Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 08, 2018

President Trump's top outside adviser on his Supreme Court nomination said he's "very confident" Republicans can "get anybody confirmed," but a leading Democratic senator suggested that the president is making himself "a puppet" by selecting a Supreme Court nominee from a list compiled by conservative groups.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee that holds hearings on Supreme Court nominees, responded on "This Week" that Trump has "outsourced" his decision to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which helped compile a list of 25 potential nominees from which the president has said he would make his selection. Leo was instrumental in crafting the list as executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

"It is extraordinary," Blumenthal said in a separate interview following Leo. "I was a law clerk to [former Justice Harry Blackmun]. I've argued cases before the Supreme Court for them. I've never seen a president of the United States in effect make himself a puppet of outside groups and choose from a group of right-wing fringe ideologues that are prepared on this list."

Trump is set to announce his nominee to fill the seat of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in a prime-time televised address Monday.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Trump during his campaign in 2016 said he would appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to an abortion.

"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on ... [overturning Roe v. Wade] will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court," Trump said in his third debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Blumenthal told Stephanopoulos on "This Week" that the public supports abortion rights. In a Quinnipiac University Poll released Monday, 63 percent of Americans agree with the decision in Roe v. Wade and just 31 percent disagree.

"The vast majority of American people, shown by poll after poll, want Roe v. Wade to be preserved," Blumenthal said."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-08 06:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The vast majority of American people, shown by poll after poll, want Roe v. Wade to be preserved," Blumenthal said."

So what.

The Dems need to acknowledge that the GOP gives two ----- about what the people want. They have their marching orders and they're going to follow them no matter how unpopular the policies they implement are.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-08 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"The vast majority of American people, shown by poll after poll, want Roe v. Wade to be preserved," Blumenthal said."

Yeah, and they also wanted Hillary Clinton for President.

"So what."

Exactly.

I'm thinking abortion will be illegal by the end of the year, at least in the parts of the country where the law is in place to automatically make it illegal once Roe gets overturned.

It's gonna be the bestest Christmas ever!

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-08 09:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thank God Clinton had a private e-mail server, otherwise we'd have to suffer her intolerable competency.

#4 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-07-08 10:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Let's call this what it is: an abortion ban for poor people. That's it.

#5 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-08 11:08 PM | Reply

Repealing Roe v. Wade isn't a ban on abortion, it's a ban on safe and legal abortion. Demand will still exist; women will simply be in far more physical and legal danger, and the poor will be made poorer by having to skip work and drive 300 miles to go to the doctor.

You'd think the "supply and demand" economic experts on the right would understand that, but for some strange reason the point is lost on them. Or perhaps that's their goal.

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 01:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I hope this gets turned into a reality competition show:

"America needs a Supreme Court Justice."

No matter who wins the competition. America loses.

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-07-09 01:19 AM | Reply

joe- their goal is to control women and punish them for sex with men not them.

#8 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-09 02:45 AM | Reply

ALEX

You could have stopped at "their goal is to control women."

The result is a cottage industry for back room butchers just like it used to be before Roe v Wade.

If those pompous pro-lifers were really honest they'd be saying "out of sight, out of mind."

Because that's what it amounts to.

#9 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-07-09 04:12 AM | Reply

I'll just put it bluntly, any woman that supports Trump is an enemy of her own gender. Women will die if Roe v Wade is overturned. Women should be marching in the streets carrying coat hangers right now. A million coat hanger march on Washington would be a good idea about now.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-09 08:18 AM | Reply

Anyone surprised Dotard has outsourced this?

His entire presidency has been nothing more than bullying people on twitter and photo ops. He is an empty suit in way over his head.

We are being played by Kim Jong Un as he marches towards a deliverable nuclear weapon while Agolf Twittler lies that NK is no longer going to have nukes.

He is the president that America deserves.

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2018-07-09 09:38 AM | Reply

#12

*----*?

Are you sure you know where you're wife is doing right now?

