tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post828442205155782802..comments2024-03-29T05:59:28.047-05:00Comments on Althouse: "Donald J. Trump’s victory saved the chief justice from irrelevance."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64415340460358727712016-11-11T13:24:41.745-06:002016-11-11T13:24:41.745-06:00"[Roberts] needs to make it clear that the Ro..."[Roberts] needs to make it clear that the Roberts court is not a tool of partisan politics...." (anymore)Thomas Hazlewoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688396913861033350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91339979616930443872016-11-11T07:18:22.073-06:002016-11-11T07:18:22.073-06:00[Roberts] needs to make it clear that the Roberts ...<b>[Roberts] needs to make it clear that the Roberts court is not a tool of partisan politics....</b><br /><br />I remember predicting that caving into hacks like Greenhouse in regards to Obamacare would just lead to them playing that game more and more often.<br /><br /><b>There'll be no hated Hillary on the ballot to dissuade his opponents.</b><br /><br />True. But the Dems seem anxious to go even further Left and I doubt that will work out well for them in the states Trump won.damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58518570919966587442016-11-11T06:32:37.226-06:002016-11-11T06:32:37.226-06:00[Roberts] needs to make it clear that the Roberts ...<b>[Roberts] needs to make it clear that the Roberts court is not a tool of partisan politics....</b><br /><br />Why so writers at the NYT will like him? Fat chance - they just don't get itBandithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334898079341026590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30915435492731416712016-11-11T06:22:17.788-06:002016-11-11T06:22:17.788-06:00IF Trump read Greenhouse's column, I'm sur...IF Trump read Greenhouse's column, I'm sure that he said to himself "Gee, maybe Linda's right. Even though my election represented a complete repudiation of "progressive", statist political government, I better not send the same<br />message with my SCOTUS nominations."Scientific Socialisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02270301133762438755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53894609289854885712016-11-11T01:37:39.669-06:002016-11-11T01:37:39.669-06:00This development found the court at a moment of un...<i>This development found the court at a moment of unusual vulnerability: for the first time in memory, all the liberal justices now sitting were appointed by Democratic presidents and all the conservatives by Republicans. This is not the historic pattern.</i><br /><br />She fails to mention the cause of all this hostility and anger and mistrust: <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b>! <br /><br />Why did Reagan nominate Republican and Republican and Republican? <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b>. Why the hell was Ronald Reagan in the White House? <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b>. It's why he nominated O'Connor, and Scalia, and Bork. And then the Democrats freaked and borked Robert Bork. Why is "bork" a verb? <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b>! And then Clarence Thomas and the high-tech lynching. You're a sexual beast! <br /><br />Right-wing anger and liberal hysteria is all about <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b>. There are lots of judicial opinions that piss people off. But the judicial opinion that inspires hundreds of thousands of marchers, and doctors murdered in church, and other doctors sentenced to prison for murdering newborns? That opinion is known as <b><i>Roe v. Wade</i></b>. <br /><br />I mean, why the hell have all the Protestants disappeared from the Supreme Court, to be replaced by Catholics and Jews? The religion is a proxy for how you suspect the nominee will vote. <br /><br />And now we have a president who has promised to put a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court. Our first pro-lifer! I am so glad that Mr. Trump has made this promise. I only hope he will keep it. And if the NYT does not like this partisan attempt to stack the Supreme Court with pro-lifers, well, start respecting the sanctity of human life. You want Republicans to worry about the death penalty, or the relatives of terrorists, while you are secretly stabbing babies in the neck? Physician, heal thyself!Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49863211033309629202016-11-10T23:23:58.087-06:002016-11-10T23:23:58.087-06:00Linda:
We won. You lost. Get over it. We have the...Linda:<br /><br />We won. You lost. Get over it. We have the pen and the phone. And the DoJ. And the IRS. and the FBI. As your president taught us, it's time to punish your enemies. That's the New America you made. Live with it. You are in so much trouble.Scott Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067161332003628237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7771725643430585022016-11-10T23:14:29.328-06:002016-11-10T23:14:29.328-06:00This post is utterly Althousian. Everything I lov...This post is utterly Althousian. Everything I love about this site. Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077884750443371898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47153040938061991262016-11-10T21:55:25.040-06:002016-11-10T21:55:25.040-06:00I can't wait for Trump's first comments on...I can't wait for Trump's first comments on Supreme Court decisions that go against him. Comedy gold is a-waiting.PackerBroncohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755004347643799633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80381437259301870022016-11-10T21:44:32.904-06:002016-11-10T21:44:32.904-06:00Before I say this, I want to stress that I am *NOT...Before I say this, I want to stress that I am *NOT* suggesting it as a course of action.<br /><br />One must wonder if somebody would consider 'helping' RBG or Breyer to depart the court in the next few years, whether they like the idea or not. There are a lot of unbalanced individuals out there, and it only takes one getting lucky...Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08365188404501698080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26372616658486170782016-11-10T21:33:48.355-06:002016-11-10T21:33:48.355-06:00No, Next Question?No, Next Question?Jeff Weimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802456524746485019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4137238284133202402016-11-10T20:20:02.132-06:002016-11-10T20:20:02.132-06:00Wait. Did I just ask if Congress doesn't know ...Wait. Did I just ask if Congress doesn't know how to spell "tax"?!?!?BNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800122398628075042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9274984742753664572016-11-10T20:18:37.178-06:002016-11-10T20:18:37.178-06:00"Tax" is a 3-letter word. Did Congress n..."Tax" is a 3-letter word. Did Congress not know how to spell it when they wrote Obamacare?BNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800122398628075042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81602922225922703442016-11-10T20:16:26.652-06:002016-11-10T20:16:26.652-06:00How come I hate the Supreme Court? They should be ...How come I hate the Supreme Court? They should be the ones I respect the most.<br /><br />They don't believe in the law. They believe in their own judgement. Cause they're "judges."<br /><br />I guess that's it.BNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800122398628075042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72601806459884610092016-11-10T20:14:25.887-06:002016-11-10T20:14:25.887-06:00First thing we do is kill all the judges.First thing we do is kill all the judges.BNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07800122398628075042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42152059808248837322016-11-10T19:06:14.049-06:002016-11-10T19:06:14.049-06:00Funny you should mention Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Ear...Funny you should mention Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Earlier this year she gave an interview in which she made completely inappropriate statements (which is putting a polite spin on things) and now she has worn her "dissent" collar right after the Presidential election. These are clear signs of cognitive impairment and a lack of judicial temperament. Put this together with her reported dozing during oral arguments and you have substantial evidence that she may no longer be mentally competent to carry out the duties of her office. How long is this going to go on before there is pressure for her to resign, regardless of who holds the office of President? My guess is that she will hang on as long as she can fog a mirror. Goldenpausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05680850056162491237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34192081765069992642016-11-10T18:04:38.547-06:002016-11-10T18:04:38.547-06:00They'd still be mostly white, Ivy League educa...They'd still be mostly white, Ivy League educated lawyers. Catholics and Jews. What sort of minority would Cheif Justice Roberts be in?tim maguirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07717622436074043099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53518292542129302442016-11-10T17:34:30.265-06:002016-11-10T17:34:30.265-06:00Didn't Roberts already throw in with the libs ...Didn't Roberts already throw in with the libs in his Obamacare switcheroo? <br /><br />"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," Scalia wrote in the dissent.lonetownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10969510756729828503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79479743336394340642016-11-10T17:02:48.775-06:002016-11-10T17:02:48.775-06:00Would Greenhouse have warned her that she'd be...<i> Would Greenhouse have warned her that she'd better take pains to eradicate the impression that the Supreme Court follows partisan politics?</i><br /><br />File this under "Questions that answer themselves."Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05900300303751364008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6966355620417870272016-11-10T16:51:49.368-06:002016-11-10T16:51:49.368-06:00Fen's Law.
Q.E.D.Fen's Law.<br /><br />Q.E.D.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58657707713341121832016-11-10T16:08:10.670-06:002016-11-10T16:08:10.670-06:00Ignorance is Bliss,
Let us be super-duper accurat...Ignorance is Bliss,<br /><br />Let us be super-duper accurate. <i>No</i> candidate got a majority. This is another plurality election, just like the other two involving a Clinton, though Perot was a heftier opponent than Johnson and Stein and McMullin were. Michelle Dulak Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18041391162535875301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16277413221431117642016-11-10T16:05:20.957-06:002016-11-10T16:05:20.957-06:00This election was a bit of a shocker here -- my hu...This election was a bit of a shocker here -- my husband, for one, has gone into literal mourning, dressing all in black, for two days running. Me, not so bad, and the overwhelming reason is the Supreme Court. I don't know what President Trump will actually do, but I do know what President Clinton (II) would have done. <i>Citizens United</i> would be toast. <i>Heller</i> would be gutted. <i>NFIB v. Sebelius</i> would be severely tweaked at minimum. The VRA case (forgetting the name) would be revisited, and probably mostly overturned. And lots of other cases revisited, on down the line. There are cases that do need revisiting (<i>Kelo</i> is my biggie, now that Pfizer has let the entire "package" handed it by New London turn into a feral cat colony -- not that I have anything against feral cats), but HRC's agenda was clear and, in the case that was (you may remember) specifically about her, spiteful. <br /><br />I'm not exactly sanguine about all this. Megan McArdle (Megan McArdle!) opined just before the election that Trump is likely going to precipitate WWIII. I think Clinton would much more likely do that, as she's more of a hawk and yet simultaneously in on negotiations (Iran's nuclear deal most of all) that make nuclear war -- as opposed to a US first strike -- more likely. If Israel nukes Iran, or South Korea launches a conventional attack on North Korea, or China decides now would be a good moment to grab back Taiwan, or Pakistan suffers another coup ... well, don't say I didn't warn you. But the small chance of any of these things happening is worth it to me just for that handful of SCOTUS cases that will probably stay as they were.Michelle Dulak Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18041391162535875301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41456615196866795772016-11-10T15:59:37.365-06:002016-11-10T15:59:37.365-06:00The Chief Justice is not "to the right"....The Chief Justice is not "to the right". He, too easily, compromises the Constitution as the foundation of our other laws and that in many manners opposed to the intent of the Founders.James Pawlakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12186313444291703809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20353787613147559142016-11-10T15:51:26.114-06:002016-11-10T15:51:26.114-06:00@Sebastian I missed it when I first read it. You...@Sebastian I missed it when I first read it. You're right, that's pretty funny. The actual answer to Althouse's question is probably yes.Fictahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00454264303050808127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7467738512912136772016-11-10T15:46:26.566-06:002016-11-10T15:46:26.566-06:00How the Senate Democrats deal with Trump's nom...How the Senate Democrats deal with Trump's nominee to replace Scalia will depend on the nominee. If she or he is not batty (Bork) or accused of misconduct (Thomas) or a crime (Ginsberg) or considered an unworthy crony on a bipartisan basis (Miers) things will go smoothly. See Kennedy, Souter, Roberts, Alito. Democrats are not interested in the abolition of the cloture rule. readeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699913625782012426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19321921950951912622016-11-10T15:41:14.349-06:002016-11-10T15:41:14.349-06:00Mark my word, Trump will not seek appoint any one ...Mark my word, Trump will not seek appoint any one of those 21 "conservative" judges. HE is not a conservative (Which is his only saving grace), and will revert to appointing judges that are more in line with his way of thinking (real way). Garland would have probably been a good choice for him, he is a moderate. if anyone thinks that just because the evangelicals "helped" elect him that he is beholden to them, think again.<br /><br /><br />Vicki from Pasadenavictoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02012834711635457733noreply@blogger.com