Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dUSt

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement

Recommended Posts

dUSt

So, despite everything wrong about Trump, this was one of the only reasons why I felt a vote for Trump would be a good thing.

Justice Kennedy was the swing vote reaffirming Roe vs Wade. Now he's going to be replaced by a Trump pick.

It's game time folks. This is what it was all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/

 

 

STATEMENTS & RELEASES

President Donald J. Trump’s Supreme Court List

 LAW & JUSTICE

 

 Issued on: November 17, 2017

SHARE:

 

 

 

ALL NEWS

Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida

Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Britt Grant of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia

Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Brett Kavanaugh of Maryland, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator

Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah

Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa

Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.)

Don Willett of Texas, Supreme Court of Texas

Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

Yeah. As much as I was against him, if he keeps his word, puts two pro-life judges on the court and gets Roe reversed, I think I would pretty much have to vote for him next time around barring some other crazy event .  . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman

After Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all expressively appointed with the overt intention overturning row v wade... and these justices holding a firm majority on the US supreme court for decades... surely one more will do the trick right?

Or maybe... heres a wild idea... for 30-40 years you get promised something will get done but never does get done, but you need to just put a little more into it so they can finally do it... just maybe... you are being lied to... just maybe they are exploiting you...

Because maybe... going on a really wild idea now... they don't want to do what they are promising to do but rather they just want to exploit you on something you are so desperate about that it overrides clear judgement and reason, even other needs and issues, and they know this. So they keep playing it because they know it works.

Just one more... just one more.... just one more... just one more... just one more... just one more....

Edited by GreenScapularedHuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dUSt
12 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

... just maybe... you are being lied to... just maybe they are exploiting you...

Just one more... just one more.... just one more... just one more... just one more... just one more....

Nah. I really think it's about getting the right judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linate

john roberts could decide only to chip away at roe instead of overturn. justices who ddidn't do what was expected has happened many times before. but as much as i am anti trump, if they can make progress on abortion, i will admit after years of telling conservatives they were wasting their vote, that i was wrong and that it was good trump won. i mean, all it took was for them to sabatage the process in not voting for obama's nominee, and going on thirty years of not even winning popular votes by stretching an electoral win. 

On 6/27/2018 at 4:34 PM, dUSt said:

So, despite everything wrong about Trump, this was one of the only reasons why I phelt a vote phor Trump would be a good thing.

Justice Kennedy was the swing vote reaphphirming Roe vs Wade. Now he's going to be replaced by a Trump pick.

It's game time pholks. This is what it was all about.

phixed

Edited by linate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
On 6/28/2018 at 7:33 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

After Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all expressively appointed with the overt intention overturning row v wade... and these justices holding a firm majority on the US supreme court for decades... surely one more will do the trick right?

Or maybe... heres a wild idea... for 30-40 years you get promised something will get done but never does get done, but you need to just put a little more into it so they can finally do it... just maybe... you are being lied to... just maybe they are exploiting you...

Because maybe... going on a really wild idea now... they don't want to do what they are promising to do but rather they just want to exploit you on something you are so desperate about that it overrides clear judgement and reason, even other needs and issues, and they know this. So they keep playing it because they know it works.

Just one more... just one more.... just one more... just one more... just one more... just one more....

It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae (1995), no. 101

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38

21 minutes ago, little2add said:

Catholics need not apply

 

I hope she gets nominated. It would be great if a woman wrote the decision that overturns Roe, since so much of the pro-choice movement is directed toward the idea that pro-lifers are anti-women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

What's her professional history?

Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and once clerked for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Barrett also practiced as an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, a private law firm in Washington D.C., where she litigated constitutional, criminal and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts.

Barrett received her bachelor's degree from Rhodes College, and her law degree from  Notre Dame, where she served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Barrett has also served as a visiting associate law professor at George Washington University and the University of Virginia.

She and her husband, Jesse Barrett, have seven children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
2 hours ago, Peace said:

It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae (1995), no. 101 

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38

I hope she gets nominated. It would be great if a woman wrote the decision that overturns Roe, since so much of the pro-choice movement is directed toward the idea that pro-lifers are anti-women.

I am not an anti-abortion fanatic. My opinion on abortion is 'legal, safe, and rare'. Which is what almost every conservative says worldwide when talking about abortion... Going to show how American political culture, in particular the political right-wing and the Christian right-wing has really pushed themselves pretty far out there.

Most people don't even know what Roe v Wade said. It said that the government cannot interfere in the medical decisions of a woman and her doctor without violating her right to privacy in everything that privacy means from health, the ability to make choices based on medical and personal circumstance, and that it is an intimate and non-public matter.

The general public when polled generally support Roe v Wade. The general public when asked if the government should make illegal abortion, as in take it out of the realm of the woman and doctor, its ver unpopular. When the question is asked should doctors or women be criminalized for seeking abortions the general sense isn't that its unpopular but that the mere thought is offensive.

We live in a democracy... the will of the people should be the upmost importance... the fair rule of law which internationally has meant that reasonably legal and safe access to abortion is a norm... and if going against that means overturning a rather complex legal theory and going against the will of the people... I can't call that justice.

But I do want abortions rare as possible. And on that front abortions in America have decreased through better public services, welfare, education, economic conditions, and easy access to contraception. There are some signs that abortions are more rare than prior to roe v wade. Meaning that the public health approach to lessening abortion has worked far better than an outright ban has.

So if I told you that you could ban abortions, getting a sense of moral justification, even though it would require overturning settled law and the will of the American people, being virtually unenforceable without criminalizing it which is wildly unpopular... and that it would likely mean there would be not only an increase in abortions but also unsafe abortions....

Or you could stay the path that the Supreme Court laid out and forced the government to take by approaching this matter with an enlightened and benevolent public health approach which has resulted in less abortions.

I choose the latter. I suppose you choose the former because reality and policy can be too complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luigi

"I suppose you choose the former because reality and policy can be too complex."

I love it when people assume I'm stupid and tell me why I think what they think I think. It makes me know how right they are and how wrong I am. 

Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
4 hours ago, Luigi said:

"I suppose you choose the former because reality and policy can be too complex."

I love it when people assume I'm stupid and tell me why I think what they think I think. It makes me know how right they are and how wrong I am. 

Thank you. 

I love it when people reply to 3.38% of my post... because they dislike literally one sentence... because they think it unfair to try to gauge a summary of their opinion as currently presented...

Thank you.

But curiously I never once said you were stupid or wrong... and that isn't even a fair reading of my comment. So its also fun when people get to tell me what I mean rather than me.

Also thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

I am an ex-Catholic apostate, avowed atheist.  I consider my moral philosophy somewhat  aligns with Albert Camus’ absurdism. 

Even so, I cannot begin to fathom the warped logic that abortion can be a excused as a medical decision solely between a woman and a doctor. 

If human life has any intrinsic value in human society and culture, then the value exists by definition and is NOT dependent on gross ability or circumstance. A child or elderly or ill or handicapped is not valueless because it is dependent on care from others.   A fetus is the logical extrapolation of a toddler, as is a elderly terminal patient.   Unless it can be shown otherwise in principle, it doesn’t matter if either are dependent on another human because of their circumstance OR ability.  Dependency on a single human is dependency on humanity. 

Its too easy to claim greater equality than others have, as in Animal Farm. 

Some inequalities are simpler and easier to address than others and have a greater impact on the fundamental principles, such as the right to exist. That is what makes abortion a more critical fight as a fundamental issue of right to life as compared to dealing with the complicated issue of refugees escaping economic, security, corrupt governments to come to the US which also begs the question of how to fix these problems in their homelands.   

I cringed since the day I voted for Trump and almost daily since.  One can’t pursue happiness or prosperity or other rights, if one doesn’t have the right to live in the first place.  

