What are we really losing? Kennedy was the most unreliable 'swing vote' in SCOTUS history.

[Aristus]

Good riddance.

[Squinch]

1. But sometimes he swung. We're going to get another Gorsuch. America as you know it is over.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. Precisely.

[J_William_Ryan]

38. Correct

And thus ends our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, and the American Experiment, an experiment that was a dismal failure.

[Nay]

80. We're going to get a YOUNG THEOCRAT, that's what we're going to get. Thirty more

years of a retrograde, slimy, RW court.

And if they bribe Thomas to retire, there will be ANOTHER young RW asshole on the court.

We are so, so, so fucked, folks.

[Squinch]

92. Yep. Call me Martha.

[unblock]

3. we're replacing a sometimes semi-decent justice in his 80s with an asshole in his 40s.

well we don't know who it will be but the asshole part is a given. the "40s" and the "his" are just educated guesses.

[FBaggins]

72. Exactly

Which means that we just lost 30+ years.

[SCantiGOP]

4. What??

A swing vote replaced by another Gorsuch hard right wing vote? And you ask what are we losing?

[Aristus]

6. Kennedy gave us GWB and the rest of this whole horrible mess.

I'm not convinced things are going to get worse. They're just going to remain very bad...

[spanone]

81. Kennedy voted with the dems on Obamacare

won't get that out of a trump appointee

[Coventina]

5. Except now we're sure to get a Scalia clone, or worse. n/t

[Bettie]

7. What are we losing?

Well, we're losing a possibility. We're gaining a sure thing.

He and his republican thralls will find someone even worse than Gorsuck.

Think about that, they will turn over every rock they can find and get someone in there the day he leaves.

My hope is that Dems unite and refuse to vote for whatever trollish horror he chooses. But, there are a few who will smile as they install someone who will put the final nails in the coffin of our society.

[Aristus]

8. Even if we do unite, what can we do to prevent it?

Filibuster until November?

[Bettie]

11. We can't

that's why I'm so afraid for my kids.

We have no chance anymore. It is over. Done.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Yeah, cause now we get another Gorsuch.

[NCTraveler]

10. The timing is horrible. No question about that.

I heard it was the end last week, and the week before, and the week before....


There is no end to this fight and there is a path forward. GOTV.

[Aristus]

14. Damn straight.

Neither Hell nor high water will prevent me from voting in November. I'm in a blue state, though.

Everyone has got to get out and vote!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

12. Roberts is now the swing vote but there will be a lot fewer swings in our direction.

[Blue_true]

27. I expect Roberts to protect gay marriage and Rie v Wade.

But I expect minority voting rights to get absolutely killed. I expect labor rights to get killed. I expect more women's rights rollbacks, including more restrictions on abortion. Maybe this is a blessing in disquise, the Surburban women that vote republican are going to get hit in the face with some shit that they thought was settled law, some won't like it.

[dbackjon]

31. Are you gay?

[Blue_true]

43. No. But when that right was approved, the vote was 6-3 with Roberts. nt

[dbackjon]

46. WRONG- IT WAS 5-4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

[Blue_true]

59. No. The vote on the constitutionality of gay marriage nationwide was 6-3.

On a case that I think originated in California. The ruling that one posted was on a state recognizing a gay marriage from another state, Roberts had a state's right issue with that one, but later erased that with the 6-3 ruling.

[dbackjon]

64. READ THE FUCKING LINK

BLAG petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, and the Court issued a writ of certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[8]:25

On the same day, the court also issued a separate 5–4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry—a case related to California's constitutional amendment initiative barring same-sex marriage. The decision effectively allowed same-sex marriages in that state to resume after the court ruled that the proponents of the initiative lacked Article III standing to appeal in federal court based on its established interpretation of the case or controversy clause.


READ THE FUCKING LINK

[Blue_true]

69. I read it. There were two gay marriage cases, one was 5-4, the other was 6-3.

The 6-3 was on the constitutional right of gay people to marry in any state.

[dbackjon]

70. Are you a troll or just being dense

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. The Court overruled its prior decision in Baker v. Nelson, which the Sixth Circuit had invoked as precedent.

