America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I was hoping he'd nominate her when he nominated Kavanaugh... but hey, she got in.

Congratulations to her and the constitution.

Robert, don't blame Obama, blame RBG. She was clearly ill and could have retired while Obama was in office to avoid what has just happened. Justice Kennedy did exactly that while President Trump was in office.

Amen! Great news for The Constitution.

OK, so spit it out, what critical social views/legal opinions that she has differs from yours?

The real problem is the idea that the general public holds (for no other reason than they've been told to believe it by their respective partisan propagandists) that the federal judiciary is where the buck stops, the majority ruling of these 9 robed lawyers is the final arbiter of what laws are constitutional or not.
That was never the way it was intended, but Jefferson, Madison and others did recognise early on that the Supreme Court could and would likely be used at times by activist judges to sanctify unconstitutional federal policies, that the court as an arm of the federal government would be used to judge the extent of the federal governments own powers.
Of course they were spot on as it happened within their lifetimes, most notably with the Alien and Sedition Acts and many times since.

My comment referred to the entire federal judiciary, not the SC.

The President has said more than once that he wanted a woman to fill a women's spot.

He just might get 2 more appointed to the Supreme Court.

Oh ya, add more leftist judges that will be defacto legislators and rubber stamps to all sorts of unconstitutional stuff. That will fix everything.

If Harry Reid kept the standard at 60 senators McConnell would not have made it for all judges. McCONNELL gave Obama every Supreme Court nominee he wanted.

Packing the court is political suicide. It’s an extreme overreach and it will have extreme repercussions.

District judges only rule in their district, not for the rest of the country, it's not their district.





Nine-teen

The Constitution is very clear regarding separation of powers. It specifically states what branch is responsible for making laws. It does not grant the SCOTUS the ability to make law or policy. That’s left to Congress. It also, provides a path for a super majority to make changes to itself. It would seem to me that an activist SCOTUS violates the articles. If the SCOTUS is allowed to do that then it delegitimizes itself.

The same effect happens when a political party attempts to manipulate the size of the court to get a more friendly decision. Litigants all other courts aren’t allowed to shop for a friendly judge. If the court is packed by either party it essentially accomplished the same thing.

Reid dropped the 60 vote majority rule in order to get circuit and appeals court judges confirmed. It’s no surprise McConnell did the same for SCOTUS justices. I’d like to see that return. Perhaps even a 2/3rds majority. It would for everyone to put partisanship on the back burner. Once the open seats reach a certain level they will start getting voted out.

In a perfect world, none of them would.

I agree with you on this Ant...but it omits that McConnell flouted the rules of the Senate to prevent a duly elected executive branch to exercise its authority to appoint judges...the process was supposed to take some element of partisanship out and replace it with bipartisan advise and consent...pure obstructionism

Al, McConnell certainly used the rules to the Republicans advantage. But he worked within the rules in a totally legal manner. Maybe, just maybe all 3 of these SCOTUS members are constitutionalists. That would be great. I don't care about their politics, I don't care about their religion, I do care that they reach decisions based on the constitution, that is the only concern anyone should have.

DITTO!!!

I see a speck in your eye, that's bad. Don't worry about the log mine, it's fine.