Supreme Court Appointments

So if Hillary wins, how many justices do you think she'll get to nominate and what do you think that will do for the country for the next generation or so? [Coffee]

Three possibly four. Additionally she will make 30 to 60 district and appeals court appointments and these are also lifetime appointments and have just about as much impact on the direction of federal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Three possibly four. Additionally she will make 30 to 60 district and appeals court appointments and these are also lifetime appointments and have just about as much impact on the direction of federal law.

---

You're too conservative with those numbers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

You're too conservative with those numbers

---

Should I be more liberal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Should I be more liberal?

---

I see what you did there.

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

And then there's this: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/...etirement.html
May be old news to a lot of you but it was news to me.

"A report is circulating that conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may announce his retirement after the presidential election"

If hillary wins - the next 7, so the 2 imbeciles the current pResident appointed won't be lonely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

If hillary wins - the next 7, so the 2 imbeciles the current president appointed won't be adhering to the Constitution

---

If Hillbilly wins she will appoint judges that will turn the constitution on its head and there will be civil unrest the likes of which have not been seen before in this country.

Probably about 3. Her picks would be the biggest anti-American communist POS she can find.

Same goes for all her appointments to all the bureaucracies and cabinets.

If she gets elected a lot Americans will continue to watch and on-look at the continuation of the fundamental transformation, a lot of people will also continue to live in denial about the whole thing and probably vacation to Disneyland.

Commies gotta commie; under them we have no natural rights - the state grants rights period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavieD55

Probably about 3. Her picks would be the biggest anti-American communist POS she can find.

---

So Obama, Fauxcahontas, and who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

So Obama, Fauxcahontas, and who?

---

Uncle Joe

Just Biden Time, Zzzzzzzzzzzz

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...=0&w=291&h=182

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

So Obama, Fauxcahontas, and who?

---

Holder and unknowns to the general public.

Where did they dredge up those idiots sotomayor and kagen?

If she replaces just one its the death of the constitution.

All of them. The ones that don't retire will commit suicide by dropping a Buick on their heads from 7 stories up or by shooting themselves in the head only to bloodlessly wander 9 miles from the original scene to drop dead in another county...up in a tree...in a storm...with no shoes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wctriumph

If Hillbilly wins she will appoint judges that will turn the constitution on its head and there will be civil unrest the likes of which have not been seen before in this country.

---

Your comment just made me think of this: [Muaha]

http://www.relatably.com/m/img/grump...good-Rl59.jpeg

All kidding aside, yes any sort of unrest or war is pretty damn awful, but I would love to see people actually care (en masse) about the constitution and natural rights for once...

Baloney! Nobody will do a damn thing as long as they have their sports and beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wctriumph

If Hillbilly wins she will appoint judges that will turn the constitution on its head and there will be civil unrest the likes of which have not been seen before in this country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by milwaukeeshaker

Baloney! Nobody will do a damn thing as long as they have their sports and beer.

---

Sports and beer will no longer be allowed under the new regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ray1970

Sports and beer will no longer be allowed under the new regime.

---

Thems FIGHTING words!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ray1970

Sports and beer will no longer be allowed under the new regime.

---

That may actually cause a meaningful uprising. [LOL]

Sad to think more people would revolt for sports and beer being taken away than constitutionally guaranteed rights being taken away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhino0427

All of them. The ones that don't retire will commit suicide by dropping a Buick on their heads from 7 stories up or by shooting themselves in the head only to bloodlessly wander 9 miles from the original scene to drop dead in another county...up in a tree...in a storm...with no shoes on.

---

Who are you referring to? Sounds like a Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner episode? Or am I missing the sarcasm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Nothing going to happen. By the end of her term, the Supreme Court will be 7:2 progressive. That will continue with a progressive majority for 40 years. By that time, we'll have either vegitated ourselves out of practical existence or they will have extended the lifespan enough that the withered potatoes and keep serving until they are 150 years old.