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 09:59 AM | Reply

#12

Whistling past the graveyard. Half the population has a womb and a significant number of them will face coat hangers, or some Mexican doctor they'll travel to go see.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 10:01 AM | Reply

Which is interesting. Mexicans aren't good enough to come here but they can provide medical procedures, abetted in future by Republican coyotes making obscene profits on the abortions they say they hate.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 10:08 AM | Reply

He outsourced his decision to those who want the long-arm-of-the-law to reach deep inside every woman and girl in our country in the name of God.

MAGA

#16 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-07-09 10:15 AM | Reply

Why is Trump outsourcing?

1) He's lazy.

2) He's been paid off.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-09 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm thinking abortion will be illegal by the end of the year, at least in the parts of the country where the law is in place to automatically make it illegal once Roe gets overturned.

DRama thread of the day, as I have said repeatedly Roe is not getting overturned (in large part because a majority of Americans don't want it to be) but it sure is a useful tool to get idiots on the far ends of each side of the spectrum all fired up.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 11:25 AM | Reply

Blumenthal is just being a good soldier and parroting the recently released talking points from Priorities USA to fire up the base before the midterms, since even they concede that the Dems can no longer use the economy or tax cuts to drive voters to DNC candidates.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#19

Can't admit that the orange clown he voted for sold out his SC pick to the highest bidder.

Or that he voted for him after he said, "If we put another two or perhaps three justices on ... [overturning Roe v. Wade] will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court," .

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 11:37 AM | Reply

I fully support this march. I don't think there could be a better representative of the loonie left than a bunch of millennials and their ---- supporters marching around with coat hangers yelling about their right to kill babies. This may play well in NYC and LA, but I think it would go over like a lead balloon in most of the country.

#12 | POSTED BY MILKSHAKE69

When did this wannabe alpha yokel turn up?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-09 11:42 AM | Reply

#21

One day when RoCheney was taking a crap..... presto! There he was.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 11:44 AM | Reply

DRama thread of the day, as I have said repeatedly Roe is not getting overturned (in large part because a majority of Americans don't want it to be) but it sure is a useful tool to get idiots on the far ends of each side of the spectrum all fired up.

#18 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I wasn't under the impression the will of the people was considered by SCOTUS.

Also, didn't the recent batch of released decisions all go against precedence? Or at least a significant number of them?

The right is moving towards making the US into their awwww shucks, Leave it to Beaver 1950's fantasy world, except where the cops an violate your rights with impunity, corporations own you and the Bible is supreme whether you believe it or not.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-09 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This may play well in NYC and LA, but I think it would go over like a lead balloon in most of the country."

Women in all states want the right to control their own bodies. The right to get an abortion wouldn't go away with the overturning of Roe, it would just force women to travel to states where it is still legal, just as it was before Roe.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-09 11:56 AM | Reply

"I have said repeatedly Roe is not getting overturned"

Signed,
Iraqi Information Minister

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 12:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--DRama thread of the day,

Just wait until tonight when the proggies will be crying in their chardonnay.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-09 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#26

New Trump Voter Cries Pompously in His Ale:

www.youtube.com

Hoping no one will notice that he provided no argument in his post.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 12:07 PM | Reply

Just wait until tonight when the proggies will be crying in their chardonnay.

#26 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Better than sitting in a soiled diaper all day because the orderlies don't want to help your miserable ass.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-09 12:08 PM | Reply

Should Trump and the ------- evangelical Republicans get their wish, would a prudent investment not be in a coat-hanger factory, the products made from good old U.S. smelted iron?

MAGA

#29 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-07-09 12:16 PM | Reply

Roe is not getting overturned (in large part because a majority of Americans don't want it to be

In case you haven't noticed, majority public opinion doesn't play into Supreme Court rulings. The only thing that matters is whether 5 SC justices want to repeal Roe, and with another federalist society pick, there will definitely be at least 4, with Roberts being the likely 5th.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just wait until tonight when the proggies will be crying in their chardonnay.