The Obergefell v. Hodges decision came on the second anniversary of the United States v. Windsor ruling that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. It also came on the twelfth anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in 13 states. The Obergefell decision was issued on the second-to-last decision day of the Court's term; and, as late as 9:59 a.m. in the morning of the decision, same sex couples were unable to marry in many states.[107]

The justices' opinions in Obergefell are consistent with their opinions in Windsor which rejected DOMA's recognition of only opposite-sex marriages for certain purposes under federal law.[108] In both cases, Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinions and was considered the "swing vote".[109]

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote a separate dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice read part of his dissenting opinion from the bench, his first time doing so since joining the Court in 2005.[110][111]

[Blue_true]

85. I remember a ruling on the basic constitutionality that was 6-3 for a case from the West.

I won't insult you by calling you names. The case from the west, as it was being decided, a lot was written about Roberts having a gay female relative. The New York case was about one state accepting a gay marriage from another state for spousal rights to inheritances and benefits, Roberts felt that the issue was a state's rights issue, Kennedy didn't agree and wrote the majority opinion. The case from the West came later and codified gay marriage nationwide.

[dbackjon]

89. You just won't admit you are wrong, and are continuing to spew lies

READ THE FUCKING LINK.

ROBERTS WROTE THE DISSENT. ROBERTS WROTE THE DISSENT

[Blue_true]

91. Someone else brought up the case from the West.

It was 5-4, my recollection was wrong on the vote.

[dbackjon]

93. Obergefell was the Gay Marriage CASE

Only one that matters to people like me in states like Arizona.


Stop being so high and mighty and actually READ.

[irisblue]

74. Which 6-3 decision are you citing? I am unclear which named case you are citing. Thanks

[Blue_true]

79. It was a case out of the west on the basic constitutionality of gay marriage.

The New York case was about one state recognizing a marriage from another state when doing probate proceedings, I think the issue there was that an inheritance was denied the surviving spouse in a gay marriage that took place outside of New York, New York ruled that the surviving spouse was not eligible for the inheritance. The case out of the West was about whether a gay person had the right to marry another gay person anywhere.

[irisblue]

86. You still have not given a case name

Hollingsworth v Perry 2013- (California) was 5-4. It overturned prop8, i don't think it affected any other state directly but Cali. It did become a precideni in Obergefel & Windsor in 15.

I am not trying to bust your chops, but I really want to know that 6-3 case name. Thanks
Wait Romer vEvans, 1996 was 6-3, Roberts wasn't on SCOTUS then, but Kennedy was. Romer was about denial of civil rights protection in Colorado.

[Blue_true]

87. The Prop 8 case was the one that I was thinking about. I remembered it being 6-3

but your information says otherwise. Thanks for presenting facts and avoiding name calling.

[irisblue]

88. Shoot, no one remembers everything. We're good.

From infoplease.com Important LGBT rights cases
Prop 8 case

Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents in California did not have standing to appeal the lower court ruling that overturned the state's ban, known as Proposition 8. The ruling will remove legal battles for same-sex couples wishing to marry in California. However, the ruling did not directly affect other states.

[dbackjon]

90. I PRESENTED FACTS You refused to listen.

[irisblue]

94. Picking up stones? That gonna help? nt

[dbackjon]

95. For people that dismiss legitimate concerns and spew false, harmful narratives?

Sure. No better than the "No difference between Trump and Clinton" crowd.

[irisblue]

96. And yet

Showing a willingness to reexamine a statement when presented with evidence is a big thing. You & I have very legit reasons to worry about the LGBT issues. While you cited the Hollingsworth ruling in #64, you buried that fact under an angry reply. I missed it too the first 2 x I read your reply. We need ALL our allies, the fight is real and long and if we, the endangered fight with each other, we do ourselves and society and history no favors or good. I have respected your posts & threads over the years. I hope to continue to engage with you over the coming times. Kind regards

[dbackjon]

97. And I can hope we can as well

This particular poster made the same statement in multiple places, and I linked Obergefell - the only case that matters for Gay Marriage Nationwide.

The straight-washing of history, especially among allies, hurts.

[J_William_Ryan]

63. Disagree

The states will again be allowed to compel women to give birth against their will and deny same-sex couples access to marriage law; indeed, states will be at liberty to criminalize homosexuality.

