Overall, I think Gowdy would be a lame justice. He certainly has disappointed consistently while in Congress.

Asked by anchor Van Jones of any deal breakers regarding the positions of potential candidates, Scott said he does not have a "litmus test on a specific issue," but will scrutinize each of their records.

The snowflake left are all in an uproar over Roe V Wade.... however IMHO, I doubt any bench, regardless of how conservative minded, will overturn any past decision.

Now... I do feel a bench full of rug munching, man hating socialist Ginsburgs, would overturn past decisions.

Besides, I think Trump said he would pick from the list which has already been published.

He's a good senator but not someone who knows much about the Court. This sounds more like Carolinian boosterism.

It does seem odd that Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham are both lifelong bachelors as well as SC senators. Not that I care much, just seems unusual in such a biblethumping state.

Get outta here!

Overall, I think Gowdy would be a lame justice. He certainly has disappointed consistently while in Congress.

Disappointing? Yes. But you have to admit that no one in Washington talks a better game than he does. Jim Jordan gets First Runner-Up.

As for the court, however, Trey Gowdy could have a huge impact during oral arguments. I didn't realize (until about a year ago) that the justices decide these cases in isolation. I always thought they sat around afterwards and debated -- like a jury would.

Meaning, whatever Gowdy came up with during oral arguments would stick with them. If he comes up with some real zingers (as he is wont to do), it could really influence the other justices.

You realize that Tim Scott did co-author a book with Gowdy on racial reconciliation, published in April 2018?

You realize that Tim Scott did co-author a book with Gowdy on racial reconciliation, published in April 2018?

I do now.

But I don't need a book to tell me how to get along with an African- American who is a popular, intelligent, well-spoken, hard-working, conservative U.S. Senator. It can't be that hard.

I need a book to tell me how to get along with some ignorant-ass n**** with an attitude, a high-school dropout on the public dole whose only job is dealing drugs and getting teens pregnant and looking for white people to play the knock-out game. And, most importantly, a chapter telling me why I should.

I need a book to tell me how to get along with some ignorant-ass n**** with an attitude, a high-school dropout on the public dole whose only job is dealing drugs and getting teens pregnant and looking for white people to play the knock-out game. And, most importantly, a chapter telling me why I should.

I'm not sure that Trey and Tim are planning a book like that.

I'm not sure that Trey and Tim are planning a book like that.

If they did they'd have to market it as fiction.

I also believe that Roe V Wade will never be overturned. I do enjoy watching the libs get all upset over the mere thought that it may be.

The threat to Roe is real, but is not limited to Roe. It need not even be a case about abortion.

Assuming Trump appoints another originalist to replace Justice Kennedy, and gets to appoint one more when Ginsburg (or Sotomayor/Kagan/Breyer) retires or ossifies at the bench, there could be five originalists (plus Roberts) on the bench. They could overturn the entire line of cases which depends upon the existence of zones of privacy emanating from the penumbras.

Griswold, [1965] Opinion of the Court at 484:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen.

Strike down that line of legal reasoning and a whole series of cases, built upon said legal reasoning, fall with it. One of those cases is Roe.

Another weakness of Roe is the Court's claim to jurisdiction.

They could overturn the entire line of cases which depends upon the existence of zones of privacy emanating from the penumbras.

Yes, they could overturn it... that’s just a simple mathematical fact. My point was this... they all, regardless of their political affiliations, are slimy fucking attorneys. They all have an unwritten code amongst them not to overturn a past USC case decision, as a whole. IOW, don’t ever expect any bench to take a case, based on the exact SAME LEGAL QUESTION, and overturn it.

Now... will they make decisions on the rough ends of a past case... YES.

Roe V Wade is history. Stick a fork in it. The very “spirit” of that decision, IMHO, will never be decided on again.

Just ask yourself, how important is a USSC decision... if it can be flipped 25 years later? The better question is this... just how righteous can any USSC decision be, if it can be changed, just because you disagree with it?

What we need is Trump to seat TWO more justices... and some real 2nd amendment decisions be heard. Make it impossible for any libtard city or state to just arbitrarily ban handguns or ANY semi auto rifle.

My point was this... they all, regardless of their political affiliations, are slimy fucking attorneys. They all have an unwritten code amongst them not to overturn a past USC case decision, as a whole. IOW, don’t ever expect any bench to take a case, based on the exact SAME LEGAL QUESTION, and overturn it.

The same legal question has been taken up and decided differently time after time. It is usually done on presentation of a different legal theory.

Case examples are:

Plessy v. Ferguson 8-1 (1896) held that separate but equal was constitutional. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education 9-0 (1954) held that separate but equal was inherently unequal and was unconstitutional.

Brown did not involve some new and unique list of facts. The Court stated, "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

As Justice Kennedy noted in his dissent of June 22, 2018 in Carpenter,

The Court has twice held that individuals have no Fourth Amendment interests in business records which are possessed, owned, and controlled by a third party. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979). This is true even when the records contain personal and sensitive information. So when the Government uses a subpoena to obtain, for example, bank records, telephone records, and credit card statements from the businesses that create and keep these records, the Government does not engage in a search of the business’s customers within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

In this case petitioner challenges the Government’s right to use compulsory process to obtain a now-common kind of business record: cell-site records held by cell phone service providers. The Government acquired the records through an investigative process enacted by Congress.

The Opinion of the Court in Carpenter v. United States held that the Government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search. The legal theory not previously used against this specific legal question was something about zones of privacy and emanations from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. It worked for condoms and abortions, why not for searches of business records? If five originalist justices get on the bench, this line of reasoning could be an endangered species.

What we need is Trump to seat TWO more justices...

That is sort of what I said: "Assuming Trump appoints another originalist to replace Justice Kennedy, and gets to appoint one more when Ginsburg (or Sotomayor/Kagan/Breyer) retires or ossifies at the bench, there could be five originalists (plus Roberts) on the bench. They could overturn the entire line of cases which depends upon the existence of zones of privacy emanating from the penumbras."

and some real 2nd amendment decisions be heard. Make it impossible for any libtard city or state to just arbitrarily ban handguns or ANY semi auto rifle.

An arbitrary handgun ban is unlawful in D.C. (Heller) and all 50 states (McDonald). A thoughtful, well-reasoned handgun ban is also prohibited.

I doubt the court will wade into finding semi-auto weapons not subject to regulation. The court will more likely find that as long as you can keep and bear one of Dirty Harry's hand-held cannons, you have not been legally deprived of your right to keep and bear arms.

Roe V Wade is history. Stick a fork in it. The very “spirit” of that decision, IMHO, will never be decided on again.

Roe will probably be overturned some day as poorly reasoned bad law.

One large portion of the people want abortion prohibited. Another wants legal abortion on demand. Both factions largely want the ability to tell people in the other 49 political communities what they must do. They want an activist court to empower them to force their will upon all.

Overturning, as opposed to reversing, Roe could result in jurisdiction being given back to the states. And Texans would sue in federal court to stop abortion in California, and Californians would sue in federal court to make abortion legal on demand in Texas. Abortion is something the state or federal legislative branch should address. The legislators are quite happy to leave it with the courts.

I’ve told you this before. I won’t tell you again.

When Roe V Wade is overturned, I’ll make it a point to announce I’m wrong. When Miranda is over turned... I’ll do the same. When District of Columbia v. Heller is overturned, I’ll take you to lunch. When Brown v. Board of Education is reversed... I’ll give you my fucking Harley.

Until then, stfu.