Abortion is about the right for the weak to live, regardless of its dependency or inconvenience on others.  Yes, a mother carries the greatest burden for the first months, but she too has rights to help from the rest of humanity.  

Let’s hope that a “conservative” SC Judge fundamentally and sincerely avows support for the weak and dependent at all stages of existence.   Trump may support them as a political idea or tool, but I’m not silly enough to believe he supports that as a moral principle.    

Trump’s also goofy and wacky enough to support a real anti abortion judge just because ABC News says he’s a maniacal idiot to do so.    You Catholics can pray.  I’ll cringe, hope, and vote. We both want the same outcome. 

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman

Its a personal medical decision because it very directly affects the life and health of the woman in question, not only then but into the future, childbearing can have negative even deadly outcomes. There is also the whole matter of when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest...

From past conversations here I have seen that a significant number of posters think there should be a no-exceptions ban to abortion, even if it means the mother and child dies. Which is to polling of the US population a very small minority...

Which is what I would focus this on since the US government deals in the will of the people and the fair rule of law, or at least its supposed to... and in this case just because something might be immoral or is immoral if there is a valid reason for one of the reasons mentioned before, like say a civil right, people get that right. The Catholic Church still opposes pornography as gravely wrong and disordered... but the courts have ruled that this is protected by the first amendment and the people do not will a ban on pornography.

So... no matter how exceedingly moral and great a ban on pornography might be... its not an option.

And the idea of opposing the international norms, the legal theories that underpin our legal system, the fair rule of law, and the expressed will of the american people just not by small amounts but by supermajorities... is not justice.

And to put it more flatly... right-wing and radical anti-abortion activists have for a very long time hoped prayed voted and more for 30-40 years that roe v wade be overturned... and have for 30-40 years been promised that roe v wade will be overturned. Yet... nothing.

And that is what I expect will happen again... and again.. and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again...

I watched an elderly 78 year old woman try to help support one of her lousy no-good anti-social lazy good-for-nothing even abusive sons... for 30-40 years... he mooched off everyone... ran up massive debts that he never paid for... and all the while preying on this little ol ladies goodhearted want to not abandon her son...

This is the anti-abortion vote in America... Because barring the absolutely absurd... the next time a supreme court seat comes up for consideration this will be the exact same argument.

There is also the little matter that even if the Supreme Court overturned roe v wade, with >80% of the American people supporting in principle what roe v wade actually did and >50-60% supporting abortion rights to some extent or another... it will just pass from an act of the Supreme Court to an act of Congress/the States.

Which is why its politically advantageous to never overturn roe v wade... they get to continually attack the edges, satisfy their base, and never ever really get into the substance of the issue. Which is without voiding American democracy and voiding American fair rule of law... there is no way to ban abortions. But with Trump...  I give you this... with Putin they will give it a good go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

I would argue against abortion in the case if rape and incest too.   The largest problem with those children are artificial culture prejudices.   A child’s father’s real identity is mostly taken on faith anyway. 

I personally have many adopted family members, friends, framliy, acquaintances.  I don’t know or care about the circumstances of their conception.  

Societies are built and survive on shared principles.  We build and evolve on knowledge and experience gained in history, though it’s not perfect or pleasant growth. 

We do acknowledge and profess we have inherent rights to exist and live.  It is now a matter of defining, explaining, and understanding who or what a “we” is.    A gay woman that builds homes, a gay man that knits socks for cats, a gender fluid person that performs brain surgery, a heterosexual father that dances ballet.   Society is better at tolerating and accepting and identifying  them as fellow humans.  

They aren’t to be judged as able to exist solely on the material contribution to society.  Humanity needs whimsy and homes, just as an art needs appreciation.  Existence is enough justification.  

Principles are not up to the tyranny of the majority.  Discovering, and working out how to live these principles is the essence of human societies and what makes us humans different than a beehive, despite how flawed we do so at times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×