[irisblue]

71. I truly disagree w/ your assessment here.

While I think you're correct about voting& labor rights, you mention Roe v Wade as s being protected, , then say you expect more woman's rights rollbacks. Roe v Wade was a decision about woman's' control of her own fertility, that will be a major major rollback.

Across the US , Marriage equality & LGBT rights are are being limited &/or attempts to by state legislatures, the effort is there. Recall Pence & his attempts to do so in Indiana? There are attempts here in the Ohio State house now to do so this month. LGBT rights are under danger.

[mvd]

13. Indeed his recent rulings have been horrid

The travel ban, the labor ruling, and more. It leaves a bad taste. Still, we need to hold off this replacement for as long as we can. Really awful news.

[herding cats]

15. He was the swing vote for same sex marriage and abortion rights.

Imagine him replaces with another Gorsuch. That's where we are now.

Women's rights LGBT rights, voting rights, etc. They'll all be gutted now.

[UTUSN]

16. So: Barely.

But, what did I say: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210790246

[Blue_true]

28. Roberts was the swing for gay marriage. I expect that to hold.

My guess is Roberts will hold Rie v Wade, he is smart enough to see getting rid of that is a red line that he should not cross. I do expect more restrictions on abortion rights though. Minorities and Muslims are going to get killed, along with immigrants.

[hatrack]

17. "Justice Pirro" "Justice Sessions" "Justice Giuliani" "Justice Cruz" "Justice Moore"

It's not what we're losing, it's what we stand to "gain", right?

[jberryhill]

18. We are losing an unreliable swing vote, in exchange for a sure-fire right winger

We are losing Roe v. Wade, for starters

[Blue_true]

30. I am not sure that Roberts will go for repeal of Woe v Wade.

I think that he will also keep gay marriage. Where there will be problems are voting rights, minority rights, immigrant rights, religious minority rights (although a lot of Muslims in Michigan voted for Trump).

[dbackjon]

33. You keep saying that

No evidence to think he will keep it. NONE.

[Blue_true]

44. He voted for gay marriage, the ruling was 6-3 for.

Repeal of Roe v Wade is a redline that I don't see Roberts crossing.

[dbackjon]

48. WRONG- IT WAS 5-4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

[LeftInTX]

42. I don't think he will keep Roe v Wade

I think he will keep same sex marriage. I say this because you can't force legally married people to get divorced.

An abortion is a medical procedure. It is not an ongoing relationship.

[Blue_true]

47. I think Roberts will go for more restrictions on abortion.

But I don't see him crossing the Roe v Wade redline.

[Orsino]

19. We're losing about another decade of reform. n/t

[Snotcicles]

20. They'll find another spineless hack to fill his shallow shoes. nt

[Lee-Lee]

21. Well, the biggest thing we lose is the chance to make that seat better

We are losing a little with an unreliable swing going hard right.

We are losing a TON with that seat going hard right with a young Justice who may serve 20+ years. Because that’s 1 seat we won’t get a fill in coming decades.

So with Gorsuch and now this seat there will be 2 hard right Justices out of 7 for decades to come.

That’s huge.

Short term, little difference had he held out two more years.

Long term? We are getting screwed.

[Blue_true]

36. Potter Stewart and Harry Blackmun were put on the bench as hard conservatives.

Both became liberal lions. David Souter was put on as a conservative, voted very liberal. One thing about a man or woman in their forties is they have kids that are in or reaching their teens, that sometime changes how they view things, also a sick close relative changes how they view things.

[RobinA]

40. There's Always

the possibility, but these are different times.

[octoberlib]

22. I saw a tweet , which I'm trying to find, that Trump's list of 25

replacements are all pro-life to please the evangelicals. Don't know if it's true.

Link to tweet

[JCanete]

23. Sure. with him we'd win some...and now he, like O'connor, has decided to truly screw us all. I think

what we lose most notably, is the opportunity to replace him in the next 4 years by a Democratic President. Now we'll have somebody much younger on the bench and not likely to leave it for what, decades?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It's age. They'll put in some wingnut in his 50s

and have him (because it will be a white male) there for 25 years or more. The "swing" vote will now be Roberts, pretty much a wingnut himself. The wingnuts will be 50, 63, 68 and 70, plus the new guy. They will dominate the SC for at least 10 years. Even more, if they get another President in within that time.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

25. Part of me believes Kennedy is retiring now purely so that Trump and the GOP

can get another right-winger in there before the Dems take back the House and maybe the Senate and obstruct on any future nominations until after 2020. The same way the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland. The timing of this can't possibly be an accident. You mean to tell me he retires 5 months before the 2018 midterms!!

