Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

no_hypocrisy

(46,086 posts)
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 01:34 PM Jun 2020

Neil Gorsuch authoring The LGBTQ decision yesterday:

Not holding my breath, but this situation could mimic another republican president's desire to pack the Court:

President Eisenhower wanted a conservative justice and commented of Earl Warren that "he represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court.... He has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court"

And the decisions starting coming out.

Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy, the right to remain silent, the elimination of official school prayer in public schools, desegregation, and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.” Or that Warren’s nomination was “the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made,” or that his biggest mistake was “the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-bitch Earl Warren.”

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Neil Gorsuch authoring The LGBTQ decision yesterday: (Original Post) no_hypocrisy Jun 2020 OP
Don't hold your breath. elleng Jun 2020 #1
I am very cautiously optimistic leftieNanner Jun 2020 #2
Sometimes they really do call 'em as they see 'em. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2020 #3
I'm not buying that argument, they're Federalists through and through... NeoGreen Jun 2020 #4
Exactly. The real game is grabbing and keeping power. lagomorph777 Jun 2020 #5
Yes. elleng Jun 2020 #6
We can hope. But far more likely, it's more of a one-off unblock Jun 2020 #7
Anne Gorsuch Burford Pantagruel Jun 2020 #8

elleng

(130,865 posts)
1. Don't hold your breath.
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 01:39 PM
Jun 2020

While anything's possible, see what else they do @ the end of this term; I'm concerned about 'surprises.'

leftieNanner

(15,084 posts)
2. I am very cautiously optimistic
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 01:46 PM
Jun 2020

But I also wonder if yesterday's ruling (I know it doesn't work this way) was made to soften us up for allowing the idiot-in-chief to continue to hide his taxes. Hope not.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,420 posts)
3. Sometimes they really do call 'em as they see 'em.
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 01:49 PM
Jun 2020

He's there for as long as he wants. No one can take it away, as long as he doesn't commit some impeachable offense.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
4. I'm not buying that argument, they're Federalists through and through...
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 01:58 PM
Jun 2020

... I give more credence to the following analysis:

https://electoral-vote.com/


...On the other hand, progressives may feel more complacent, thinking "Maybe Chief John Roberts isn't so bad after all and Gorsuch isn't the horror we thought he was."

That could be the thinking, but that thinking could be wrong. Roberts could be playing the long game. He wants to be known as an umpire who is just calling balls and strikes. If he calls only strikes, he's not a very good umpire. What he clearly cares about are cases that enhance Republicans' political power, cases such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, photo ID laws, (ex-)felon voting, purging the voter rolls, and that sort of stuff. Letting the other side win a few cases on other topics (which he probably sees as unimportant), is a necessary evil to keep the Republicans in power. Also, by voting with the majority, he got to assign Gorsuch to write a more limited opinion than Ruth Ginsburg would have done had she gotten the chance.


Emphasis added.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
5. Exactly. The real game is grabbing and keeping power.
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 02:00 PM
Jun 2020

Social issues, as always, are just baubles to dangle before the plebes.

unblock

(52,205 posts)
7. We can hope. But far more likely, it's more of a one-off
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 02:03 PM
Jun 2020

They now vet Supreme Court nominees far more carefully than they did in Ike's day. They can never be assured they'll go "party line" 100% of the time, but they're usually "loyal" the vast majority of the time.

Gay rights is also a bit of an oddball in right/wing thinking. They can segregate themselves from black peoples and easily think of them as "other", but they can find out that friends or family members they have known and lived for years happen to be gay.

So there are certainly plenty of right-wingers who are bigoted in many respects but have reasonable acceptance, or at least tolerance, for gay people.

 

Pantagruel

(2,580 posts)
8. Anne Gorsuch Burford
Tue Jun 16, 2020, 02:08 PM
Jun 2020

was a family embarrassment. Wouldn't shock me to find that Neil desperately wants to be a redeemer of the family name. Being an rigidly partisan justice won't get it done. We'll know more after next round of decisions but this one, pretty obvious call doesn't convince me either way.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Neil Gorsuch authoring Th...