From there, they will be "uploaded" into cyber bodies where they can continue to serve for "life", meaning the death of america, be that 50 years from now or 150 years from now. In which event, they will play a significant role in the "reconstruction" of a new entity from the bankruptcy regime, and continue on in one fashion or another.

Specific enough prediction?

---

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave

Sad to think more people would revolt for sports and beer being taken away than constitutionally guaranteed rights being taken away.

---

True, but that is the way of the sheeple.

Higher taxes disguised as "fees" here in CO, gun "control", actually disguised 2nd amendment hoplophobes that will not stop until total eradication of firearms is accomplished, open borders, illegal aliens, our jobs and "heavy"manufacturing all now done overseas, Obama's influx of muslim immigrants that are criminals and jihadists, TSA, Homeland security, complete with "brown shirts" (see Nazi playbook), forfeiture "laws", the all reaching encompassing hand of the EPA, our golf pro, Muslim POTUS whose best move is taking vacations on the taxpayer dime, the muslims in his cabinet with control of everything, the creeping socialism in Govt., woefully inadequate school systems ie "youth indoctrination camps", constant, and continued 15 yr "war", our military scattered all across the globe fighting police actions, killing and maiming our young men and women in conflicts that are none of our business, or that we created with our meddling in others affairs, our insistance to be the policemen of the world, military bases scattered all over the world, this and other policies that cause us to massively hemorrage cash and push us further into the unrecoverable debt that has been created due to the open wallet policy our "masters" have enjoyed, the massive amounts of aid to those in the world who hate us and laugh at the stupid Americans, while we here at home have homeless everywhere, seniors, and Vets that live in squalor, our overpaid royal masters in DC have no idea what a Constitution is even though they all took an oath to uphold it, the economy which has NOT recovered, a douchebag criminal that is running for pres when she should be in jail, the Dems two candidates for pres one a communist, the other a POS that should have been indicted, and jailed, the RHINO Repub candidates, the constant and repeat violations of the 10th and 14th amendments by the quasi military police forces, the creeping surveillance state, the news media's total bias when reporting anything. I could go on, and on. These are just some of the things that folks should be worried about, instead of who is going to be the next Buncos quarterback, and when the games are going to be played.

Shades of 1984. The Christians and lions, Rome. Mean anything???? Holy guano, Wake the f... up! Priorities people, priorities

Rant done.

The real issue IF hillary wins is. The next court appointments will be sitting for 20+ years. Look at the damage or failure to agree on some rulings since Obama appointed his picks. Hillary wins, say good fucking by to the documents that made this country.

I'm curious why people don't believe this country is already no longer in existence as the Republic, but rather a corpse mimicking the one so palpably former?

Checks and balances and rule of law are gone. Obamacare serves as a good example for that argument... instead of ruling on the law as presented, Roberts rewrote the argument for the putative government. The Secretary of State, so called, violated federal law with an illegal email server discussing and storing classified information. The Constitution is no better than Charmin ultra-soft at this point. It's a good idea of yesteryear. A putsch regime rules in place of a valid government.

But even supposed conservatives are worthless on the SCOTUS... look at the schizophrenia of Kennedy's opinion on Planned Parenthood vs Casey:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

That is absolute bullshit. The heart of liberty is in fact the exact opposite, as liberty is the ability to do what is right. Freedom is inability to be coerced into doing the wrong thing. One can very much be shackled and immobile but still be free morally -- in fact, that very freedom and its exercise might even lead to their condition of having no physical movement. What Kennedy describes is a schizophrenic concept of license, and a very dangerous one at that. Kennedy's phrasing is akin to saying "there is no truth", which if true is a true statement in itself, thus nullifying its very utterance. And that's one of the conservatives on SCOTUS. Dear God, help us.


When Roberts rewrote Obamacare, instead of interpreting it (which would have found it in violation of the law), he destroyed checks and balances. I'm sure other instances have occurred of which I'm unaware. When Hillary was not immediately arrested, indicted, and facing prosecution because the head of the FBI determined she had no intent (which is not within the wording of the law), rule of law was shown to be null and void. Many people, every day, have no "intent" to do this or that thing as consequential, and they are absolutely hamstrung by the same folks who let that nefarious bitch walk free.

There are many micro examples of the rule of law, checks and balances, and general ontological evidence that the US is no longer the US as we knew it.

However, we can stem the tide of this crap IF Trump were not to be a plant, and IF Trump were to actually appoint some hardcore conservatives to SCOTUS. Heck, we might even see something as glorious and grand as an overturning of the ridiculousness of case-law precedent, back into the more realistic, truthful tendency of method toward actual scholastic understandings of natural law, personhood, etc. What we need is a couple of hardcore Aristotelian judges who understand metaphysics and epistemological argument which has concrete foundations, not the humanistic, relativistic, case law precendents of slippery slopes crap as now.

At this point, I no more follow, respect, or uphold the dignity of the oligarchy any more than I would recognize a mafia as legitimate, having usurped a local town's official governance. Indeed, I obey so far as I am morally able, but not for the fact that they are themselves legitimate. Rather, there are still consequences to disobeying even illegitimate rule. The difference is that now the consequence is unjust punishment (for they have no authority to punish), but punishment nonetheless. Whereas in disobeying a legitimate ruler, one has two punishments: moral and physical, for God sets up the ruler.

My thought on this is taken from Leo XIII's Diuturnum: On the Origin of Civil Power", specifically #15 and #16:

Quote:

---

15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,"[18] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men."[19] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.


16. But in order that justice may be retained in government it is of the highest importance that those who rule States should understand that political power was not created for the advantage of any private individual; and that the administration of the State must be carried on to the profit of those who have been committed to their care, not to the profit of those to whom it has been committed. Let princes take example from the Most High God, by whom authority is given to them; and, placing before themselves His model in governing the State, let them rule over the people with equity and faithfulness, and let them add to that severity, which is necessary, a paternal charity. On this account they are warned in the oracles of the sacred Scriptures, that they will have themselves some day to render an account to the King of kings and Lord of lords; if they shall fail in their duty, that it will not be possible for them in any way to escape the severity of God: "The Most High will examine your work and search out your thoughts: because being ministers of his kingdom you have not judged rightly. . . Horribly and speedily will he appear to you, for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. . . For God will not accept any man's person, neither will he stand in awe of any man's greatness; for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all. But a greater punishment is ready for the more mighty.[20]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

However, we can stem the tide of this crap IF Trump were not to be a plant, and IF Trump were to actually appoint some hardcore conservatives to SCOTUS

---

I've been saying this since day 1. He's in the tank for HRC or the D's and only ran as a R since the fix was in for Hillary. Sanders threw a big wrench in to the D machine. Something that may come back, biting them on election day.

Either way, Trump might be the one to pick "moderate" right of center judges. If there is such a thing

One item to note is . While political leanings do factor in on their rulings. There's no guarantee either side would go party ideology on a specific ruling.

Any contesting of a SCOTUS ruling (heller, "assault weapons") would be requested by some entity as soon as a Left leaning majority was seated. One of (IMO) rulings that will decimate gun ownership as we know it. YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

I can point to precedence dating back well into the early 1800's, potentially even the late 1700's, radically re-interpreting the clear language of constitutional amendments. This isn't any new thing. Contrary to our American indoctrination, upon our founding our country lacked a lot of necessary mechanisms to ensure the survival of liberty. They did well, for the time period, but unfortunately we never gave ourselves the room to make it better. Our checks and balances were almost non-existent from the beginning, especially upon the judicial.

1) A garbage management system was never created, nothing was made to ensure the efficiency of government. The problem with governments as each cycle waxes and wanes, the elected and appointed add more bureaucratic crap and legislation (that's what they are elected to do, right?) but nobody ever cleans anything out. Code has been inflating from the inception of our country faster than a fresh dead whale.

2) REAL checks and balances were never instituted. Judicial appointments afford no check nor balance upon that entire branch of our government. It permits judges to be politicized, and from the inception, made the judiciary start legislating from the bench without any risk of repercussion. There is, plain and simple, no motivation to strictly interpret the constitution and there never has been from inception.
(A real check and balance would have been providing a citizen - managed initiative that has the ability to initiate action to quickly terminate any judiciary with brutal efficiency (or any other state or federal employee) whom deviates from the constitution, with capital treason being available in certain situations) -- Then people STOP infecting their own bias into the system, and START paying attention to what the plain language is even if they disagree with it. If society needs change, they amend the constitution.

There are many others I can add to this list.

Make no mistake friends, despite what we'd like to believe this country was founded quite imperfectly, and it dooms us within the next generation or two. It was born with a terminal illness, and the unchecked abuses go back to within just a few decades of founding.

---

I'd be interested in an outline of such examples as you mention, since I certainly would defer to you in "not legal advice" :D

So essentially, in civics 101, I was fed a line of BS about checks and balances, etc? Makes sense. :/

What, then, is the reality? Did we just skate by on a general moral society until it degraded enough for the chinks in the systemic armor to give way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

So essentially, in civics 101, I was fed a line of BS about checks and balances, etc? Makes sense. :/

What, then, is the reality? Did we just skate by on a general moral society until it degraded enough for the chinks in the systemic armor to give way?

---

That is my general impression, but foxtrot is significantly more qualified to write about it than I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CavSct1983

The heart of liberty is in fact the exact opposite, as liberty is the ability to do what is right. Freedom is inability to be coerced into doing the wrong thing.

---

Uhh what? Liberty and freedom, in their purest sense, is the ability to do whatever you want without restraint. Morality doesn't play into "freedom" at all. In fact morality can be considered a restriction on freedom. It may be a set of restrictions that society generally approves of, but it is still a restriction.

"Conviction" is the inability to be coerced into doing the wrong thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumline

Uhh what? Liberty and freedom, in their purest sense, is the ability to do whatever you want without restraint. Morality doesn't play into "freedom" at all. In fact morality can be considered a restriction on freedom. It may be a set of restrictions that society generally approves of, but it is still a restriction.

"Conviction" is the inability to be coerced into doing the wrong thing.

---

Conviction is a belief in something which is unshakeable. It can and often does inform your free will to do or not do this or that thing based on aforementioned unshakeable belief -- but it is not an infallible backstop of the opposite action. For example, you can have a "conviction" that it's absolutely wrong to murder someone, but still be coerced (or even choose freely) into doing so in fear for your own life or that of another, or simply because you choose to despite the belief. That you have a conviction in the wrongness of murder doesn't per se demand you won't commit it.
RE: freedom, liberty and license...

Quote:

---

True freedom, the freedom that liberates, is grounded in truth and ordered to truth and, therefore, to virtue. A free person is enslaved neither to the sheer will of another nor to his own appetites and passions. A free person lives uprightly, fulfilling his obligations to family, community, nation and God. By contrast, a person given over to his appetites and passions, a person who scoffs at truth and chooses to live, whether openly or secretly, in defiance of the moral law is not free. He is simply a different kind of slave.
The counterfeit of freedom consists in the idea of personal and communal liberation from morality, responsibility and truth. It is what our nation’s founders expressly distinguished from liberty and condemned as “license.” The so-called freedom celebrated today by so many of our opinion-shaping elites in education, entertainment and the media is simply the license to do whatever one pleases. This false conception of freedom – false because disordered, disordered because detached from moral truth and civic responsibility – shackles those in its grip no less powerfully than did the chattel slavery of old. Enslavement to one’s own appetites and passions is no less brutal a form of bondage for being a slavery of the soul. It is no less tragic, indeed, it is in certain respects immeasurably more tragic, for being self-imposed. It is ironic, is it not, that people who celebrate slavery to appetite and passion call this bondage “freedom”?

---

Robert P George in Address to Hillsdale College.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/965223/posts

In his famous work, "Orthodoxy", GK Chesterton said "Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If in your bold creative way you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe.”