#26 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Just wait for tonight when this "classic liberal" Republican voter will be celebrating yet another lifetime rwinger appointment to the SC.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 12:44 PM | Reply

Roe is not getting overturned (in large part because a majority of Americans don't want it to be

A majority of Americans wanted Hillary for president.

A majority of Americans want health care, clear air, clean water and the wealthy to pay more in taxes to cut the debt.

The wants of 99% of Americans are irrelevant to the GOP.

#32 | Posted by 726 at 2018-07-09 01:11 PM | Reply

I'm for legal abortion but generally opposed to the performance of abortions except when very necessary. But reading ---- like "#12 | POSTED BY MILKSHAKE69" makes me think we need more abortions and even euthanasia for certain deplorable folks.

#33 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-07-09 01:14 PM | Reply

Can't admit that the orange clown he voted for sold out his SC pick to the highest bidder.
Or that he voted for him

Gary Johnson still isn't POTUS Corky, so you got nothing here.

I wasn't under the impression the will of the people was considered by SCOTUS.

...

In case you haven't noticed, majority public opinion doesn't play into Supreme Court rulings.

Actually, Joe must have been asleep in his ConLaw classes when both Lochner v. New York and Plesy v. Ferguson were overturned. In each instance, as Sandy Day O'Conner noted in her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stare Decisis was extensively discussed and examined the reasons why the SCOTUS decided to disregard this doctrine in those two cases. In both instances, the Court acknowledged that public opinion had moved past the central issues and reasoning in those cases and that Stare Decisis should not apply.

To help decide when to reaffirm a precedent and when to overrule it, the justices in Casey collected four factors from other cases and past practices. They said respect for precedent should be guided by:

1. whether a constitutional rule has proven to be unworkable;
2. whether society has built up reliance on the rule;
3. whether legal doctrines have changed so that a rule has become obsolete; and
4. whether facts have changed so much that a rule has become insignificant or unsupported.

In discussing these four factors in their joint Casey opinion, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter concluded that Roe merited respect as precedent and should not be overruled, although they changed the analytical framework for evaluating abortion issues.

None of the three justices could be considered pro-choice or favoring abortion, but they reached the following conclusion in Casey: "Within the bounds of normal stare decisis analysis, then, and subject to the considerations on which it customarily turns, the stronger argument is for affirming Roe's central holding, with whatever degree of personal reluctance any of us may have, not for overruling it."

Of these four factors, 2 and 4, and as acknowledged by O'Connor in Casey, by necessity, factor in public opinion in determining the application of Stare Decisis to a prior ruling. Since the public is in favor of legal abortion, at the very least factor number 2 comes into play. While the absence of one factor isn't determinative to the analysis, facts underlying the "rule" in Roe, as noted by O'Connor, have only grown stronger in support of that ruling so that lead to them affirming Roe.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In Casey, the three justices went on to explain why overruling was appropriate in both Lochner and Plessy and how they differed from the abortion ruling. In the late 1930s, the Court repudiated the line of cases that had come to define the Lochner ruling, a 1905 case in which the court struck down a labor law that limited working hours as an arbitrary limitation on freedom of contract that violated the due process clause. The Casey justices noted that the court's sharp change of direction in the 1930s, after the Great Depression, reflected a recognition that the free-market economic view that had dominated the court for three decades was no longer viable and had been abandoned by society. It is notable that the Court in the 1930 was, by the standards of that time, very conservative.

Similarly, the overruling of the separate-but-equal doctrine that had been adopted by the court in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson was determined, in large part, because of the change in public opinion factor. In Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and in other desegregation rulings, the court said that the nation's understanding of the impact of segregation had changed, thus destroying the factual underpinnings of Plessy.

In both historical examples, the justices wrote in Casey, "changed circumstances" meant that "the thoughtful part of the Nation could accept each decision to overrule a prior case as a response to the Court's constitutional duty." But in the case of abortion, the justices said, "neither the factual underpinnings of Roe‘s central holding nor our understanding of it has changed."

