[Victoribus Spolia]

Will Trump's next pick for SCOTUS get nominated? Lets see what PoFo thinks....

[One Degree]

Other. Depends on who he picks. Anyone suspected of overturning Roe will not be accepted. Trump should pick someone who says he will turn it back to the states.

Edit: To clarify, he can’t be strictly pro-life in his decision to overturn Roe.

[Foxfyre]

Other. Depends on who he picks. Anyone suspected of overturning Roe will not be accepted. Trump should pick someone who says he will turn it back to the states.

Edit: To clarify, he can’t be strictly pro-life in his decision to overturn Roe.

Any candidate could have a skeleton or two in a closet that somebody will trot out, and we know the Democrats will use their full arsenal of weapons to derail anybody the President picks. But as for Roe v Wade, assuming the candidate has qualifications and a commendable track record, he/she should simply take Gorsuch's position that he/she will follow the intent of the Constitution and existing law to the best of his/her ability. That should be sufficient to confirm.

[Suntzu]

His choice will be confirmed and quickly, before the midterms.

[annatar1914]

Will Trump's next pick for SCOTUS get nominated? Lets see what PoFo thinks....

I said Yes, his pick will be nominated and sit on the SCOTUS, because Trump has the power and furthermore, the will, a quality his GOP Establishment predecessors lacked. The added bonus for this happening is that the former PTB are coming around to his point of view, choosing the soft rather than hard option....

[Doug64]

Yes, Kavanaugh will be seated. The problem with asking Democratic Senators in states Trump carried big time to fall on their swords to stop it is that the best they can do is delay things for a few months -- because when some of them lose their elections and the Senate returns with a larger Republican majority than they already have (possibly even larger than it might have been, with angry Republicans eager to vote), the next nomination will sail through. It's tough to ask politicians to throw away their careers for nothing.

[colliric]

Yep.

Roe V Wade's days are numbered. It will be overturned soon.

[Albert]

I picked Other: I do not know. With current political climate it is hard to tell. The Senate is awfully close and it would take just one or two republicans to sabotage this nomination.

[Drlee]

Yes. Easily. Colleric is also right. Roe v. Wade is over. So is meaningful gun control.

[Hong Wu]

Gun control is a terrible idea, as anyone who has lived in a high crime area and isn't completely delusional can attest.

I view abortion as a necessary evil in some places that has not yet had its time come in America. I think that letting states ban it would be a bad idea politically. The biggest political weapon the right has against the left is that none of the left's doomsday scenarios ever seem to come to pass. Having abortions banned in certain states would be like a vindication for them I think and would probably only further increase political polarization in the country.

[colliric]

Yes, but politics is a form of "eternal" warfare. You should expect such things.

We have to get it banned then fight to keep it banned. You've got to expect a fight from the opposition. One reason Roe VS Wade is finally close to being overturned is simply because the Democrats have collapsed as a party and lost all the literal and figurative energy(I mean they put up Hillary! A geriatric senile old bat of a woman!). They can't seem to put up a fight at the moment. Better ram through everything while we can, then prepare to defend.

[Hong Wu]

Here's another thing I don't understand. Why is Kennedy's retirement presumed bad for Democrats?

The argument seems to be that it will put red state Dems into a bind and energize the Republican base. But shouldn't the opposite threat of losing abortion rights also energize the Democratic base? Aren't there moderate Republicans who could be hurt by the whole thing? The dialogue seems a little one-sided to me.

I can think of two explanations, one is that there's more red state Democrat senators than blue state Republican senators. Another issue though is the presumed anger present in the Democratic party; if they don't oppose Kavanaugh, the Dems might not forgive them, even though it's bad news politically?

[Deutschmania]

Yep.

Roe V Wade's days are numbered. It will be overturned soon.

Not so fast . It's not likely to even be reconsidered , let alone reversed any time in the foreseeable future https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/why-roe-v-wade-likely-not-grave-danger-no-matter-n888836 . Plus Kavanaugh himself has stated that he will abide by past precedent set by the Court https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/where-does-brett-kavanaugh-trump-s-supreme-court-pick-stand-n890076 .

[Victoribus Spolia]

Not so fast . It's not likely to even be reconsidered , let alone reversed any time in the foreseeable future

I actually agree with this, I don't see it being reconsidered anytime soon.

[Missus V. Spolia.]

Democrats can't stop Trump on this. I voted Yes.

[Drlee]

Although I still believe he will get the seat, recent polls show that he is the least popular candidate for appointment since the 1980's.

I don't think he is all that bad. Of course abortion will fall and guns become even more available to crazy people but in the whole scheme of things, liberals could have gotten a whole lot worse.

[Hong Wu]

I'm guessing that woman who was Fox news' favorite for the seat is being groomed to replace Ginsburg. Now that will be some salt...



How Kavanaugh polls is mostly irrelevant, as if the general public understands the Supreme Court, something that is basically the most complicated part of government. In being the most sophisticated wing of the government it's also the least susceptible to democratic opinions

[blackjack21]

In being the most sophisticated wing of the government it's also the least susceptible to democratic opinions

They've been trying to create democratic opinions for a few generations now, and mostly doing a terrible job of it because the court isn't designed to do that. That's why textualists who interpret the law instead of trying to create it are preferred. SCOTUS isn't designed to reflect public opinion, but their efforts to do just that--e.g., gay marriage--render the institution unfit for its intended purpose.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@blackjack21,

That shit really started with the Warren Court though, in all honesty.

[Drlee]

SCOTUS isn't designed to reflect public opinion, but their efforts to do just that--e.g., gay marriage--render the institution unfit for its intended purpose.

Correct.

The court was never imagined to mediate disputes caused by the failure of congress to act either.

Congress should deal with the laws, the SCOTUS the Constitution.

Jefferson said: "A sound spirit of legislation … banishing all arbitrary and unnecessary restraint on individual action, shall leave us free to do whatever does not violate the equal rights of another."

Hamilton said it best I think: "[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid …"