[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Supreme Court Issues for the Next President This is it folks: the big enchilada. For 46 years, since 1969, the Republican Party had controlled the Supreme Court. With Justice Scalia's death, today nobody controls the Supreme Court. There are 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans. 2 of the Democrats (Ginsburg and Breayer) and one of the Republicans (Kennedy) are old (80+). Thomas is getting up there (about 70). With a 4-4 time, the Supreme Court is currently near deadlock. Justice Kennedy sometimes votes with the liberal wing on some issues, so there is a slight liberal advantage in the current court, but not much on most issues. What this means is that, if the Supreme Court hears a case and splits on party line, there will be no majority opinon, and the lower circuit court decisions will stand. When Obama took office in 2008, only one of 13 circuit courts had a Democrat majority. Now, 9 do. Which means that now about 3/4's of the cases that reach the Supreme Court have been decided by Democrat majority courts. So, if the Supreme Court splits 4-4, a Democrat opinion is likely to be the one that stands in about 75% of cases. If Obama is succeeded by a Democrat, it is likely that more, and perhaps eventually all, of the federal appeals courts will be controlled by Democrats. Obama has proposed a nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, but the Senate has refused to consider anyone until after the election. If a Democrat is elected President, the Supreme Court will be majority Democrat, for even if the Senate remains Republican and refuses to approve any Democrat judicial appointments, Congress goes into recess, and the President has the power to fill vacancies with recess appointments. If the Republicans gain the White House, they will retain control of the Supreme Court for the same reason. So, what's at stake judicially? All of the following case types are moving their way through the federal courts. The election will determine what the courts say Constitution means for the next 30-40 years: First Amendment: college speech codes, hate speech laws. Are corporations "people" entitled to give unlimited contributions to political super-PACs ("Citizens United")? What about unions? Religious exceptions to Obamacare, speech codes and LGBT civil rights legislation? Second Amendment: individual gun rights ("Heller"), registration, carry, concealed carry, assault rifles. Fourth Amendment: Abortion limits? EPA "regulatory seizures" without compensation? Death penalty? Treaty authority regarding global warming and armaments? Affirmative Action? Obamacare and insurance exchanges. Presidential war powers and Executive Order prerogatives. Presidential immigration authority via Executive Order. "Motor-Voter" and other voting access and identification issues. In short: is our Constitution a "living, breathing document" or is it set in time and limited by original intent? If the Republican wins and appoints the next Supreme, these questions will go one way. If the Democrat wins and appoints the next Supreme, it will go the other way. Essentially, every political issue of the past 30 years has made its way onto the judicial docket or into the pipeline headed upward, and given the current composition of the appeals courts and Supreme Court, under the status who the liberal Democrats will slowly win. Only a sustained occupation of the White House by a Republican change that. Trump has said he will appoint somebody like Scalia. If Trump means, Supreme Court Republican control will be reasserted, and the Appeals courts will gradually drift back into GOP control over time. If Hillary wins, the liberal Democrat position on every one of those issues will rapidly become law, as 5 liberals on the Supreme Court will break the logjam and force the Democrat solution within a couple of years. Literally every issue of importance is on the line this election. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Breyer, not "Breayer".
And wouldn't you know it? The Supreme Court demonstrated this just today. The question before it: can government unions compel non-union members to pay dues. The Democrat-controlled Appeals Court said "yes". It went to the Supremes. With Scalia gone, the court split 4-4, which means the appeals court decision stands - so a big win for the Democrats. Given that 9 of 13 appellate courts are now in Dem hands, a strategy presents itself. Look for favorable rulings from the appellate court. Rush to the Supremes. It takes 4 justices to grant a writ of certiorari. With the court split 4-4, the side that likes the appeals court decisions grants cert, the case comes up, is divided 4-4: the appeals court ruling stands.
Excellent.
Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|