RBG Replacement Supreme Court Appointment megathread

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
3,462
Likes
4,582
Location
western mass
Agreed there were so many good 2A cases and in the end our own courts wouldn't defend our civil liberties. At this point I'll make it a give and take. If abortion is severely curtailed but gun rights expanded, I'll take it. Hell if it takes a 9-0 court to fix gun rights, then so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
7,376
Likes
4,629
Agreed there were so many good 2A cases and in the end our own courts wouldn't defend our civil liberties.
I find myself wondering whether if we get that next seat,
the court will suddenly flip and start taking 2A cases
(and ruling the right way on them).

In other words, we are told that on a closely divided court,
both sides shy away from rolling the dice on some issues.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
5,027
Likes
3,248
Roberts is still controlled opposition. I don't know how much relative power he wields in a 'real' 5-4 court. I'm not sure one more good one gets us 5 solid justices.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
739
Likes
791
So it takes just 4 justices to consent to take a case and then with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and with the addition of Coney Barrett the Chief J can rule with the liberals all he wants that fake conservative globalist neocon turd
 

Brewer

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
2,734
Likes
6,575
Location
Erebor
So it takes just 4 justices to consent to take a case and then with Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and with the addition of Coney Barrett the Chief J can rule with the liberals all he wants that fake conservative globalist neocon turd
In that scenario Roberts may retire to preserve his “legacy” that matters to him more than judicial consistency. Saves him from ending his career in the minority of a bunch of conservative and constitutionalist rulings.

Probably just my wishful thinking — he’s only 65.
 

Super99Z

NES Member
Rating - 50%
1   1   0
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
5,343
Likes
5,802
Location
South Shore
In that scenario Roberts may just retire to preserve his “legacy” that matters to him more than judicial consistency. Or maybe that’s my wishful thinking — he’s only 65.
The normal age every other profession tries to retire, but if you're screwing over the people then you want to be in there until you're 90! I suppose its to make sure their crimes are never found out.
 

Brewer

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
2,734
Likes
6,575
Location
Erebor
The normal age every other profession tries to retire, but if you're screwing over the people then you want to be in there until you're 90! I suppose its to make sure their crimes are never found out.
I don’t know, I’m no ideologue like RBG and want to enjoy retirement, but Roberts was appointed at 50 and only served 15 years so far. I’d squeeze out a few more with an opportunity like the SCOTUS.
 

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
6,440
Likes
5,265
Location
North of Boston
I don’t know, I’m no ideologue like RBG and want to enjoy retirement, but Roberts was appointed at 50 and only served 15 years so far. I’d squeeze out a few more with an opportunity like the SCOTUS.
65 yrs old with 15 yrs on the bench full retirement benefits for life. Same for 70/10 yrs.
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
36,131
Likes
25,880
Roberts is still controlled opposition. I don't know how much relative power he wields in a 'real' 5-4 court. I'm not sure one more good one gets us 5 solid justices.
is it not the PRESIDENT's choice on who is chief justice?
If i am not mistaking, Trump can just say "Kavanugh is chief now"

edit: nope, the president appoints the chief justice, but can not change who a sitting chief justice is:
A Chief Justice appointment may be made only when there is, or is scheduled to be, a vacancy in the position of Chief Justice; the President may not use the occasion of an Associate Justice vacancy to appoint someone to replace a sitting Chief Justice.

Trump would have to "Scalia" justice Roberts, and that is not Trump's style.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
5,027
Likes
3,248
is it not the PRESIDENT's choice on who is chief justice?
If i am not mistaking, Trump can just say "Kavanugh is chief now"

edit: nope, the president appoints the chief justice, but can not change who a sitting chief justice is:
A Chief Justice appointment may be made only when there is, or is scheduled to be, a vacancy in the position of Chief Justice; the President may not use the occasion of an Associate Justice vacancy to appoint someone to replace a sitting Chief Justice.

Trump would have to "Scalia" justice Roberts, and that is not Trump's style.
If Trump has access to whatever dirt is on Roberts maybe he could be persuaded to retire early rather than face the shame...
 

Brewer

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
2,734
Likes
6,575
Location
Erebor
I don’t see how congress can amend the constitution with just a bill. I would think that this would require a constitutional amendment, period?
It’s just a symbolic political gesture to fire up their base. Would be nice if it backfired by reminding people why SCOTUS has lifetime appointments: to help them function outside politics.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
24,783
Likes
19,385
I don’t see how congress can amend the constitution with just a bill. I would think that this would require a constitutional amendment, period?
1. They are retarded.
2. They hate this country.
3. Their goal is to bring out the emotions and anger amongst the retards that follow them. They know people are too stupid, so when the bill gets shut down they will use it to bitch about Rs and how evil they are, rinse and repeat.