These arguments about Roe in Casey are over 25 years old. Yet little has changed in the application of the standards for Stare Decisis that would make the right to abortion less settled than it was in 1992. This fact, combined with the longevity of the right to abortion, ought, by legal measures, to give Roe a strong claim to stare decisis regardless of the ideological makeup of the Court.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 01:50 PM | Reply

#34, I'm talking about the current court, not what the 1995 court would have done with the question. The SC is packed with ideologues now.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 01:53 PM | Reply

#36

Here is your quote: "In case you haven't noticed, majority public opinion doesn't play into Supreme Court rulings", which is what I was correcting.

Even though the Court has a rightward bent, the Stare Decisis analysis is good law and was used most recently by the Court when it declared that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges and that issue is "settled" from here on out. In Obergefell, the Court once again noted that public opinion was in favor of same sex marriage and under the Casey analysis prior precedent should be overturned.

Unless the Court wanted to repudiate its Stare Decisis analysis in Casey, it would take near unanimity to overturn Roe at this point.

That isn't going to stop both sides from using Roe and the issue of abortion as organizing principles and rallying points. The intersection of anti-abortion political movements with pro-life moral values on the one side and pro-choice/womens rights movement on the other continue to add to the power of the issue as a political rallying cry for both the Right and the Left.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 02:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

We all know societal reliance is a factor in stare decisis analysis. Aside from the fact that "reliance" is not the same thing as "public opinion," my point is that the current court is far more likely to give less weight to that particular factor when it comes to implementing the agenda of those who appointed them. And in case you didn't notice, four SC justices would have decided Obergefell in the other direction, and there's about to be a fifth.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 02:14 PM | Reply

"We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases."
-Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Thomas
If you don't think the current crop of Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and whatever cretin Trump appoints tonight won't take the same approach, you're just ignorant. As i said upthread, Roberts will be the swing vote.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 02:24 PM | Reply

And in case you didn't notice, four SC justices would have decided Obergefell in the other direction, and there's about to be a fifth.

And in case you didn't notice, each of the dissents in Obergefell argued the other side of the Casey stare decisis analysis (i.e. that precedent needed to be maintained given the active debate over this issue until it was) and that the Court should not be "legislating" or ignoring precedent to create new law.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 02:27 PM | Reply

"and that the Court should not be "legislating" or ignoring precedent to create new law."

Which has all the legal power of a fart in the wind. Precedent always matters, until it doesn't.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 02:29 PM | Reply

#41 exactly. And ROC will be claiming the court will follow Roe all the way until the moment they don't, then he'll pivot and defend their decision.

Must be sad to be so predictable.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 02:31 PM | Reply

each of the dissents in Obergefell argued...that the Court should not be "legislating" or ignoring precedent to create new law.

Which most, if not all, of them feel was the basis on which Roe was decided in the first place.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 02:34 PM | Reply

#37 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I appreciate that thoughtful explanation (I learned quite a bit), but isn't the one thing central to the comparison between gay marriage and abortion rights going ignored in that explanation? Namely the contextual argumentative difference between each issue: one being a right to a behavior and another a right to life? I mean, depending on which side you are on the abortion debate, I can see how the argument could be focused on it being behavior on part of the mother, but that's not debatable in terms of gay marriage.

Hence, the gay marriage debate is solely about behavior while the abortion debate can be, and is, dichotomized into arguments surrounding behavior (i.e., pro-choice) and life (i.e., pro-life). With that said, isn't there room to acknowledge the potential that the conservative justices would view the debate surrounding abortion within the context of it being a matter of life/death and not behavior?

If so, wouldn't this debate depend on the formal identification of when life starts and, therefor, when rights as a human being/citizen begin?

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-07-09 02:41 PM | Reply

#39

As I said upthread, that quote is from 26 years ago, and I as one of my professors at Hastings said a long time ago, "my crystal ball broke the day I passed the bar", so neither of us has any idea what issues will be before the Court, if ever, that would lead to a ruling that would overturn Roe.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 02:43 PM | Reply

"I have said repeatedly Roe is not getting overturned
#18 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

Followed by:

"neither of us has any idea what issues will be before the Court, if ever, that would lead to a ruling that would overturn Roe.
#45 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

Would you two get your story straight?
Thanks.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Precedent always matters, until it doesn't.

