There's a reason "Breyer" rhymes with "Traitor"
Put Alex Jones on SCOTUS. He will never fail the constitution!
No way will Breyer and Sotomayor give up their seats to Trump. They will go out the RBG route. Thomas and Alito will likely wait until 2023 or 2024. I think they will want to enjoy the Constitutionalist-majority wins for a few years. Winning can be addicting.
If there looks like any chance GOP could lose the Senate in the midterms they should retire so Trump can get them replaced first.
Timing depends more on whether we get a Senate majority after this election, and how the 2022 Senate races line up. IIRC the 2022 race is in our favor.
Gotta hold the senate in 2022
While it's true that this dude is extremely old, if he is even remotely healthy then his "staff" will fulfill all his duties for him. he could still be around for 20~ years
Lets push him over the edge (to retire) with a massive Trump re-election!
Top that with the goodies and make a Sundae
Fucking hell man. We gotta do SOMETHING about cutting these old bastards off at some point. 80 years old? That's insane. They have an army of clerks doing their jobs for them.
Funny how the left is now fighting for and endorsing "old white males."
Would rather it be Roberts tbh.
When the court was 4 - 4, Roberts made a difference by being a deep-state controlled swing vote.
Now that the court is 5 - 3, Roberts' vote no longer matters as outcomes of 6 - 3 or 5 - 4 are exactly the same. The deep-state control over Roberts is eliminated. I expect to see a lot more 6 - 3 decisions.
And now that it doesn't make any difference, I'd expect Breyer and Sotomayor to start looking at the exit door. Four more years is a long time to wait when you have so few left. Better to spend them at home with family.
That would just leave Kagen as the lone hard core liberal. It won't be a lot of fun to always be on the wrong side of 8 - 1 decisions and having to write all of the desenting opinions. I wouldn't want to work like that, and I'll bet she won't either.
Would Thomas step down? He might, just to make sure the constitutional court holds steady for a few more decades. But it won't change the balance anytime soon.
The next four years are going to be a lot of fun!
two scoops to the two scoops
math checks out
As much as I would love it if Trump can nominate another six members of the SCOTUS. It is unseemly to do a death watch for every SCOTUS justice. Please do not do this. I know you think it's funny, and it is, but SCOTUS justices should not be subjected to this type of rhetoric. We should never do anything that would even hint that we wanted SCOTUS justices to die. I, just as much as any other right winger, have my doubts about the death of Justice Scalia, but we really need to dial back on the outright death watches for SCOTUS justices. Do not do that.