If all these people went home for 6 months and did absolutely nothing, you would see how everything would improve in this country.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
34,729
Likes
19,297
Location
PREM
If Trump has access to whatever dirt is on Roberts maybe he could be persuaded to retire early rather than face the shame...
How about during the first year of Trump's second term? I bet he could get two, maybe three more appointments in during his second term.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,243
Likes
14,784
In that scenario Roberts may retire to preserve his “legacy” that matters to him more than judicial consistency. Saves him from ending his career in the minority of a bunch of conservative and constitutionalist rulings.

Probably just my wishful thinking — he’s only 65.
But he also has a history of seizures since joining the court so he's got an easy out......"Retiring to spend time with family"

Although the way things are looking.....if he really was on the pedo flights he's not gonna have any choice but to step down
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
7,376
Likes
4,629
I don’t see how congress can amend the constitution with just a bill. I would think that this would require a constitutional amendment, period?
Sure, sure; but hold that thought...

Daily Caller: House Democrats Preparing Bill To Impose Term Limits On Supreme Court
Sometime in the past decade
when the Donks were the majority
in one side of Congress or the other,
they filed a few manifestly dumbass bills to troll Republicans.

The GOP actually had the stones to turn out and vote Yea en masse.
The Donks had to do heavy lifting
("hurr-durr, this was a mere expression of legislative intent...")
to kill their own bill,
and in the process looked to everyone just like the idiots they really are.


So please rush that sucker to the floor.
What you want is a hasty bill with a blind spot
where Trump can turn around and re-nominate Thomas
(or whatever other conservative they're trying to broom),
and not re-nominate Breyer
(or whatever other moonbat their moonbat scheme forces them to sacrifice, in pursuit of Thomas).

Pass the House, send it to the Senate.

As the GOP Senate considers it (or maybe even after they pass it pro-forma),
let Trump hold up the bill for the cameras;
express doubts about its constitutionality;
and explain how he will use it to remove the moonbat deadwood from the Court.

Donk Heads Explode.

He could even lob a grenade at Roberts by signing it.
Someone would try and get the law ruled unconstitutional,
but SCOTUS would have a conflict of interest - could they rule on it?
 

xjma99

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
7,818
Likes
7,299
Location
NH
Sure, sure; but hold that thought...


Sometime in the past decade
when the Donks were the majority
in one side of Congress or the other,
they filed a few manifestly dumbass bills to troll Republicans.

The GOP actually had the stones to turn out and vote Yea en masse.
The Donks had to do heavy lifting
("hurr-durr, this was a mere expression of legislative intent...")
to kill their own bill,
and in the process looked to everyone just like the idiots they really are.


So please rush that sucker to the floor.
What you want is a hasty bill with a blind spot
where Trump can turn around and re-nominate Thomas
(or whatever other conservative they're trying to broom),
and not re-nominate Breyer
(or whatever other moonbat their moonbat scheme forces them to sacrifice, in pursuit of Thomas).

Pass the House, send it to the Senate.

As the GOP Senate considers it (or maybe even after they pass it pro-forma),
let Trump hold up the bill for the cameras;
express doubts about its constitutionality;
and explain how he will use it to remove the moonbat deadwood from the Court.

Donk Heads Explode.

He could even lob a grenade at Roberts by signing it.
Someone would try and get the law ruled unconstitutional,
but SCOTUS would have a conflict of interest - could they rule on it?
You’re a smart cookie, or an evil genius. Either way, I want you working for The Don as a strategist!!
 

PeterC

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
291
Likes
338
Location
Southern NH
Ok, so getting an Amendment on track means initiating a Constitutional Convention, right ? I think then all bets are off and all kinds of additional Amendments (oh, let's abolish the 2nd now, shall we ?) can be added to the Agenda. Is it worth opening that can of worms to get this, relatively, hamstrung Amendment passed ?

 

PennyPincher

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
13,314
Likes
6,539
Location
Texas
Ok, so getting an Amendment on track means initiating a Constitutional Convention, right ? I think then all bets are off and all kinds of additional Amendments (oh, let's abolish the 2nd now, shall we ?) can be added to the Agenda. Is it worth opening that can of worms to get this, relatively, hamstrung Amendment passed ?

NO. You don't need a convention to propose an amendment
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
2,319
Likes
1,529
Are we all in agreement that Amy Barrett is going to be the nominee? I don't like the sound of this Lagoa from Florida or whatever her name is. She sounds like Roberts with a kunt.
 
Top Bottom