• 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!

Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list? (1 Viewer)

Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list?

  • Yes, Trump cannot be allowed to do that.

    Votes: 9 11.5%

  • No, it doesn't scare me

    Votes: 59 75.6%

  • Other - Below

    Votes: 10 12.8%
  • Total voters
    78
Renae said:
On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.
Click to expand...

Truthfully if I had power to choose, I would choose a slightly left of center constitutionalist to replace her to keep balance on the courtm without trying to fill it with extreme partisans. I like the conservative majority but there needs to be some balance there, and if rbg kicks the bucket and a conservative judge is appointed, the balance will crumble and it will be a stacked court much like fdr had.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! "Originalism" is myth, designed to fool rubes and suckers.

And it's working.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people like you haven't figured out what it means and how important it is to protecting all of our rights.
 
jamesrage said:
Its the judges not on Trump's list we should probably be worried about.Kavanaugh was not on Trump's list when he campaigned. So while its good democrats weren't able to try to do that same dirty trick they tried with Clarence Thomas 26 years ago. I have to wonder if Kavanaugh is a good substitute for one of those people on his list and if we aren't being suckered into accepting a stealth liberal.
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh's conservative credentials are more established than that of my former Colleague Amul Thapar. While I can vouch for Amul, I note he clerked for the late Hon. S. Arthur Spiegel, a pragmatic civil rights liberal (USDC) and very left Hon. Nathaniel Jones (USCOA-6th Circuit)
 
beerftw said:
Truthfully if I had power to choose, I would choose a slightly left of center constitutionalist to replace her to keep balance on the courtm without trying to fill it with extreme partisans. I like the conservative majority but there needs to be some balance there, and if rbg kicks the bucket and a conservative judge is appointed, the balance will crumble and it will be a stacked court much like fdr had.
Click to expand...

yeah and that is what we need to start erasing the excesses of the FDR administration. and before people claim its established precedent, not FDR's courts ignored 140 years of established precedent.
 
TurtleDude said:
Kavanaugh's conservative credentials are more established than that of my former Colleague Amul Thapar. While I can vouch for Amul, I note he clerked for the late Hon. S. Arthur Spiegel, a pragmatic civil rights liberal (USDC) and very left Hon. Nathaniel Jones (USCOA-6th Circuit)
Click to expand...

I hope he isn't another Souter.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Fear? No. But I do think that RBG should be replaced with either a moderate or a liberal to keep the courts balance. It's a bit off balanced now but not to the point that is what I would consider as "dire". If RBG were to be replaced with another highly conservative judge then it would not be good.
Click to expand...

Is that "balance" based on the idea that federal government power is unlimitted since nearly anything (including PPACA and education) can be tied to federal (general welfare,?) commerce and/or taxation powers? The idea that 'rights' to acquire private goods/services are being denied unless "access to" them is provided at public expense exists nowhere in the constitution as a federal power yet is very the basis for UHC, "safety net" programs, "free" (federally funded) education and BIG/GAI schemes.

I fully understand that these (socialist?) concepts are not likely to be implemented at the state/local level out of a legitimate fear that the highly taxed would flee any such state/city and those desiring "free" stuff would flock into that state/city but that does not alter (amend?) the US constitution or permit a 'liberal' interpretation to assert that these federal powers or human rights (secretly and surely?) currently exist within the US constitution as written.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah and that is what we need to start erasing the excesses of the FDR administration. and before people claim its established precedent, not FDR's courts ignored 140 years of established precedent.
Click to expand...

Fdr court did ignore over a century of precedence, I do not want that repeated, Give some balance but make sure the left wing appointee holds the constitution above all else. If we get a stacked court it will be fdr all over again just with a different agenda.
 
Renae said:
On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.
Click to expand...

Ginsburg has not been an entirely terrible judge in the exercise of her duties. She probably gets most decisions right. But to publicly oppose a Presidential candidate as she did is not the character or temperament or impartiality that we want in a Supreme Court Justice. So I too would like to see her replaced with a dedicated Constitutional originalist who understands that is the duty of the court to interpret existing law and not to make law. Gingsburg has unequivocally pledged not to die or retire while President Trump is still in office though. :)

Justice Breyer is 80 and though he seems to be in excellent health, he is not likely to be there as long as say Sotomayor or Kagan. The margin between left and right on the court is still razor thin--we can expect to continue to see a lot of 5/4 votes on emotionally charged issues.

The left is in a complete meltdown because President Trump also believes it is the function of the court to interpret existing law and not to make law. And that would mean that the left could no longer depend on the courts to make the laws that Congress or their state legislatures will not.