#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-07-09 02:29 PM

That's what the Stare Decisis analysis in Casey was all about, and to use Joe's term, the societal reliance prong in #2 is going to be very difficult for even a very conservative court to overcome.

But by all means rally around what Priorities USA wants you to be upset about this month.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 02:49 PM | Reply

Trump makes his putter straight.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 02:50 PM | Reply

Would you two get your story straight?

It is straight, it is a two step process, the Court has to accept a case and then rule on it.

You're welcome.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 02:51 PM | Reply

Glad to see that Goofy and Dorky are providing nothing of substance to the discussion, as usual.

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the Court has to accept a case and then rule on it."

That's not the part that needs explaining.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 02:54 PM | Reply

POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-07-09 01:40 PM | REPLY | FLAGGED NEWSWORTHY BY NULLIFIDIAN, NEWSWORTHY BY AVIGDORE

See what we are dealing with here, folks? Nulli is no longer distinguishable from Avigdorable or RofReince Priebus.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 02:54 PM | Reply

--#52 | Posted by Corky

My troll has been stalking me from thread to thread all day, like most days. It's kind of creepy.

#53 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-09 02:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Roe is not getting overturned"

Later,

"the societal reliance prong in #2 is going to be very difficult for even a very conservative court to overcome."

Would you two get your story straight?
Thanks.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 02:57 PM | Reply

"Roe is not getting overturned"

Later,

"the societal reliance prong in #2 is going to be very difficult for even a very conservative court to overcome."

Would you two get your story straight?
Thanks.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 02:58 PM | Reply

#53

The Trump Pet behind the curtain hates to be outed... of course, he had no comment on the veracity of what I said. He never does... about anything. He just trolls. Likely because he's not bright enough to make cogent arguments.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-09 03:00 PM | Reply

... with Roberts being the likely 5th.

I'm not so sure. Roberts penchant for restraint and protection of the Court as an institution might militate against his vote for overturning Roe. It cannot be doubted such a ruling would be perceived as a political one and would drag the Court's reputation down even further than it is now. I just can't see Roberts voting for that major hit to the Court. But like ROC, my crystal ball broke a long time ago.

... the Court has to accept a case and then rule on it.

Procedurally and substantively what would that case look like? Who would have standing i.e. been harmed by the existence of Roe? I haven't come up with such a case, maybe someone else can.

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-09 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But by all means rally around what Priorities USA wants you to be upset about this month."

You're joking, right? The Court ignored stare decisis several times in the last term alone.

Precedent matters, until it doesn't. Until it gets in the way of the judge's agenda.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Who would have standing i.e. been harmed by the existence of Roe?"

A child who survived, yet sustained injuries?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 03:29 PM | Reply

A mother who survived, but sustained injury. Plenty of them around.

I would assume activists are getting pregnant and having risky abortions right now just to get it outlawed. Probably pays well.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 03:51 PM | Reply

Procedurally and substantively what would that case look like? Who would have standing i.e. been harmed by the existence of Roe? I haven't come up with such a case, maybe someone else can.

#57 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2018-07-09 03:13 PM

Which is exactly my point in #45, no one has any idea what would be the issues that Cert is granted on.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 04:22 PM | Reply

"Roe is not getting overturned"
Later,
"the societal reliance prong in #2 is going to be very difficult for even a very conservative court to overcome."

Would you two get your story straight?
Thanks.

#54 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-07-09 02:57 PM

Basically saying the same thing here, I would ask you to keep up but that would require basic reading comprehension, which we all know is outside your limited skillset.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 04:26 PM | Reply

A mother who survived, but sustained injury. Plenty of them around.

Which most likely means that this is not an issue that gets Cert.

Next?

#63 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 04:27 PM | Reply

"no one has any idea what would be the issues that Cert is granted on."

Would you agree Cert is easier if the judges wish there were Cert?

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 04:29 PM | Reply

"Basically saying the same thing here"

Not at all. One's salient phrase is "is not", while the other boils down to Gee, it'll be difficult. If you don't see a difference, you're nuts.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 04:31 PM | Reply

#65

Easy DRama Queen, it takes more than just the societal reliance prong to be ignored for stare decisis to get the same treatment.

Take a deep breath and read Casey.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 04:40 PM | Reply

Would you agree Cert is easier if the judges wish there were Cert?

#64 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-07-09 04:29 PM

Sure, that would fall in the "judges interest" category of the four reasons cases get certiorari:

1. Conflict of law, where 2 circuits disagree on a fundamental question of law;

2. National importance, i.e. Gore v. Bush;

3. Judges Interest, a preference that a majority of the judges wish to hear; and

4. Lower Court disregard of SCOTUS precedent.

Historically, most cases granted cert are under 1 and 4, the smallest category is number 3 and most of them have been apolitical. If a Roe challenge gets cert, it will most likely be under 2, National Importance, and will, as Et Al notes, be a major hit to the Court that Roberts is probably not going to countenance.

Each year SCOTUS gets more than 10,000 applications for cert, and grants only between 50 and 80, or .8%.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 04:50 PM | Reply

As I said upthread, that quote is from 26 years ago

And yet you relied upon the majority opinion from the very same case to back up your claim that the current court would follow Roe as precedent. It seems cases and opinions are only too old when they don't comport with your position.

Procedurally and substantively what would that case look like?

I can guarantee you that within 1 year of whatever cretin Trump nominates getting confirmed, a state like South Dakota or Oklahoma will either ban abortion outright or restrict it well beyond what is allowed by Roe, and the case will go to the SC.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then again, do they even need a case?

Scalia was about to overturn it without a new case in front of the court, and his 5th vote flipped at the 11th hour.

What would stop a five-member majority from "correcting" Roe?

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 05:18 PM | Reply

" it takes more than just the societal reliance prong to be ignored for stare decisis to get the same treatment."

Prong the Societals any way you want: Did the court ignore stare decisis in any case this year or not? Obviously, yes.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-07-09 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And yet you relied upon the majority opinion from the very same case to back up your claim that the current court would follow Roe as precedent.

You quoted from the dissent in Casey that three dead guys signed off on, I discussed the legal analysis for stare decisis set forth in Casey that is still used to this date.

Big difference, as you should know having gone to Law School.

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 05:37 PM | Reply

I can guarantee you that within 1 year of whatever cretin Trump nominates getting confirmed, a state like South Dakota or Oklahoma will either ban abortion outright or restrict it well beyond what is allowed by Roe, and the case will go to the SC.

#68 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-07-09 05:17 PM

"Guarantee"? Interesting that you think your crystal ball still works.

#72 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 05:39 PM | Reply

You quoted from the dissent in Casey that three dead guys signed off on, I discussed the legal analysis for stare decisis set forth in Casey that is still used to this date.

And yet you keep ignoring the obvious fact that not only is the current rightwing of the court more ideological than it was in 1995, but that they also only needed one more person to move the case in the other direction, which they will have after Trump nominates another "federalist."

I'm not taking the bait on any of your personal attacks, but your consistent resorting to ad hominem is telling.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 06:11 PM | Reply

"Guarantee"? Interesting that you think your crystal ball still works.
#72 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

He's not the only one:

"as I have said repeatedly Roe is not getting overturned
#18 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 06:17 PM | Reply

I'm not taking the bait on any of your personal attacks, but your consistent resorting to ad hominem is telling.

Did I hurt your feelings with the Crystal Ball comment? It was actually a follow on to my and Et Al's comment on our crystal balls breaking when we passed the bar (which is an ancient lawyer joke), but if I struck a nerve I apologize.

#75 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 06:23 PM | Reply

#74

Looks like my personal salad ------ is still following me around.

