RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up

=Tamar

Sergeant-at-Arms
May 20, 2012
6,054
327
2,550
#1
She held on as long as she could.
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
29,545
288
3,525
Cardiff, Wales
#4
RIP Ruth! I'm sickened that there might be a trump appointed replacement before next year. Obama wasn't allowed to appoint a Supreme Court nomination in an election year, so the same should be true here.
 

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
8,010
382
3,050
44
Melbourne, Victoria
#5
Blame Mitch McConnell. =(

- When a judge died during a Bush election year, McConnell insisted on appointing a new one before Bush was out.
- When a judge died during an Obama election year, McConnell insisted on NOT appointing a new one before election.

And now this.

Flip, flop, flip, flop ... :rolleyes:
 

Catch-up

Sergeant-at-Arms
Jul 26, 2008
7,725
81
2,850
Michigan, U.S.A.
#6
I have no words. Hearing this news was an absolute punch in the gut. And yep, what Rath said. Mitch McConnell is pure evil and will no doubt ram tRump's selection through, which will effect our country for generations.
 
Oct 1, 2009
4,324
69
2,150
Boston, MA USA
#7
I am hoping that if Joe Biden is elected and the Democrats regain control of the Senate, that together they will add two new seats to the Supreme Court to allow him to balance it out. This has been done before (last time by FDR) and its not unconstitutional since the number of SC members isn't specified in the Constitution. It would require an act of Congress and most likely a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

I also hope they pass a law mandating term limits for Supreme Court justices and federal judges. There is no reason why they should be able to serve for life and nothing in the Constitution forbids establishing term limits. I think a 16 or 18 year term is entirely reasonable.
 

RathDarkblade

Moderator
City Watch
Mar 24, 2015
8,010
382
3,050
44
Melbourne, Victoria
#8
Why is it that judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court always follow party lines? *curious* Is there any reason for this?

I'd like to see a Republican-appointed SC judge turn around and say "Nyah, nyah, I'm actually a radical Democrat! Up yours, Rush Limbaugh!" :p And vice-versa, too. They don't need any reason for this; just to throw a spanner in the works, y'know? :)
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
29,545
288
3,525
Cardiff, Wales
#9
They don't always vote on party lines.. They are supposed to make laws and decisions on laws and should take that into consideration when making decisions. However, the politics in the US has become very partisan in recent years. The Republicans under Mitch McConnel are trying to load the court with extremists who are likely to make bad decisions to appease their base and donors.
 
Oct 1, 2009
4,324
69
2,150
Boston, MA USA
#10
The politicization of the Supreme Court has been in existence since nearly the beginning, but really only came into its own with the "Marshall Court" of the first few decades of the 1800s. During that time, chief justice John Marshall greatly expanded the power of the federal government over the states, much to the chagrin of the southern presidents (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson) during that time. From then on in, presidents picked justices who they hoped would reflect theirs (or their party's) political views.

Sometimes the appointments backfire. For example, Eisenhower made former Republican governor Earl Warren Chief Justice in 1953, believing that he would lead the court in a more conservative direction. Warren did just the opposite, presiding over some of the most important decisions that overturned centuries old laws allowing racial discrimination.
 

Book of the Month

Good Omens

"Pratchett’s wackiness collaborates with Gaiman’s morbid humour; the result is a humanist delight to be savoured and read again and again."

Latest posts

User Menu

Newsletter