2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Of course it can.
I may be misremembering, but haven't the important challenges to it been narrow 5-4 decisions?

Also, I think many of the associated protections have been via executive order, which the new President can cancel at any time.

Protections can absolutely be overturned.

 

As for a conservative SCOTUS overruling the previous court decision:

 

1. The court rarely overrules itself and almost never overrules itself within a few years of the original decision.

 

2. The court rarely overrules itself and removes protection from a class of people in the process. In fact, I don't know if it has ever happened.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And for all the fretting over a conservative justice being added to the court, I'm not convinced it's an earth-shattering thing to happen. I don't like it happening, but it may not be a crushing blow should RBG hang on for four more years and Trump only gets to appoint one justice.

 

Over time, justices turn liberal.* Even Scalia softened a bit over time. Roberts is damned near a liberal already and he's "only" 61 years old. Alito isn't far behind him.

 

As justices age, most seem to focus more intensely on legacy. They don't want to make rulings that will render them a historical embarrassment to future courts, forcing justices to overturn their decisions. As a conservative justice rolls in, some of the older conservative justices will continue to soften and, hopefully, something resembling a balance will be maintained.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

 

*excepting Clarence Thomas, whom most of us can agree is an embarrassment to the court and a terrible human being

[Mike Sixel]

 

And for all the fretting over a conservative justice being added to the court, I'm not convinced it's an earth-shattering thing to happen. I don't like it happening, but it may not be a crushing blow should RBG hang on for four more years and Trump only gets to appoint one justice.

 

Over time, justices turn liberal.* Even Scalia softened a bit over time. Roberts is damned near a liberal already and he's "only" 61 years old. Alito isn't far behind him.

 

As justices age, most seem to focus more intensely on legacy. They don't want to make rulings that will render them a historical embarrassment to future courts, forcing justices to overturn their decisions. As a conservative justice rolls in, some of the older conservative justices will continue to soften and, hopefully, something resembling a balance will be maintained.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

 

*excepting Clarence Thomas, whom most of us can agree is an embarrassment to the court and a terrible human being

 

In the meantime, the EPA and government land rights will be destroyed. Once you mine and pollute the grand canyon and Yellowstone, it is decades or longer before we fix things.

[nicksaviking]

Gay marriage, universal healthcare, preventing global warming, increasing taxes on the wealthy and banning assault weapons all have greater than 50% support from the American public.

 

Half of these clowns are only concerned with getting re-elected in two years. The other half is concerned with getting re-elected in four. At best they'll re-name and make token changes to the ACA (which would have been done regardless of who was in the White House) and they'll lower taxes on the wealthy, which can easily be reversed pending leadership changes. They'll probably pass some kind of solely symbolic and practically useless resolution regarding fire arms which will have no impact but only "re-affirm" support for the 2nd amendment. They'll talk about getting rid of the EPA but they'll never get enough people behind that in two years and at best will somehow go behind the EPA's back and relax some restrictions which will easily be able to be reversed once we have another Flint Michigan situation. None of these sociopaths have the guts to make any real changes, every one of them is only concerned with getting re-elected and getting re-elected.

 

They might actually start deporting people which would be a tragedy in my opinion if they are honest and hard working people. Of course if the GOP does this, they'll likely see support from their blue collar voters but at the expense of their corporate supporters who appreciate the benefits these people bring to the workforce. So immigration probably depends on who the GOP actually is beholden to, we'll see if it's the Rust Belt workers they just won over. I'd guess not.

[Craig Arko]

 

Gay marriage, universal healthcare, preventing global warming, increasing taxes on the wealthy and banning assault weapons all have greater than 50% support from the American public.

 

Half of these clowns are only concerned with getting re-elected in two years. The other half is concerned with getting re-elected in four. At best they'll re-name and make token changes to the ACA (which would have been done regardless of who was in the White House) and they'll lower taxes on the wealthy, which can easily be reversed pending leadership changes. They'll probably pass some kind of solely symbolic and practically useless resolution regarding fire arms which will have no impact but only "re-affirm" support for the 2nd amendment. They'll talk about getting rid of the EPA but they'll never get enough people behind that in two years and at best will somehow go behind the EPA's back and relax some restrictions which will easily be able to be reversed once we have another Flint Michigan situation. None of these sociopaths have the guts to make any real changes, every one of them is only concerned with getting re-elected and getting re-elected.

I see you're an optimist.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

*excepting Clarence Thomas, whom most of us can agree is an embarrassment to the court and a terrible human being

Not commenting on anything other than this sentence but, while his view of the court is ... different, apparently Thomas is one of the nicest justices. 

[Squirrel]

 

Gay marriage, universal healthcare, preventing global warming, increasing taxes on the wealthy and banning assault weapons all have greater than 50% support from the American public.

 

Half of these clowns are only concerned with getting re-elected in two years. The other half is concerned with getting re-elected in four. At best they'll re-name and make token changes to the ACA (which would have been done regardless of who was in the White House) and they'll lower taxes on the wealthy, which can easily be reversed pending leadership changes. They'll probably pass some kind of solely symbolic and practically useless resolution regarding fire arms which will have no impact but only "re-affirm" support for the 2nd amendment. They'll talk about getting rid of the EPA but they'll never get enough people behind that in two years and at best will somehow go behind the EPA's back and relax some restrictions which will easily be able to be reversed once we have another Flint Michigan situation. None of these sociopaths have the guts to make any real changes, every one of them is only concerned with getting re-elected and getting re-elected.

I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach to all of these. And in the meantime, upping my contributions to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, local food banks and shelters, etc. ...

[Craig Arko]

 

I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach to all of these. And in the meantime, upping my contributions to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, local food banks and shelters, etc. ...

In my case the ACLU and the AAAS.

 

Also a new habit is developing; I didn't always go out to see what the dogs were barking at. Now I do. Nerves, probably.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

In the meantime, the EPA and government land rights will be destroyed. Once you mine and pollute the grand canyon and Yellowstone, it is decades or longer before we fix things.

Sure, but that has little to nothing to do with the Supreme Court, which was the topic being discussed.

[nicksaviking]

 

I see you're an optimist.

 

It's probably easier when my family's butt isn't actually on the line, but in every other life situation when someone gets a bad break we don't tell that person, "Oh geez, your life is going to suck now!" we say, "Hey buddy, things are going to work out, I got your back."

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach to all of these. And in the meantime, upping my contributions to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, local food banks and shelters, etc. ...

 

See you're being an optimist too! You're assuming the government won't have funds to those organizations seized and given to the NRA and Big Pharma!

[Craig Arko]

 

It's probably easier when my family's butt isn't actually on the line, but in every other life situation when someone gets a bad break we don't tell that person, "Oh geez, your life is going to suck now!" we say, "Hey buddy, things are going to work out, I got your back."

And I hope you're right. But I'm not going to trust that you're right.

[stringer bell]

I may stop reading Daily Kos, because "the sky is falling" according to them for sure. I think the GOP will pass quite a few laws that will have effects for a long time in addition to appointing a conservative to the Supreme Court, which really bugs me.

 

Paul Ryan seems dead set on "fixing medicare" which I'm told means privatization. Hey I'm an old white guy I should be happy!

[Mr. Brooks]

Protections can absolutely be overturned.

 

As for a conservative SCOTUS overruling the previous court decision:

 

1. The court rarely overrules itself and almost never overrules itself within a few years of the original decision.

 

2. The court rarely overrules itself and removes protection from a class of people in the process. In fact, I don't know if it has ever happened.

Wikipedia lists 126 occasions that the Court has overruled it's own precedent.

I guess I don't consider that rare.

That works out to about once every 2 years.

[Mike Sixel]

I'll back hundreds of pages:

 

Every person gets several thousand dollars a year into an account. No idea the amount. The money can ONLY be spent on insurance, education, and general expenses for people over x age, not sure what else. EVERY person. Cut some of medicare, medicaid, farm aid, subsidies for international companies (I believe McDonalds still gets money to grow their over seas business....), etc. this is actually quite "affordable" actually.

 

The government supplies catastrophic coverage for medical costs (for emergencies and life threatening items). All other insurance is bought with the above money or something else.

 

You want to privatize? Fine, but do it so that people w/o money have a chance.

 

Also, I'd say that children in the above scenario? Their money can only be spent on insurance and maybe some education stuff. By the time they are 18, they'll have thousands and thousands. Oh, and money above, say, 10K, can be invested in bonds or other items. Above, say, 50K, in mutual funds or something.

 

EVERYONE gets this money, regardless of income.

 

Tax all income, including my benefits. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Wikipedia lists 126 occasions that the Court has overruled it's own precedent.
I guess I don't consider that rare.
That works out to about once every 2 years.

Maybe, but what's the average duration between the two decisions (the ruling and the overrule)? I'd wager its median point is in multiple decades, not single years.

 

And most rulings of that kind skew toward progressive movement, not conservatism. The court rarely goes "backward" once a ruling is in place, though Roe v Wade is a legitimate concern (and, again, probably because it's a four-decade old ruling).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Maybe, but what's the average duration between the two decisions (the ruling and the overrule)? I'd wager its median point is in multiple decades, not single years.

 

And most rulings of that kind skew toward progressive movement, not conservatism. The court rarely goes "backward" once a ruling is in place, though Roe v Wade is a legitimate concern (and, again, probably because it's a four-decade old ruling).

 

voting rights act....just one recent example that may have influenced the outcome of this election...I don't think so, but it might. And it will...

[nicksaviking]

 

And I hope you're right. But I'm not going to trust that you're right.

 

Well you generally say it anyway, even if you don't believe it.

 

 

[stringer bell]

voting rights act....just one recent example that may have influenced the outcome of this election...I don't think so, but it might. And it will...

I think Wisconsin's flip is tied directly to the voter suppression measures passed by the Republicans in the last five years. Overall voter turnout was down and I have to believe that part of the reason for that was laws and rulings making it tougher to vote. I fully understand that more popular candidates would have helped increase the vote, but the efforts to suppress the vote worked IMHO.

[stringer bell]

According to the Detroit Free Press all votes have been tabulated, but not canvassed, in Michigan and Trump will add Michigan to his column. That will give Trump 306 EVs with a deficit in overall votes of  almost a million, with the prospect of going over 2 million.

[Squirrel]

 

See you're being an optimist too! You're assuming the government won't have funds to those organizations seized and given to the NRA and Big Pharma!

I'm not so sure it's optimistic of me to up my giving in wake of the election as I think it indicates I'm unsure and want to do what I can to help protect certain areas. However, my personal critiques and criticisms, I'm just keeping pretty mum about ... that's the wait and see ... not getting embroiled into the 'this could happen - no it couldn't' discussions, despite what I might think.

[Craig Arko]

 

I'm not so sure it's optimistic of me to up my giving in wake of the election as I think it indicates I'm unsure and want to do what I can to help protect certain areas. However, my personal critiques and criticisms, I'm just keeping pretty mum about ... that's the wait and see ... not getting embroiled into the 'this could happen - no it couldn't' discussions, despite what I might think.

You are wise. Engaging the crazies  is still painful, but I feel an obligation to do so at times.

 

Anyway, some light bedtime reading..

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Maybe, but what's the average duration between the two decisions (the ruling and the overrule)? I'd wager its median point is in multiple decades, not single years.

 

And most rulings of that kind skew toward progressive movement, not conservatism. The court rarely goes "backward" once a ruling is in place, though Roe v Wade is a legitimate concern (and, again, probably because it's a four-decade old ruling).

 

I'm with you in not being as "Chicken Little" about the SC as most other people are from both sides of the aisle.  Still, same sex marriage isn't something I'd consider settled law yet.  Though it certainly seems as though for Trump it is.  

 

His abortion rhetoric is worrisome.  And some of the people being considered for cabinet positions are doubly so.

[TheLeviathan]

Have we spent enough time talking about what a dumpster fire of a campaign Hillary ran?  I feel like that's getting lost in all of the other national conversations.  

 

Bill sure seemed to think so.....

[Badsmerf]

Wow. I can't imagine what fights are like with two of the most politically powerful people on the planet.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread (outside of chi... Sorry chi) saw this flaw very early in her campaign. It's a shame really. Her team was completely out of touch with the voters. The scandals hurt, but were nothing in comparison to what trump endured. Hopefully the party can put together a new message that reaches out to more than simply social liberals.

[flpmagikat]

I see you're an optimist.

Yeah, and i wish I felt that way as well. Part of the reason I read and post here once in awhile is I appreciate a level headed analysis and insight from people whose opinions and experience I respect and learn from. But...I think many are still not reading what is happening. All of the conventional wisdom that we've been able to accept and fall back on in the past is what has gotten us to this point. This whole election, people here and everywhere have been saying, "This won't happen because x, over this cannot happen because y. And it never could because z." But something drastic shifted last week, and it wasn't a general sentiment. No that sentiment has been there and been festering for years. I would like to believe that precedent has some, well precedence here, but I do not have a shred of faith in that anymore. And in a weird way I don't even find Donald trump at fault completely.

 

This reminds me of two quotes/scenes from game of thrones. The first is daenerys, when asked how she expects to rule, replies, "I'm not going to stop the wheel, I'm going to break the wheel." And I think that is exactly what some powerful people now have essentially as their goal. The second is from Ramsey who said, "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." Perhaps history has shown us that neither apocalyptic mindset plays itself out. I hope I am being hyperbolic.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

voting rights act....just one recent example that may have influenced the outcome of this election...I don't think so, but it might. And it will...

Dunno, that was a bit of a special case. They didn't entirely overturn the act, they had issues with how it was written and how it targeted specific states in perpetuity (going from hazy memory here so I may be missing some details).

 

Congress could have simply re-written the law and put it back in place. The court had issues with how the legislation was administered, not that it existed.

 

And, really, it was a fair ruling. We can't specifically target Texas for mis-steps they made in the 1950s and 60s and call it a day... Forever.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Dunno, that was a bit of a special case. They didn't entirely overturn the act, they had issues with how it was written and how it targeted specific states in perpetuity (going from hazy memory here so I may be missing some details).

 

Congress could have simply re-written the law and put it back in place. The court had issues with how the legislation was administered, not that it existed.

 

And, really, it was a fair ruling. We can't specifically target Texas for mis-steps they made in the 1950s and 60s and call it a day... Forever.

 

You asked for examples of us going backward in time....I gave you one. right or wrong, the voting rights act is weakened now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You asked for examples of us going backward in time....I gave you one. right or wrong, the voting rights act is weakened now.

And I debate whether that's an actual step backward. The end result has been mildly negative because we haven't put contemporary measures back in place but that's on the legislative branch, not the judicial.

 

Because, when viewed inversely, the court's ruling was in protection of the states. It wasn't fair to punish them for past transgressions without an option to appeal.

 

Simply put, it isn't fair to punish Alabama for things their government did in the 50s and not apply those same rules to Minnesota... And then, to top it off, to apply those punishments in perpetuity.

[Mr. Brooks]

Maybe, but what's the average duration between the two decisions (the ruling and the overrule)? I'd wager its median point is in multiple decades, not single years.

 

And most rulings of that kind skew toward progressive movement, not conservatism. The court rarely goes "backward" once a ruling is in place, though Roe v Wade is a legitimate concern (and, again, probably because it's a four-decade old ruling).

By my calculations, the median between rulings is 23 years.

 

29 of the instances were within 10 years. That is almost 25%, or another way- every 8 years on average, the Court reverses itself on a ruling 10 years old or less.

I don't think their precedent is as settled as you think.

 

As to how often protections are reversed, that is in the eye of the beholder on some of these, so I won't calculate, but it looks to be about 50/50.

If so, that means once every 16 years the Court reverses itself on a ruling a decade old or newer.