If the Constitutional Convention is eliminated then, yes, we would have zero controls to fix this. Until such time we still have the means to do so even with a compromised SCOTUS, a duty-abandoned Congress, and a corrupt Executive.
This one single thing? Of course not. But we have witnessed much, much, much more than this "one single thing" threatening the future of our democracy. The Supreme Court was our last federal line of defense. The judiciary was the one branch of government that wasn't controlled by his loyalists. That's why losing the balance of the Supreme Court is so catastrophic.
Does anyone know if there is a list being updated to list everything bad Trump has done? I'm gonna need it.
https://twitter.com/VP/status/1012077857563119617
You always do this thing where you get into the weeds of minutiae of one particular issue and you end up losing the main point.
So answer directly to this point
Do you think we should consider the tolerance and neutrality of a government official when it comes to decisions that affect individual freedoms?
Ignore the politics of the court, pretend they're aliens from outer space.
I would say now that the nuclear options out for SCOTUS members imagine the screaming when the next Dem president picks justices, but.
Voting rights are going to get destroyed by the Trump court and GOP will be the only option outside of the coastal blue states.
Is this a true statement or not?
Also, here are some quotes directly from the court's decision:
"(b) Plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the Proclamation was religious animus and that the president's stated concerns about vetting protocols an national security were but pretexts for discriminating against Muslims. At the heart of their case in a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the campaign and since the president assumed office. The issue, however is not whether to denounce the President's statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential direction, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, the Court must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself. (pg. 4, section b)
(c) The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a "fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control." Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792. Although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. Citizen. That review is limited to whether the Executive gives a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason for its action, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769, but the Court need not define the precise contours of that narrow inquiry in this case. For today's purposes, the Court assumes that it may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review, i.e., whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government's stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. Plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence may be considered, but the policy will be upheld so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds." (pg 4-5, https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4560018-SCOTUS-Trump-v-Hawaii)
The case goes on to talk about the issue in more depth. So, no, they didn't simply state it as "irrelevant." They gave an in depth reasoning as to why it wasn't enough to strike down the travel ban.
As a side note, can you start citing your quotes with links and page numbers?
lmao go shock yourself, cunt
I heard Pence is a Christian dominionist, is that true?
People around pence have said he claims to hear the word of god directly sometimes. Dude is a fucking nutter and wants America to become a christian/jewish nation.
Pence would throw Jesus under the bus in a second if Trump asked him to. He's incapable of forming an independent thought without daddys approval.
Okay i'm feeling less hysterical (thanks for the nice words @AnastasiaOccult ) and while this is extremely bad (wtf Kennedy had hired clerks for the next judicial term) this is not as bad as it can be.
Roberts can be a swing vote, apparently he cares about the court's public image (lol) and has sided with liberals on the ACA and cell phone privacy. He also has no intention of doing anything to Roe v. Wade.
Secondly Gorsuch siding with liberals is not unprecedented like that one time with immigration.
Schumer needs to butter Trump up with starbursts and give him some wall money for another Garland or Kennedy type.
But we fixed the ozone layer and that issue isn’t a problem anymore
If Christ rose again today, the Trump party would call him a Libcuck and a traitor and make threats on his life. There's nothing Christian about the brutality and depravity of Cult 45 or their sycophantic enablers.
if we get another Gorsuch, we should consider ourselves lucky
Neil Gorsuch was a really good pick and makes me think that the next pick won't be a nutbag. I'm optimisitic.
Reminds me of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t28TXvRPpW8
Oh hey, I loved that game! Cool that we get to play it for real now.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107267/b7569fba-2b4f-460b-9a48-a8e63cbca0d5/LCS.png
We've had stacked courts before, who've made terrible decisions and the nation has held fine.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court cares about how the public perceives it. Roe v. Wade was actually a barely talked about Supreme Court case, the given decision was considered a shock as it truly came out of nowhere.
Suffice to say, we'll have to wait and see and for Christ's Sake, vote in people who share leftist ideas or even conservatives willing to talk to those on the left. Elect people willing to discuss and believe in facts.
It's pretty funny how this works. They block Obama's Supreme Court nominee for 293 days, by far the longest nomination left waiting but now they are in a rush to get another justice confirmed before the midterms. The reason being that they wanted to make sure the court was balanced, replacing the late Scalia with another conservative justice. Now that Kennedy (considered a moderate but who's recent record seems to lean conservative) is retiring the POTUS wants a strict constitutionalist. Hey does anyone remember when several high ranking Republicans outright said that they would refuse to confirm any Clinton nomination regardless of who it actually was?
There are people on FP right now who will seriously try to say that both parties are the same and it's utterly bewildering.
Just to be clear: a strict Constitutionalist would be outraged every single day by Donald Trump's rhetoric, actions, corruptions, and crime. What the GOP wants is NOT a Constitutionalist. What they want is a loyalist who will place the party agenda OVER the rule of law.
Gorsuch was a clerk for Kennedy, at least I doubt any of the people on the orange's list are Trump loyalists like in Congress.
yes because the man who believes corporate property rights comes before your life was such an esteamed choice.
the fucking federalist society is one of the most dangerous groups out there, increasingly rubberstamping everything in the name of some mystical conservative gobblygoo and then whatever they say gets rubberstamped by congress.
Who cares about reality anymore? The Cult of Trump certainly doesn't.
I'd rather die trying to preserve the world's oldest democracy than live to watch it die.
Trump should do the unexpected thing and appoint Obama
Actually not unprecedented, Taft became Chief Justice after being president.
I hope Ginsburg lives till 2020 through sheer force of will and duty.
also man this guy
https://www.axios.com/trump-anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-democrats-judges-7d3e8cc9-b3b1-4190-9b95-499f02429237.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
Partisanship has gotten so bad each side thinks the other will ruin the country and destroy freedoms.
I couldn't find big enough quotation marks to put around "constitutionalist" so I didn't bother.
the difference here is only one party actually has the power to do so right now
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
