General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeil 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 Warrens 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.
elleng
(130,865 posts)While anything's possible, see what else they do @ the end of this term; I'm concerned about 'surprises.'
leftieNanner
(15,084 posts)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)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)... 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)Social issues, as always, are just baubles to dangle before the plebes.
elleng
(130,865 posts)unblock
(52,205 posts)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)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.