SCOTUS Vacancy

Quote: AZDuffman

SCOTUS is not supposed to be what it has become, but since Roe the left thinks it is a "do over" for Congress if they do not "get it right." Note how they claim one party "controls" it.

i believe the opposite. Things work exactly as designed. That doesn't mean they always work as intended.

Quote: SOOPOO

I agree that if RBG KNEW Trump was going to win she would have resigned when Obama could replace her. She rolled the dice.... and LOST! I think that the power of the Supreme Court is overstated. I’d go President>Congress>Supreme Court>the people.

RBG was making decisions over her career that were not about politics. Her time on the bench was about midway compared to her colleagues. The nature of the position requires a certain randomness about your retirement date.

Judges that have retired or died since 1970
15.5 Lewis Franklin Powell
16.5 John Marshall Harlan II
17.3 Warren E. Burger (CJ)
18.7 David Souter
22.7 Potter Stewart
24.0 Thurgood Marshall
24.2 Harry Blackmun
24.4 Sandra Day O'Connor
27.1 Ruth Bader Ginsberg ----------------------------------------
29.4 Antonin Scalia
30.4 Anthony Kennedy
31.2 Byron White
33.7 William Rehnquist (CJ)
33.8 William J. Brennan Jr.
34.1 Hugo Black
34.5 John Paul Stevens
36.6 William O. Douglas

Quote: rxwine

i believe the opposite. Things work exactly as designed. That doesn't mean they always work as intended.

The court was not designed to be a political thing. The left has made it one. Judges were never supposed to be activist. We have allowed that to happen. Both to bad results.

Quote: AZDuffman

The court was not designed to be a political thing. The left has made it one. Judges were never supposed to be activist. We have allowed that to happen. Both to bad results.

Meh. They let religion guide their decisions, then they stopped doing that, then they moved even more left.

Quote: Mission146

Meh. They let religion guide their decisions, then they stopped doing that, then they moved even more left.

Let religion guide? How? When?

Quote: AZDuffman

Let religion guide? How? When?

Could have ruled the way they did on gay marriage sooner, for one thing. They declined to hear a particular case in the 70’s, even though the ability to be married has implications that relate directly to the Federal Government, which gives SCOTUS subject matter jurisdiction.

Anyway, this allowed any number of states to define marriage any way they wanted to, which was mostly how the churches defined it, for about four unnecessary decades. What should have been immediately recognized was the fact that the Government and the Church(es) were just using the same word to describe two different concepts.

Quote: Mission146

Could have ruled the way they did on gay marriage sooner, for one thing. They declined to hear a particular case in the 70’s, even though the ability to be married has implications that relate directly to the Federal Government, which gives SCOTUS subject matter jurisdiction.

Religion did not enter into the gay marriage decision. Biology did. Law did.

Quote:

Anyway, this allowed any number of states to define marriage any way they wanted to, which was mostly how the churches defined it, for about four unnecessary decades. What should have been immediately recognized was the fact that the Government and the Church(es) were just using the same word to describe two different concepts.

How *churches* defined it? How about HOW ALMOST EVERY PLACE ON THE PLANET DEFINED IT.

People want to blame religion for societies being down on homosexuality. Reality is it was looked down upon in most every society. Because of the problems it causes, one big one being gay men going after youths. Religions understood this and worked it into their teachings. It is not that religious leaders had a meeting one day and decided on it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Religion did not enter into the gay marriage decision. Biology did. Law did.

How *churches* defined it? How about HOW ALMOST EVERY PLACE ON THE PLANET DEFINED IT.

People want to blame religion for societies being down on homosexuality. Reality is it was looked down upon in most every society. Because of the problems it causes, one big one being gay men going after youths. Religions understood this and worked it into their teachings. It is not that religious leaders had a meeting one day and decided on it.

The hell does biology have to do with tax implications?

As far as definitions are concerned, definitions evolve. Social contracts change. If things didn’t change, we might be drawing crude symbols on the wall of a cave to have this conversation.

Not concerned with what the perspective of the religions is, in a few generations, they’ll be completely irrelevant. Although, some that we won’t mention by name seem to be really good at covering for people going after youths.

Quote: Mission146

The hell does biology have to do with tax implications?

Because marriage was supposed to be about man and woman joining and starting a family. As to tax implications, you never heard of the marriage penalty? Save me the "couples who do not have kids." It is still about biology. One union is biologically correct, the other is not. Frankly I am done with the conversation.

Quote:

Not concerned with what the perspective of the religions is, in a few generations, they’ll be completely irrelevant. Although, some that we won’t mention by name seem to be really good at covering for people going after youths.

In 3 generations mankind begins its 1000 year path to extinction. Without religion said path will be faster IMHO. Religious people tend to plan for the next generation more than atheists.

ACB will get hammered on this by the Dems
She remarks that replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal Justice would upset the makeup of the Court
If she is nominated, I think the Dems will quote this remark and ask how replacing a liberal Justice with a conservative Justice such as herself does not upset the makeup of the Court

I am Team Lagoa