[Liberalhammer]

57. Kennedy

Like all conservative justices are traitors and should be treated as such.

[haele]

76. Why does only part of you believes that?

Last month it was "He's hiring clerks for the next session".
But now, suddenly, after the GOP's Migrant/Immigration crisis, it's pretty obvious he's been convinced either by his fellow Supreme Court Conservatives Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas who are working the Evangelical Con, or his Federalist buddies who have such an investment in the "Conservative Oligarch" ideology that they're afraid of political fall-out the mid-terms to retire before Mueller's investigation neuters enough politicians who are running cover that they need a lock on the SCOTUS now to save their "progress".

It's obvious Kennedy's retirement is GOP/Conservative risk mitigation for the mid-terms. They are desperate to keep their smoke and mirrors productions going.

Haele

[Blue_true]

26. I tend to agree.

A lot of 5-4 rulings. I really thing that Roberts is invested in Gay Rights (relative is gay), so I don't see him voting to rollback that ruling. The people that will really get screwed? POC and religious minorities, expect to see a lot more rulings against their interests.

[exboyfil]

73. He wrote a dissent in Obergefell

The only chance will be that it is just too complex to wind back the clock especially given the full faith and credit between states. It very well could be that new marriage licenses won't be issued in certain states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Chief_Justice_Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[130] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[131] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[132] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[133]

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[134] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[135] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[136] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[137] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[138] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[139]

[dbackjon]

29. MY MARRIAGE FUCK YOU AND YOUR STRAIGHT PRIVILDGE

[Aristus]

32. John Roberts might actually be a vote against the repeal of Marriage Equality.

I understand he has a relative who is gay. I hope it works out that way.

We're all frightened right now...

[dbackjon]

35. HE VOTED AGAINST IT

Why would you think he is going to keep it.

[Blue_true]

37. He voted for it, the vote was 6-3 for.

Roberts and Kennedy came over to the majority.

[dbackjon]

45. WRONG- IT WAS 5-4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

[Blue_true]

53. There were two rulings.

The one out with the New York couple was about recognition of one state's grant of a marriage license, that was 5-4. The second ruling was on the subject of the pure constitutionality of gay marriage nationwide, that ruling was 6-3 on a case out of the West (I think California).

[dbackjon]

60. I LINKED THE MOTHERFUCKING ARTICLE

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2018, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Stop being all high and mighty. YOU ARE WRONG.

My marriage in Arizona is only guaranteed by the 5-4 ruling.



DOMA was 5-4, with dealt with Federal recognition of marriages from states that had legalized it.

[LeftInTX]

49. I don't think Roberts will repeal same sex marriage

The reason: You can't force legally married people to get divorced. And it wouldn't make sense to put a moratorium on same sex marriage either. I think same sex marriage is here to say.

That does not mean he is LGBT friendly. It is just that same sex marriage is the law of the land.

[Aristus]

50. I'm glad to hear that. But wouldn't a repeal of Marriage Equality simply nullify existing marriages,

rather than force divorces?

[LeftInTX]

58. Marriages are legal entities.....

There are contracts involved, property, children etc etc.

[Aristus]

61. I hope the reality behind a repeal of anything the pukes don't like will make it harder

to do an actual repeal.

Social Security, for example. As much as the supporting cast of Deliverance hates anything that smacks of 'socialism', so many of them rely on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid that they (I hope) would at least pressure their Senators to vote against a repeal of these things.

[jberryhill]

82. It wouldn't do either of those things

The Supreme Court doesn't make things like abortion or marriage equality illegal, when it comes to state law issues. What the Supreme Court does is to rule on whether a state ban of something - e.g. abortion or marriage equality - is or is not permissible under the US Constitution.

In other words, the Supreme Court can only say whether a state may refuse to recognize marriage equality. Whether any, some or most of the 50 states decide to do so, is up to them in that circumstance.

It has been legal in, for example, Massachusetts for decades. It would be legal, and remain legal, in Massachusetts no matter what the Supreme Court had ruled.

[krawhitham]

34. Yeah because a vote always against us is always better than an unreliable 'swing voter' , Brilliant

[RockRaven]

39. It really is the Roberts Court now...

No decision going any way but how he wants it to be.

[SubjectTrip]

41. He's a coward

He will go down in history as the Paul von Hindenburg of our slide into fascism.

[beaglelover]

51. He was still as SWING vote and now he'll be replaced by a CONSERVATIVE vote for decades to come.

[Liberalhammer]

52. Kennedy mostly voted

For the powerful. He was not a justice for the regular non wealthy American.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. He wasn't much help, but the problem isn't just that his replacement will be another conservative,

but that the replacement will have another 30 or so years to do his (almost surely the replacement will be male) damage.

[Freethinker65]

55. We are losing a seat on the Supreme Court that will be potentially occupied for over 30 years

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

56. It's not what we're losing. It's what they're gaining. Umm let's see. Maybe he'll be replaced by a 3

dropout from "Liberty University" or some shit. Yeah I know, I know. But I've learned not to put anything past this grotesque bloated dick.

[Power 2 the People]

62. Kennedy was allowed to vote for gay marriage because it didn't affect corporate profits

They are given votes like this to make it seem as though they are fair and unbiased. The truth is that as long as it doesn't affect the bottom line of major conservative donors they can throw us a bone. Don't fool yourselves.

[link:https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights-abortion-democrats/index.html|]

[Aristus]

66. That was kind of my point.

An illusory swing vote is as useful as no swing vote at all...

[irisblue]

65. Roe v Wade & Obergefel were very very impt. He voted for them. That impacts many

His legacy is so mixed.

[oberliner]

67. We are losing the chance of the liberal justices ever getting a majority on a vote

There will be a RW Supreme Court majority for at least the next two decades - probably longer.

[pnwmom]

68. We'll be losing a vote to preserve Rowe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, among other things.

You must be a straight male.

[CrispyQ]

75. We are going to get someone very young & very radical. -nt

[Demsrule86]

77. He was one protecting Roe V Wade...this is a disaster.

[Hoyt]

78. Considering where we are, I would have preferred he stayed. But you are right, we haven't

lost a lot other than the next Judge might be even worse. And, there is a chance trump will get AT LEAST one more pick before his reign of terror is over.

[Azathoth]

83. We're losing Roe v. Wade and, probably, gay marriage

Those were the two wingnut causes that Kennedy consistently resisted.

[TNLib]

84. It's not so much of what were loosing but what we might be getting.

Kennedy sucked but I think people are fearful of who the SC pick will be with Trump and a republican controlled congress.

Many of our rights are at risk, especially a woman's right too choose.

It feels so strange our government has become uber conservative but it just doesn't seem to truly reflect the people's values.

[Ms. Toad]

98. My marriage,

My daugher's access to health care
the right to an abortion

. . . just for starters.

[KPN]

99. I agree. The gnashing of teeth is more about

the overall absurdity of the position we and this country is in. We aren’t losing anything much with Kennedy’s retirement, but the idea that this moronic asshole actually will retry much decide who we must live with over at least the next three decades is shocking to our systems.

Let’s all stop crying in our beer about Kennedy and focus on pressuring our system to do the right thing instead. The right thing being postpone any Congressional action on the asshole illegitimate president’s nominee until the cloud of this investigation has been lifted. Allowing this incompetent person to make another SCOTUS appointment is the height of irresponsibility. Each of us needs to step up and be willing to commit whatever we can to APPLY PEOPLE PRESSURE on Congress and the “system” right now.

We won the 2016 presidential election. We won the 2000 and probably the 2004 presidential election as well! The system we are winning doesn’t work. Our votes don’t count in this system. We need to change that, and we need to change that right now with this SCOTUS vacancy before any hope of saving our democracy and Constitution is extinguished. We the PEOPLE need to assert outselves and, if need be, sacrifice our daily self interests right now before it is too late.

Does anyone know of any effort already on-going to organize the masses who won the 2016 election for HRC, the 2000 election for Gore and the 2004 election of Kerry against this treasonous take over of our Democracy? If so, please share this info with me — I want to volunteer and engage, and pass this info along to others.

We can do this!