The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[lfromnj]

Congratulations to Justice Amy Coney Barrett!  Let's all pray that God will use this confirmation to end the senseless tragedy of abortion in our nation!!

Judicial activism

No its anti stare decisis, judicial activism means legislating from the bench using streched reasoning,overturning bad precedent isn't activism.

[lfromnj]

Congratulations to Justice Amy Coney Barrett!  Let's all pray that God will use this confirmation to end the senseless tragedy of abortion in our nation!!

Judicial activism

No its anti stare decisis, judicial activism means legislating from the bench using streched reasoning,overturning bad precedent isn't activism.

This is RW bad faith in a nutshell “I don’t like Roe v Wade which makes it a bad ruling. So appointing a bunch of rw judges to overturn it isn’t activism because overturning a bad ruling isn’t activism and because I don’t like Roe v Wade it is by default a bad ruling”

I genuinely do like the societal effects(although not political) of Roe v Wade and I am pro choice, I just believe that Roe is a bad decision that should be overturned.


Robert Owens wasn't being activist with the FDR court when he overturned Lochner effectively during the Washington state minimum wage case. However Wickard v Filburn was an extreme streching of the commerce clause to effectively encompass all commerce.

Lochner was a bad case and so was Roe even though I partially support what they did from the "effects" they had, the judicial reasoning was garbage.

[lfromnj]

Congratulations to Justice Amy Coney Barrett!  Let's all pray that God will use this confirmation to end the senseless tragedy of abortion in our nation!!

I hope you cry when Biden packs the court and guarantees abortion rights nationwide.

You mean like rn?

[lfromnj]

Congratulations to Justice Amy Coney Barrett!  Let's all pray that God will use this confirmation to end the senseless tragedy of abortion in our nation!!

Judicial activism

No its anti stare decisis, judicial activism means legislating from the bench using streched reasoning,overturning bad precedent isn't activism.

The idea of "bad precedent" is, itself, activism. And, it that logic, how are 5 republicans by themselves deciding the South is not racist anymore about voting issues is not judicial activism?

I don't fully know Shelby, I don't think the VRA had a time limit in it and  I think it was activism but I have to do more research.

[lfromnj]

^^^ TBF  the court has been plenty politicized before especially with the Lochner area striking down many New Deal regulations, however FDR did get to appoint all 9 justices which was effectively a reset on the court in his favor(he did win 4 elections in landslides to his credit)

[lfromnj]

However it has been a very long time(1930's) since the courts have seriously impeded Democratic governance. Note impeding Democratic governance does not mean overturning Roe which is actually an impendence of Republican governance.

 We have started to inch towards that area with more limited decisions but there hasn't been any big decision yet , this includes stuff like Citizens united and similar decisions, it will be interesting to see how far the Roberts Courts goes if they get a chance.

[lfromnj]

Yup, we have to pack the court. And my take is that Biden is likely to do/attempt to do so. I think the commission he intends to set up is more of an attempt to raise acceptance for such a step by putting a different set of people on it.

I think otherwise that Biden is not likely to pack the courts and that the commission facilitate to NOT do it. Packing the Court sounds like a big and fairly controversial (at least for now according to polls) policy and you're better do it during the honeymoon period, not before. 180 days for commission, X months for discussion, Y months for this Z months for that - and you're facing midterm elections. All during the times when you're still fighting Covid and its economical consequences. Also, Biden unifying message, bipartisanship, "restoration" to decency and normal days etc. Obviously, it depends heavily on margin of his win and Senate count.


Still, all equal, Mitch, perhaps, should be quite delightful with Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/biden-supreme-court.html

The Republicans on the commission will be Reagan's solicitor general.

[lfromnj]

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.

 "… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …" .

There has yet to be a coherent non-religious explanation of how creationism would work. At best, there have been various non-sectarian explanations that involve an unspecified Creator.  Incidentally, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), which barred prohibitions on the teaching of evolution, was decided unanimously.

Yeah unless one wishes that the 14th doesn't apply to states, I think its a fairly reasonable decision to ban the teaching of creationism as it is religion specific. I would say a non mandatory school prayer would be ok however. The Warren Court did have other more extreme decisions such as banning the usage of state senates following the same role as the US senate in Reynolds v Sims. Although requiring population equality for congressional districts had some basis, I believe Reynolds v Sims was going too far in interfering with each state.

[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.

[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.