Posted on 02/04/2017 9:49:50 AM PST by Enterprise
We are at the threshhold of appointing a Judge to the Supreme Court who will replace the late Justice Scalia. This will give the court, once again, a 5-4 conservative advantage.
In essence, it puts the balance back the way it was before the unfortunate passing of Justice Scalia. However, with the election of President Trump, he could conceivably replace both Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, giving conservatives a huge lock on the USSC for decades! But it didn't have to be this way.
When Obama was elected, it was assured that with a pretty much solid Senate vote, he was going to be able to appoint as many liberal Judges as vacancies arose. This was the point at which Ginsburg and Breyer should have taken one for the team, and retired. It would have enabled Obama to appoint four solid leftists who would have been on the court for a very lengthy time.
At the time, it didn't make for much of a difference. But now, in hindsight, it was a dreadful miscalculation, and as I wrote before, it can give President Trump an opportunity that no other conservative U.S. President has had in my lifetime.
Now you might be thinking, well sure, but that doesn't mean that in the future, the Democrats will roll over and confirm any other nominees without a scorched earth fight. That would be true, but what if in the next election President Trump gets a 60 seat or better Senate? Now how does the selfishness of Ginsburg and Breyer look? Thoughts?
By it’s very duty of protecting the constitution, the court SHOULD BE 100% conservative.
That’s the point of conservatism in the United States.
Nice remarks....makes total sense.
Question.......there were several huge cases that were supposed to go before SCOTUS when Scalia died....
These cases probably would have been found to be favorable for Conservatives.
I think one case was a Right-to-Work and so on......
When Scalia died, they were left to stand without moving to SCOTUS.
Does anyone know if these cases can now move to SCOTUS?
Or, are they now not able to move to SCOTUS?
I want Ruthie and Breyer gone as quickly as possible, but I hardly think they are selfish for wanting to stay on, especially the last couple of years when it looked like Hitlery would take over.
Don’t forget the two morons obozo appointed.They are the two worst of the four and need to be replaced now, but it’ll never happen.
Trump should be calling for Roberts the Traitor to resign and should have refused to let him swear him in.
It’s my understanding that Kennedy is planning to retire in June. That is when President Trump will appoint Harriman. President Trump will probably appoint 4 justices in his first term. I’m hoping for 3 before 2018
This point shouldn’t be glossed over. Conservatives are not pushing some ideology. All they stand for is original intent. That we be guided by the supreme law of the land—the US Constitution. And that judges simply interpret the document as it is written.
Liberals, on the other hand, are marinated in ideology, completely unmoored from the Constitution. That’s why there is so much dissonance in their platform. They want to make up the rules as they go along to suit their social engineering goals. They have no core.
We have the Divinely inspired Constitution.
The appointment of Gorsuch means there will be three reliably conservative justices on the court. That’s it.
I have read several analysis indicating that the democrats will not go scorched earth on Neil Gorsuch because they have 10 senators up for re-election in 2018 in red states that voted Trump.
Their strategists are not unaware that the Republicans obstructed Garland for a year but gained 13 senate seats and that obstructing Gorsuch may not play out the same way for them because the majority do not like activist judges and disagree with legislating social issues from the bench.
Your point should be repeated and emphasized. The two recent USSC appointees were chosen, not because they would uphold the Constitution as their role requires, but because they would act in opposition to the Constitution if desired and would put ideology before the Constitution. To them, the Constitution is irrelevant to their decisions and that is why they were apppointed to the Court.
Conservatism is the job of a USSC justice—by definition and by oath.
By it’s very duty of protecting the constitution, the court SHOULD BE 100% conservative.
*********************************
I completely agree.
But even here on Free Republic, the most conservative site on the Web, there are many who won’t protect the Constitution because it says that their favorite politician can’t be President.
The Kenyanesian Usurpation should have been proof enough for anyone of the wisdom of the founders that only a natural born citizen, naturally a citizen because they were born here of citizen parents, solely an American, could not possibly be anything else, no divided loyalties, may be President.
The last thing those 10 Senators want is to have the Supreme Court as a campaign issue in 2018. With 60+ seats in site and the behavior of the left so far, Republicans are already going to be energized in 2018. A Supreme Court nominee or two being held up will only super-charge the Republican base further to turn out.
On the flip side however, they know much of their Liberal base are the Low Information voters who are generally too busy Keeping up with the Kardashians and watching Dancing with the Stars to pay attention to and show up for boring mid-terms, so they are already at a huge disadvantage in 2018.
So the best strategy for these Democrats is grumble a little but ultimately let Trump’s nominee’s pass and stay under the radar the best they can and hope Trump screws up.
They see it coming.
I think they will commit sedition and armed insurrection before they let it happen.
All they stand for is original intent.
*************************************
I wish that were true.
There are many right here that want to take advantage of Precedent Obama and run ineligible candidates.
Rubio, Jindal and Cruz have already tried and likely will again.
Haley and George P. Bush are waiting in the wings.
Pardon?
Garland was not obstructed for a year. Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Garland Merrick was not nominated until April.
Then they’re not conservatives. They’re just Republicans.
Cruz I could argue about. For all of his flaws, he is a strict constructionist.
Not if he thinks he is eligible to be President.
He was born in Canada.
His father was a foreign national.
That’s two strikes where only one is needed.
Maybe he can be convinced to, "take one for the team," if the lefties refuse to leave.
Obama strongly hinted to Ginsburg "vacate her seat," but either she felt him unworthy and too unintelligent to pick a good one but wanted her fav Hillary, the "smartest woman in the world" to choose her replacement, not the black guy!
This means Thomas and Kennedy should resign as soon as the nuclear option is engaged and Trump is still President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.