#76 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 06:29 PM | Reply

#76

Interesting you admit to getting your salad tossed, but you can't admit that one of your posts alludes to your own personal guarantee.

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-07-09 06:51 PM | Reply

#77

I'm not guaranteeing it's not going to happen, I am just saying IMO there are too many obstacles for it to happen.

A narrow distinction to be sure, but that is my story and I am sticking to it.

#78 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 07:01 PM | Reply

I'm not taking the bait on any of your personal attacks, but your consistent resorting to ad hominem is telling.

#73 | POSTED BY JOE

You are the last one who has any business complaining about ad hominem attacks. Most of your posts have ad hominem mixed in.

As it pertains to the 26 year old quote - it's telling that 26 years have passed and Roe still stands. Fact is, with the passage of time it only gets strengthened as one of the primary reasons for Stare Decisis is societal predictability - to prevent upheaval.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-09 07:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It's telling that 26 years have passed and Roe still stands"

Roe's been around for 45 years, not 26.

I believe it was 26 years ago that Casey undid parts of Roe, though.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 07:16 PM | Reply

I believe it was 26 years ago that Casey undid parts of Roe, though.

#80 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-07-09 07:16 PM

And strongly affirmed it, don't forget that:

"Within the bounds of normal stare decisis analysis, then, and subject to the considerations on which it customarily turns, the stronger argument is for affirming Roe's central holding, with whatever degree of personal reluctance any of us may have, not for overruling it."

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-09 07:23 PM | Reply

Snoofy.

I was pointing out that 26 years had elapsed since those justices made that remark yet Roe still stands.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-09 07:50 PM | Reply

I was pointing out that parts of Roe do not in fact still stand.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 07:56 PM | Reply

"Within the bounds of normal stare decisis analysis"

Surely 40,000,000 killings in 35 years extends beyond the normal bounds of state decisis analysis.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 07:58 PM | Reply

... one of the primary reasons for Stare Decisis is societal predictability - to prevent upheaval.

It is that societal upheaval and the inevitable damage to the Court that I believe will give Roberts, who is the likely swing vote, great pause.

#85 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-09 08:01 PM | Reply

#85 you shoulda ended with "pregnant pause."

I'm sticking with: Roe will be undone by Christmas.

Someone give me odds and it should be easy money for you!

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-09 08:06 PM | Reply

#85

Where was this concern for social upheaval when the court sold the people out to the capitalists?

#87 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-09 08:12 PM | Reply

I was pointing out that 26 years had elapsed since those justices made that remark yet Roe still stands.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-09 07:50 PM | REPLY

Conservatives then weren't as nut jobby as they are today.

#88 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-09 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why are all the rightwingers quoting an opinion that none of their preferred justices joined, authored by a side who will soon be in the minority?

Are you guys losing your minds?

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-09 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Right wing fringe ideologues"

Are there "left wing fringe ideolgoues?"

Why is THAT LANGUAGE never used?

It would be NARAL, the Human Rights Campaign and the ACLU. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

#90 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-10 01:04 AM | Reply

Why are all the rightwingers quoting an opinion that none of their preferred justices joined, authored by a side who will soon be in the minority?
Are you guys losing your minds?

#89 | POSTED BY JOE

Which opinion are you referring to?

PS - my apologies if it isn't obvious over the course of this thread - I've been on vacation for over a week and am drive-by blogging.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 01:04 AM | Reply

Can i get odds on Roe being overturned before 2020?
Come on, ya abortion-lovers! Give me odds.

I say less than 10% likely.

#92 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-10 01:08 AM | Reply

Can i get odds on Roe being overturned before 2020?

Less than 0.1%

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 01:21 AM | Reply

The whole thing went wrong when nominees started being picked for their influence on social issues and not by their qualifications. This actually isn't an old tactic if you read SC history. Social issues were rarely ever a thing pre-1920s'ish and it took the Dems being against civil rights for it to happen. Unfortunately, now it's common practice and continues to degrade what the SC is meant to do.

#94 | Posted by humtake at 2018-07-10 11:45 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort