RBG DDF shortlist and how it will shape the Elections

[Kobe Bryant]

Because it is a MAJOR shift in the makeup of the court and will only be undone if Thomas gets replaced by a Dem. With another term Trump may even replace Breyer. That can make the change last a generation.

Only if you believe the SC job is to legislate from the bench.

[shaulyaakov]

That doesn't answer the question. Why is the SCJ so sacred to the left?

It'd actually more sacred to the right based on polling data.

[aygart]

Only if you believe the SC job is to legislate from the bench.

-10000000000000000

[shaulyaakov]

Because it is a MAJOR shift in the makeup of the court and will only be undone if Thomas gets replaced by a Dem. With another term Trump may even replace Breyer. That can make the change last a generation.

Alito is no young man.

[Toasted]

Schumer keeps repeating that Ginsburg's final fervent wish was to not be replaced until a new president is elected.

Should we also change all the laws so that we go according to her view even when she was in the minority?

https://babylonbee.com/news/constitution-to-be-replaced-by-list-of-ginsburgs-last-wishes

[aygart]

Alito is no young man.

True. Only 2 years younger than Thomas. Sotomayor is 4 years younger than him. The thing is that the court is already conservative majority. If RBG is replaced by an R it would take replacing both of them to undo that. If an R replaces Breyer too then that won't even help.

[shaulyaakov]

I think the idea that liberal justices legislate from the bench and conservative ones don't is completely reductionist.

[shaulyaakov]

True. Only 2 years younger than Thomas. Sotomayor is 4 years younger than him. The thing is that the court is already conservative majority. If RBG is replaced by an R it would take replacing both of them to undo that. If an R replaces Breyer too then that won't even help.

Roberts hasn't been so conservative of late. I think liberals would settle for 5-4 with roberts as a swing vote.

[shaulyaakov]

You know what voting to overturn the ACA would be? Legislating from the bench.

[yitzgar]

You know what voting to overturn the ACA would be? Legislating from the bench.

Rabbit hole alert

[avromie7]

You know what voting to overturn the ACA would be? Legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench was allowing the ACA.

[shaulyaakov]

Legislating from the bench was allowing the ACA.

An act of congress allowed the ACA, and a vote of congress was unable to remove it.

So asking the court to do what congress could not is almost the definition of legistlating from the bench.

At least be honest that both sides do it.

[gubevo18]

An act of congress allowed the ACA, and a vote of congress was unable to remove it.

So asking the court to do what congress could not is almost the definition of legistlating from the bench.

At least be honest that both sides do it.

Would you say the same about all the civil rights cases that were only successful because the Plaintiffs went to the courts? Not always is it legislating from the bench simply because it couldn't pass in Congress. That's a statement that sounds smart but doesn't have much behind it.

I would define legislating from the bench as creating new laws or changing the law simply because you believe the policy is better. That happens on both sides but is definitely more common on the left.

And yes, saying the ACA was a tax is real stretch IMO. You might like the result but that doesn't mean it's the law.

[avromie7]

An act of congress allowed the ACA, and a vote of congress was unable to remove it.

So asking the court to do what congress could not is almost the definition of legistlating from the bench.

At least be honest that both sides do it.

When a case comes before the court, their job is to rule whether or not it's constitutional. Ruling it is constitutional because you like the law is legislating from the bench.

[yitzgar]

When a case comes before the court, their job is to rule whether or not it's constitutional. Ruling it is constitutional because you like the law is legislating from the bench.

So their job is judicial review?

[shaulyaakov]

Would you say the same about all the civil rights cases that were only successful because the Plaintiffs went to the courts? Not always is it legislating from the bench simply because it couldn't pass in Congress. That's a statement that sounds smart but doesn't have much behind it.

I would define legislating from the bench as creating new laws or changing the law simply because you believe the policy is better. That happens on both sides but is definitely more common on the left.

And yes, saying the ACA was a tax is real stretch IMO. You might like the result but that doesn't mean it's the law.

And Citizens United wasn't a stretch? Bush v Gore wasn't a stretch?

[aygart]

And Citizens United wasn't a stretch? Bush v Gore wasn't a stretch?

I am not familiar enough with the ins and outs of Bush v. Gore so I cannot comment on that one, but I am not sure how they could have possibly seen anything other than freedom of speech for all entities in the constitution. Therefore that would not be legislating from the bench. I do believe that both sides do it to an extent, but the judicial philosophies of the liberal justices lends itself to it much more than the conservative philosophies.

[Kobe Bryant]

You know what voting to overturn the ACA would be? Legislating from the bench.

Do you know what Roe vs Wade was, legislating from the bench.

I think the idea that liberal justices legislate from the bench and conservative ones don't is completely reductionist.

Not an argument you want to make.

[Afrages6]

And Citizens United wasn't a stretch? Bush v Gore wasn't a stretch?

Gore vs bush a stretch?
What should the court have done? Had they ordered a recount of all ballots according to a single standard we’d still be counting today. And there’s a provision in the constitution that the results must be certified by December 12th so there was no other choice then the one they took.

[Kobe Bryant]