To get another justice or two like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would solidify the integrity of the court for decades. Hopefully by the time they retire, the country will have re-established its common sense roots and will have exposed modern American liberalism/leftism for the dangerous and destructive authoritarian and liberty destroying concept that it has become.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I hope he isn't another Souter.
Click to expand...

Souter is an interesting screw up because one of my college friends championed him being picked over a very conservative lady judge from Texas IIRC. Souter was strongly supported by Bush inner circle member John Sununu who told Bush Souter would be a strong conservative but didn't have the paper trail the left could use to Bork him. It turned out that no one really knew all that much about him including the persistent rumors that he is gay-and that caused him to move more and more left.
 
Fledermaus said:
You can tell a tech geek from a political geek when one sees RGB and automatically thinks "Red Green Blue"
Click to expand...

LOL. I had to think about that RBG for a minute, but I am definitely not a tech geek so I didn't think 'red, green, blue.' :)
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah and that is what we need to start erasing the excesses of the FDR administration. and before people claim its established precedent, not FDR's courts ignored 140 years of established precedent.
Click to expand...


TD hate to burst your bubble but the FDR excess which very few people know are now precedent. Have been for 80+ years. Thats over half of the previous 140. Its pretty well ingrained in this country. Social Security is only lawful because its a tax. A lot of current Federal government departments and functions are based on bad reading of the commerce clause. Thats a lot of disruption. How much change can the court realistically do? Who would bring those cases? How would they even get to the court to review? Those are the questions right off the top of my head.
 
TurtleDude said:
I want another strict originalist so the precedent dishonestly established under FDR can start being whittled away. The Commerce Clause was stretched beyond any honest bounds in that period and it needs to start being rolled back
Click to expand...

Amy Barret will be next, that's a no brainer. Trump runs politics like Jimmy Johnson used to run the Miami Hurricanes
he likes to run up the score. 6 to 3 on every major issue from 2020 on will certainly MAGA, as much as anything will!
 
PirateMk1 said:
TD hate to burst your bubble but the FDR excess which very few people know are now precedent. Have been for 80+ years. Thats over half of the previous 140. Its pretty well ingrained in this country. Social Security is only lawful because its a tax. A lot of current Federal government departments and functions are based on bad reading of the commerce clause. Thats a lot of disruption. How much change can the court realistically do? Who would bring those cases? How would they even get to the court to review? Those are the questions right off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

that's a fair point and yes you cannot just get rid of social security

but what we can do

1) make sure something like another Obama care is not upheld

2) get rid of most of the federal gun control laws such as the 1934 NFA-its clearly unconstitutional and won't cause any disruptions of institutions people rely upon.

3) in other words get rid of some of the restrictions on what people can do that are based on the commerce clause.
 
Harshaw said:
^^^^

"Renae is gleefully wishing for RBG's death because I say so, not because Renae did."
Click to expand...

well its consistent with "Ford is telling the truth because I was a victim of date rape"
 
TurtleDude said:
well its consistent with "Ford is telling the truth because I was a victim of date rape"
Click to expand...

Don't know if Cardinal ever made that claim himself, but I'm sure he finds it a compelling argument.
 
AlbqOwl said:
LOL. I had to think about that RBG for a minute, but I am definitely not a tech geek so I didn't think 'red, green, blue.' :)
Click to expand...

You have to be a fairly old tech geek to know that. RGB is back in the early days when there were still CRT monitors. (Cathode Ray Tube)

crt-monitors-500x500.jpg
 
Renae said:
Yeah, people like you haven't figured out what it means and how important it is to protecting all of our rights.
Click to expand...

No, people like you cling to it like some fever-dream, but it's a myth. There are no originalist judges because orignalism is a fantasy desiged to sucker people.

And it's working exactly as planned.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a fair point and yes you cannot just get rid of social security

but what we can do

1) make sure something like another Obama care is not upheld

2) get rid of most of the federal gun control laws such as the 1934 NFA-its clearly unconstitutional and won't cause any disruptions of institutions people rely upon.

3) in other words get rid of some of the restrictions on what people can do that are based on the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

So basically relitigate the 1934 ban then? That even doable?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! "Originalism" is myth, designed to fool rubes and suckers.

And it's working.
Click to expand...

How so? Please give a well thought out post(questionable if you can) and not just your typical temper tantrum posts.
 
ajn678 said:
How so? Please give a well thought out post(questionable if you can) and not just your typical temper tantrum posts.
Click to expand...

"But but but but but POSNER! He's a CONSERVATIVE!" is probably what you'll get.
 
Harshaw said:
"But but but but but POSNER! He's a CONSERVATIVE!" is probably what you'll get.
Click to expand...

It will most likely be ignored like usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom