• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Immediate impact: Gorsuch could redefine Supreme Court starting next week

Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Immediate impact: Gorsuch could redefine Supreme Court starting next week

The new justice at the Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, is likely to have an immediate impact, weighing in as early as next week on whether to expand the breadth of the Second Amendment, considering how voting rights should be protected and perhaps casting the deciding vote in a major separation of church and state case.

The Senate voted 54-45 Friday to confirm Gorsuch, ending more than a year of bitter partisan conflict over the ideological balance of the nation’s highest court. Gorsuch is expected to be sworn in within days, allowing him to join the court for the final weeks of its term, which ends in June.

President Trump’s pick of Gorsuch to be the nation’s 113th justice will restore a conservative-leaning, Republican-nominated majority to a court that has either deadlocked or drifted to the left since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

Gorsuch’s arrival will have no immediate effect on the majority that has edged the court in a more liberal direction of late, upholding affirmative action, striking down laws restricting access to abortion, and declaring same-sex marriage to be protected by the Constitution.

...
Click to expand...

Interesting article that raises interesting thoughts.

It will be interesting to see if any of the forecasts of how Gorsuch will rule, by both his supporters and his detractors, will even come close what really occurs.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Immediate impact: Gorsuch could redefine Supreme Court starting next week



Interesting article that raises interesting thoughts.

It will be interesting to see if any of the forecasts of how Gorsuch will rule, by both his supporters and his detractors, will even come close what really occurs.
Click to expand...

I don't see him being any different than what he was on the appeals court.
he doesn't view himself as a person that can re-write law like some judges think they can.

he views himself as a judge should.
 
Praxas said:
So he is replacing Scalia a hard lined conservative. That would be the SAME SCOTUS that rules the ACA was constitutional. You sure about that one?
Click to expand...

Am I sure about what? I'm sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of your post.
 
ludin said:
I don't see him being any different than what he was on the appeals court.
he doesn't view himself as a person that can re-write law like some judges think they can.

he views himself as a judge should.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, there are some of his supporters that think he will be hard right in his rulings, as do all of those apposed to him. I don't see that either are going to be correct. I see him like you do, a judge that rules based on what the Constitution and the law say, not what he or current social whims think they SHOULD say.
 
Praxas said:
So he is replacing Scalia a hard lined conservative. That would be the SAME SCOTUS that rules the ACA was constitutional. You sure about that one?
Click to expand...

that had nothing to do with scalia and was one of Roberts worst decisions ever.
same goes for the other 4 judges who upheld it. it should have been struck down as unconstitutional as it was.

there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government power to force people to buy a private product.
more so there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to tax people for not buying
a product that they don't want.

the American people lost a lot of freedom that day.
 
ludin said:
that had nothing to do with scalia and was one of Roberts worst decisions ever.
same goes for the other 4 judges who upheld it. it should have been struck down as unconstitutional as it was.

there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government power to force people to buy a private product.
more so there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to tax people for not buying
a product that they don't want.

the American people lost a lot of freedom that day.
Click to expand...

Keep thinking that all you want, you are wrong. It IS constitutional. Also the same SCOTUS that ruled gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. You guys actually won nothing.
 
Praxas said:
That it will be any different than before?
Click to expand...

It may not. But we don't know that. There have been a number of appointments to the court that didn't turn out the way people thought they would. Two are still on the court now, Kennedy and Roberts.
 
Praxas said:
Keep thinking that all you want, you are wrong. It IS constitutional. Also the same SCOTUS that ruled gay marriage bans were unconstitutional. You guys actually won nothing.
Click to expand...

show me and no it isn't. that was a huge over reach of the tax clause.
they are not even close to the same but nice false equivalency fallacy.

PS nothing you said negated my argument.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It may not. But we don't know that. There have been a number of appointments to the court that didn't turn out the way people thought they would. Two are still on the court now, Kennedy and Roberts.
Click to expand...

Even if he ruled even farther right than Scalia did, it wouldn't change a thing. With Scalia it was the SAME scotus that ruled against gay marriage bans and ruled the ACA constitutional. You guys have fun with the "hope" it will be different. I'll be laughing with every ruling.
 
Praxas said:
Even if he ruled even farther right than Scalia did, it wouldn't change a thing. With Scalia it was the SAME scotus that ruled against gay marriage bans and ruled the ACA constitutional. You guys have fun with the "hope" it will be different. I'll be laughing with every ruling.
Click to expand...

You have no clue what I think, which is obvious by that post. Would you like to discuss the thread topic?
 
Praxas said:
Even if he ruled even farther right than Scalia did, it wouldn't change a thing. With Scalia it was the SAME scotus that ruled against gay marriage bans and ruled the ACA constitutional. You guys have fun with the "hope" it will be different. I'll be laughing with every ruling.
Click to expand...

My hope woukd only be that he persuade the others back to the Constitution.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It may not. But we don't know that. There have been a number of appointments to the court that didn't turn out the way people thought they would. Two are still on the court now, Kennedy and Roberts.
Click to expand...

My thoughts were that he would be like Kennedy and Roberts, no sure bet to side with conservatives. But,
on the other hand he is human & noting that the liberal senators gave him such a hard time during the proceedings
he will remember that when ruling.
 
When a new Justice takes the Court I always just assume at first he will rule in the same way he did before. Gorsuch is pretty solid into the conservative base, generally considered to the right of Scalia, and I assume he will remain that way.
 
soccerboy22 said:
When a new Justice takes the Court I always just assume at first he will rule in the same way he did before. Gorsuch is pretty solid into the conservative base, generally considered to the right of Scalia, and I assume he will remain that way.
Click to expand...

I hope so

David souter and john roberts were reputed to be reliable conserrvatives but not so much after ascending to the top of Mt Olymous
 
IMO, Gorsuch immediately restores the balance that existed when Scalia served.

- Three Ultra-Conservatives: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito

- One Moderate Conservative: Roberts

- One Conservative Lite: Kennedy

- Four Liberals: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
 
Trippy Trekker said:
IMO, Gorsuch immediately restores the balance that existed when Scalia served.

- Three Ultra-Conservatives: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito

- One Moderate Conservative: Roberts

- One Conservative Lite: Kennedy

- Four Liberals: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Click to expand...

Ginsberg and bryer are getting pretty old
 
Re-define is a bit much, considering he is replacing a Justice with very similar views as his own.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
Re-define is a bit much, considering he is replacing a Justice with very similar views as his own.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Would you agree that Citizens United 1.0 and 2.0, along with the gutting of the VRA leading to 22+ voter suppression laws, redefined the USSC?

The people who will be hurt the most by the Gorsuch court will be the ones who did not vote the last 4 cycles, especially down-ballot .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom