The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[VBM]

-snip-

Oh please, if you're going to ascribe partisan blame for the politicization of the Supreme Court, at least go back to the very beginning.  The Warren Court (1953-69) was easily the most activist in American history, and it usurped the legislative process to establish new, sweeping affirmative rights and severely limit State control of local political matters.  It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools, gave blanket protections to obscene speech, prohibited states from regulating access to contraception and of course, fortified civil rights and rights for the criminally-accused.  Say whatever you want to about these cases on their merits, but these issues remain controversial political questions today (much less 50 years ago!)  Liberals began politicizing the Court when they started using judicial review as a blunt instrument to cut citizens and legislatures out of the political process.  
 
Of course, as William F. Buckley, Jr. said best, the job of the conservative is "to stand athwart history and yell stop!"  There was new, conservative (neoconservative?) reaction to the Warren Court.  In1968, Richard Nixon explicitly campaigned and was elected on a promise to appoint strict constructionists.  After having two of his nominees rejected in 1969-70 by a liberal majority in the Senate (first time that had happened since 1894!), conservative William Rehnquist was confirmed by one of the narrowest margins in American history to date.  The Federalist Society was founded as an "alternative legal elite" in 1982.  It's no surprise that liberals sank the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 - the same year the U.S. Senate allowed television cameras into its proceedings and Ted Kennedy delivered a fiery speech impugning Bork's character by calling him a segregationist and misogynist.  Clarence Thomas' 1991 confirmation is the most recent time a Senate controlled by an opposition party has approved a President's nominee.  Liberals made a fuss in each of these occasions because they feared losing the political power the Warren Court's jurisprudence had given them.  

Are you so partisan that you don’t realize how teaching creationism in PUBLIC schools blatantly violates separation of church and state?

[Ichabod]

Say goodbye to the ACA :-)

That should be pyrrhic (and ironic and a little dumb) if that means Democrats nuke the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court and vote for a more universal version of ACA

[Alcibiades]

Say goodbye to the ACA :-)

Legislating from the bench.

[Illiniwek]

It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools,

It is the year 2020, and people are bringing up banning the teaching of creationism in public schools as a radical overreach... I guess it fits into the modern conservative agenda of filling people’s minds with false information and conspiracy theories.

Creationism obviously has no place being taught in a school, but that is far outside the courts' competence to decide.

If the Supreme Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of government actions that violate Rule 1.1 of the Bill of Rights, then who is supposed to? If there is anything the Supreme Court is in a position to come in and make an opinion on, as far as judicial review, it is that issue.

[GALeftist]

Blue avatar mfs in here really pressed over the Warren court. Tip: it's bad optics to hate on the court that brought us Brown v. Board or to say that the Nixon administration had the right idea.

[Del Tachi]

-snip-

Oh please, if you're going to ascribe partisan blame for the politicization of the Supreme Court, at least go back to the very beginning.  The Warren Court (1953-69) was easily the most activist in American history, and it usurped the legislative process to establish new, sweeping affirmative rights and severely limit State control of local political matters.  It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools, gave blanket protections to obscene speech, prohibited states from regulating access to contraception and of course, fortified civil rights and rights for the criminally-accused.  Say whatever you want to about these cases on their merits, but these issues remain controversial political questions today (much less 50 years ago!)  Liberals began politicizing the Court when they started using judicial review as a blunt instrument to cut citizens and legislatures out of the political process.   
 
Of course, as William F. Buckley, Jr. said best, the job of the conservative is "to stand athwart history and yell stop!"  There was new, conservative (neoconservative?) reaction to the Warren Court.  In1968, Richard Nixon explicitly campaigned and was elected on a promise to appoint strict constructionists.  After having two of his nominees rejected in 1969-70 by a liberal majority in the Senate (first time that had happened since 1894!), conservative William Rehnquist was confirmed by one of the narrowest margins in American history to date.  The Federalist Society was founded as an "alternative legal elite" in 1982.  It's no surprise that liberals sank the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 - the same year the U.S. Senate allowed television cameras into its proceedings and Ted Kennedy delivered a fiery speech impugning Bork's character by calling him a segregationist and misogynist.  Clarence Thomas' 1991 confirmation is the most recent time a Senate controlled by an opposition party has approved a President's nominee.  Liberals made a fuss in each of these occasions because they feared losing the political power the Warren Court's jurisprudence had given them.   

Are you so partisan that you don’t realize how teaching creationism in PUBLIC schools blatantly violates separation of church and state?

See, you're playing around using understandings and definitions of these concepts that weren't really in use before the Warren Court handed down Epperson.  What "separation of Church and State" means is not immutably etched into the Constitution.  The Warren Court established sweeping, new understandings of this term and several others which 1) should have more naturally be made through the democratic process and 2) put us on the irreparable path to a hyper-politicized the Court.

[lfromnj]

Except, creationism is part of a specific religion(Christianity)  and requiring a teaching of that would violate the establishment clause if one believed it applied to the states with regards to the 14th amendment. If one believed that none of the 14th amendment forced the states to follow the BoR or the establishment clause, then it is valid to argue for creationism schools. However overall this decision was not an extreme overreach by the Warren court .


 However I do believe SCOTUS has gone too strictly on certain school prayer cases, as long as there was an option to meditate in a secular manner at the same time, school prayer should have been allowed as a short period of time set aside, and I say this as a person who is non-religious.

[GALeftist]

-snip-

Oh please, if you're going to ascribe partisan blame for the politicization of the Supreme Court, at least go back to the very beginning.  The Warren Court (1953-69) was easily the most activist in American history, and it usurped the legislative process to establish new, sweeping affirmative rights and severely limit State control of local political matters.  It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools, gave blanket protections to obscene speech, prohibited states from regulating access to contraception and of course, fortified civil rights and rights for the criminally-accused.  Say whatever you want to about these cases on their merits, but these issues remain controversial political questions today (much less 50 years ago!)  Liberals began politicizing the Court when they started using judicial review as a blunt instrument to cut citizens and legislatures out of the political process.   
 
Of course, as William F. Buckley, Jr. said best, the job of the conservative is "to stand athwart history and yell stop!"  There was new, conservative (neoconservative?) reaction to the Warren Court.  In1968, Richard Nixon explicitly campaigned and was elected on a promise to appoint strict constructionists.  After having two of his nominees rejected in 1969-70 by a liberal majority in the Senate (first time that had happened since 1894!), conservative William Rehnquist was confirmed by one of the narrowest margins in American history to date.  The Federalist Society was founded as an "alternative legal elite" in 1982.  It's no surprise that liberals sank the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 - the same year the U.S. Senate allowed television cameras into its proceedings and Ted Kennedy delivered a fiery speech impugning Bork's character by calling him a segregationist and misogynist.  Clarence Thomas' 1991 confirmation is the most recent time a Senate controlled by an opposition party has approved a President's nominee.  Liberals made a fuss in each of these occasions because they feared losing the political power the Warren Court's jurisprudence had given them.   

Are you so partisan that you don’t realize how teaching creationism in PUBLIC schools blatantly violates separation of church and state?

See, you're playing around using understandings and definitions of these concepts that weren't really in use before the Warren Court handed down Epperson.  What "separation of Church and State" means is not immutably etched into the Constitution.  The Warren Court established sweeping, new understandings of this term and several others which 1) should have more naturally be made through the democratic process and 2) put us on the irreparable path to a hyper-politicized the Court.

Can you explain to me how, exactly, teaching creationism would not be "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion? If schools are teaching the doctrines of a particular religion to be factual, then that is clearly promoting one religion, not "free exercise." If the government is funding those schools, then the government is by definition "prohibiting the free exercise." If you want to take it in an originalist direction, it's actually even more clear; many of the men who wrote the Constitution were deists, and they sure as hell weren't interested in the government promoting a religion they felt wasn't entirely true.

All the states in the Union, even the red ones, signed onto the Constitution, and that means they signed onto the first amendment as well, same as blue states signed onto the second. To your point about change coming through the democratic process, if red states are so enamored with teaching falsehoods in school, they are more than welcome to propose a constitutional amendment. Until that happens, though, this is frankly open and shut.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Except, creationism is part of a specific religion(Christianity)  and requiring a teaching of that would violate the establishment clause if one believed it applied to the states with regards to the 14th amendment. However I do believe SCOTUS has have gone too strictly on certain school prayer cases, as long as there was an option to meditate in a secular manner at the same time, school prayer should have been allowed as a short period of time set aside.

This sounds reasonable.

[John Dule]

Except, creationism is part of a specific religion(Christianity)  and requiring a teaching of that would violate the establishment clause if one believed it applied to the states with regards to the 14th amendment. If one believed that none of the 14th amendment forced the states to follow the BoR or the establishment clause, then it is valid to argue for creationism schools. However overall this decision was not an extreme overreach by the Warren court .


 However I do believe SCOTUS has gone too strictly on certain school prayer cases, as long as there was an option to meditate in a secular manner at the same time, school prayer should have been allowed as a short period of time set aside, and I say this as a person who is non-religious.

I mean that's fair, but it doesn't change the fact that both prayer and meditation are enormous wastes of time. Grades are low enough already without us taking another 15 minutes out of the day for another BS activity like this.

[lfromnj]

Except, creationism is part of a specific religion(Christianity)  and requiring a teaching of that would violate the establishment clause if one believed it applied to the states with regards to the 14th amendment. If one believed that none of the 14th amendment forced the states to follow the BoR or the establishment clause, then it is valid to argue for creationism schools. However overall this decision was not an extreme overreach by the Warren court .


 However I do believe SCOTUS has gone too strictly on certain school prayer cases, as long as there was an option to meditate in a secular manner at the same time, school prayer should have been allowed as a short period of time set aside, and I say this as a person who is non-religious.

I mean that's fair, but it doesn't change the fact that both prayer and meditation are enormous wastes of time. Grades are low enough already without us taking another 15 minutes out of the day for another BS activity like this.

15 minutes would be far too long, although a 1 to 2 minute activity could have certain mental benefits among students and decisions like this generally should and could be left upto to the school board/state legislature. There are plenty of useless stuff these groups already do anyway and useless does not necessarily mean unconstitutional sadly.

 The courts should merely interfere if they fear this activity has become too religious or violates another law.

[R.P. McM]

Except, creationism is part of a specific religion(Christianity)  and requiring a teaching of that would violate the establishment clause if one believed it applied to the states with regards to the 14th amendment. If one believed that none of the 14th amendment forced the states to follow the BoR or the establishment clause, then it is valid to argue for creationism schools. However overall this decision was not an extreme overreach by the Warren court .


 However I do believe SCOTUS has gone too strictly on certain school prayer cases, as long as there was an option to meditate in a secular manner at the same time, school prayer should have been allowed as a short period of time set aside, and I say this as a person who is non-religious.

What's the secular purpose? Are you capable of demonstrating it in a court of law? In the aftermath of such a decision, are we going to discover that fundamentalist Protestants are simply using it as a shibboleth to inject their religious dogma into public schools? Probably.

I mentioned it in another thread, but these sorts of rightwing judicial "victories" aren't going to do any favors for the economic outlook of conservative, rural districts. It'll just be a signal to educated, cosmopolitan people that they need to get themselves and their children the hell out.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Since Kavanaugh has stuck his kneck out for Trump, the independence of Roberts and Kavanaugh and ACB have been broken and we now know that in a contested elected, Kavanaugh whom stayed quiet in the quest for the Prez is a partisan.  It's 5/4 Conservative and 2 seats to move it to the center is the best the D's are gonna do in Crt packing. There aren't gonna be a need for 13 justices