What if the Supreme Court Were Liberal? [Constitutional Positive Rights Here We Come]

The Atlantic ^ | April 6, 2015 | Erwin Chemerinsky

[C19fan]

What might it mean to have five justices on the Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic presidents? Since 1970, the year Harry Blackmun received Senate confirmation, there always have been at least five justices appointed by a Republican president on the Court. If Merrick Garland is confirmed to replace Antonin Scalia, he will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan as Democratic appointees to the high Court.

[C19fan]

Usually Left wing wish list including eviscerating the 1st and 2nd Amendments. But this is this money quote:

The possibility of five or six Democratic justices allows one to imagine what might be done in other areas. Might the Court find a constitutional right to education and conclude that disparities in school funding violate the Constitution? Might the Court find that the racial injustices in the criminal-justice system violate equal protection?

The first would mean the Constitution has been totally perverted to a document conveying what are called Positive Rights, i.e., the right for free stuff at tax payer expense. The 2nd would mean what is called disparate impact could be a basis to overturn any law that somehow appears to have a negative effect based on race as unconstitutional. If those types of rulings come down and the GOP controls Congress than impeachment is in order.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It will mean an end to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Liberals will be inventing rights where none existed before and we’ll all have to pay for them.

[jdege]

The reason we oppose positive rights isn’t because we think that they’re bad ideas - it’s because the concept is self-contradictory.

[Tzimisce]

Our Constitution is already gone.

But liberal court would let Democrat politicians give up all pretense of acting like they care about the Constitution.

[BenLurkin]

SCOTUS is already well to the left of “liberal”.

[DuncanWaring]

Here’s the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obAtn6I5rbY

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

And we've got loads of FReepers who are going to sit this one out if their preferred candidate doesn't win the nomination.

Guess that'll show us....

[Michael.SF.]

Chemerensky was likely under consideration for SCOTUS, he is reported to be liberal, but also fair and not an ideologue.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

TRANSLATION: Instead of the US feral government being limited to the powers enumerated in the US Constitution, its powers encompass everything that is not enumerated in the US Constitution too.

[JimRed]

...he is reported to be liberal, but also fair and not an ideologue.

Impossible; mutually exclusive. Fair and non-ideolgic do not describe a liberal.

[wild74]

My view is the Court is considered Conservative but we have lost at every turn from Obama care IE Roberts to Homosexual Marriage IE Kennedy. Losing this election will turn the court liberal for a long time, Ginsburg will probably die on the pot and Kennedy has spoke of retirement, so look at it like you will be replacing two conservatives if you can call Kennedy conservative and one hack job liberal

[SoCal Pubbie]

If you have ever heard Chemerensky of the Hugh Hewitt Show then you’d know he is a FLAMING ideologue.

[Sans-Culotte]

If/when Garland is confirmed I will consider him a “Republican appointee” because it will be only by their grace that he is confirmed. At the point, the GOP will be dead to me (they’re on life support now).

[PGR88]

The growth of the State, which is the same as the growth of the progressive-left movement has one source - money.

Our fiat, unbacked, centrally planned money supply supports centralization and the state in all its forms through massive debt and movement of money through favored channels. Would you imagine that our Federal Reserve has an indirect hand in abortion or religious rights? Yes, it absolutely does, through maintaining the power of the Federal Government.

[Buckeye McFrog]

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights would become enshrined Constitutional Law. The right to a job. To housing. To health care. An education. A vacation. etc. etc. ETC. ETC. ETC.....

Obama BTW openly ADVOCATED for this when he was teaching Constitutional Law in Chicago. He gave interviews on the subject to the local NPR station. They are online someplace.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Liberals believe they have a right to other people’s money. When you confront them and ask what portion of YOUR paycheck THEY are entitled to, all you get is embarrassed stammering.

[Michael.SF.]

My information comes from people who have worked with him on a professional basis, not from radio talk shows.

[amihow]

Liberal and even weak minded conservatives invest rights because their concept of liberty is freedom as license to do good or evil and call evil good. Freedom as conceived in the Natural and English Coomon laws sees it as the right to choose among various goods, but never to choose evil. We need Justices who know the latter is our history, not the former.

[libertylover]

Just because a Supreme Court justice was appointed by a Republican president doesn’t mean it was a good choice.

But a court with 6-8 appointed by a Democrat... about as pleasant as surviving a nuclear war.

[Jacquerie]

From the column: Thinking of a Court where there are five or even six justices appointed by Democratic presidents is tantalizing for those on the left, like me, who have spent their entire careers with a Court that has been decidedly right of center.

Right of center? Last June alone, scotus overturned thousands of years of western civilization with its fag marriage opinion.

Give the libs a couple more judges and its reeducation camp time for every freeper.

Elections have become sideshows.