SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hope he picks a 35-year old arch-conservative. No need to nominate some softie or some old.

How about John Paul Stevens?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's no obvious about Roe being history. There's four decades of precedent behind Roe, Roe is popular, and the Court wouldn't willingly toss it without careful consideration. The blue states would need to retain the right to have abortion legal within their borders while red states would be allowed to ban it. The most likely scenario is that the 20 week ban is upheld, the whole gamut of abortion restrictions upheld, but abortion within the first 10-15 weeks remain on the books as a legal procedure.

Remember, any restriction to Roe that makes it difficult for white women (a core constituency in the GOP) gets political backlash that threatens the GOP's majority. So, Roe will remain legal in some contexts and within the first couple of weeks, no matter what. 

And gay marriage would not be rolled back. It took 40 years for abortion restrictions to become part of the legal and political landscape; gay marriage is a new right and it has wide and popular backing within the public. The public isn't about to go back to the times of gay marriage being banned in Alabama. That might not be a bad decision but honestly, the popular will to keep gay marriage legal will ensure that Obergefell remains legal.

The justices wouldn't overturn BOTH Roe and gay marriage. That just hands the Left huge ammunition and a bazooka to blow up the Right with impunity and galvanizes the Democratic base while depressing elements of the GOP base. Justices don't like writing opinions that could be overturned by the next election. They'll be more circumspect.

Roe has already been weakened, and I'm sure if 5 anti abortion justices were on the court, they'd completely toss it. But they'd probably keep SSM.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Update: Announcement may be coming Monday or Tuesday. Down to Gorsuch and Hardiman.

Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl  56m56 minutes ago
Senior administration official tells me @realDonaldTrump's SCOTUS short list is down Neil Gorsuch & Thomas Hardiman.

Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl  59m59 minutes ago
WH SOURCE: The WH is preparing for an earlier announcement of @realDonaldTrump's pick for Supreme Court - likely Tues, possibly tomorrow

My money's on Hardiman. He's being pushed hard by Trump's sister and Hardiman has no known record on anything abortion related making him easier to push through

Both are completely unacceptable right-wing extremists, especially Gorsuch who would undoubtably move the court to the right.  Of course, anyone Trump nominates should be blocked since the country voted to have a Democratic nominee on the Supreme Court.

Looks like I was right and Trump will nominate a liberal/"moderate" Republican to the SCOTUS.

Yeah, whoever ends up on the bench is going to have a controversial standing for the sole fact that this seat was stolen for political purposes.  Any rulings against abortion or marriage equality should be ignored.

Any conservative rulings should be ignored, period.  The court has no legitimacy so long as a Trump appointee holds the balance of power.

Bush stole the 2000 election, and yet a majority of Senate Democrats voted for his $2 trillion war that led to the creation of ISIS. So there will be plenty of enablers among Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CNN says Democrats plan to wuss out on a fight.  Sad, but not surprising.

Democrats will be the same pathetic lapdogs they were during the Bush administration? Sad!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warning sign for Dems looking to block this:

Manu Raju ‏@mkraju  6m6 minutes ago
Sen. Mark Warner, a rare D offering praise for Gorsuch, saying he has an "impressive resume and academic background."

The Virginia Senators are the worst Hillary state Democratic Senators. Carper and Feinstein are pretty bad. Also, I wouldn't trust King. And that's without getting into the 11 Trump state Democrats.