Is it any wonder then that the "artists" of today often come up with the most grotesque crap in an imitation of a life without limits? Enslaved, then, to nothing but ugliness and the whims of their passions, appetites, and stunted minds, they cannot produce beauty. An artist who works within the limits of his medium is restricted in an abstract sense, but by ignoring such boundaries is restricted entirely from his art. Similarly, we who are necessarily moral creatures, having a free will, are restricted more by vice than virtue. "Pure freedom" or an absolute ability to do whatever one wants is not only not freedom, it's impossible and absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

There is no teeth behind "checks and balances". The country survived perhaps as long as it has on a concept of respect alone.

If a jurist steps out of line and ignores the constitution for sake of personal or political bias, what do they risk?

Judicial:
They can even wholeheartedly ignore such threshold requirements to liberty as due process. The only thing they risk is their law license and only in the most extreme of circumstances, and tbh, that never happens. People have been held for years without hearing, even committed suicide over it. What is the ramification? Nothing. Judges also have absolute immunity. They can order someone to come to your house and beat the shit out of you. They can order that you secretly be sterilized without you given any notice or hearing. And they suffer - no consequence. (Those are all very real examples). Here in Colorado for instance, I have yet to see a judge that understands that due process requires a person have a hearing prior to stealing their property (or shortly thereafter in exigent circumstances). It's plain language in the court rules (C.R.C.P. 104/404) it's long standing, well known, cited a billion times precidence (Fuentes v. Shevin 407 U.S. 67 (1972), Colorado even says they lack jurisdiction (Metro Nat'l Bank v. District Court (Co Supreme Court, can't remember citation from memory). But, they lack constitutional education and when the state steals property without hearing, they suffer no ramification - State is immune, Justice is immune, regulation won't investigate/harm them, so why give a fuck?

To give you a quick example off the top of my head of earlier constitutional rewrites: In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (1887) summing up prior decisions re-writing the 11th amendment for us dating pre-civil war. (Re-writing it to make states totally immune) There are many others out there but I don't want to spend the time to dig them out, tbh.

Executive:
Executive can legislate (executive orders), and can inflict their bias into the judicial ("E.G. If I had a son, he would have looked like..."). They politicize judicial appointments, and now use the "justice department" as a weapon to "order" investigations. What is the ramification, what is the risk they have for stepping outside of their branch? Nothing. There never has been.

Legislative:
The few checks and balances that do exist tend to exist here, but without the garbage collection it is a horrifically flawed system that has led to the "we need to pass it to see what's in these 5,000 pages" that we have now. There is no one person in American that can understand and memorize even 5% of our legislation, laws, and regulation at any given time. Effectively making everyone a lawbreaker, which has provided the government with immense power. This isn't due to corruption now, it's due to the fact there is no motivation to clean out the books, there is no motivation to streamline anything; it's a flaw in our inception. It was manageable 100 years ago, but doomed to fail.

Basically, without garbage collection and teeth, our country has ran as long as it has on a principle of respect. The executive in generations past had enough respect not to legislate through executive orders, and feared old-time repercussions of bad press and election results. The judicial in generations past had a small reverence towards the constitution, even as they slowly eroded it by convenience. That reverence is gone across the board.

The problem with checks and balances is unless they are provided real teeth... It's about as effective as repeatedly telling a three year old "no" from a great distance where the kid knows you're not permitted to do anything. Good luck!

---

Fascinating, though terrifying. Thanks for the reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

I can point to precedence dating back well into the early 1800's, potentially even the late 1700's, radically re-interpreting the clear language of constitutional amendments. This isn't any new thing. Contrary to our American indoctrination, upon our founding our country lacked a lot of necessary mechanisms to ensure the survival of liberty. They did well, for the time period, but unfortunately we never gave ourselves the room to make it better. Our checks and balances were almost non-existent from the beginning, especially upon the judicial.

1) A garbage management system was never created, nothing was made to ensure the efficiency of government. The problem with governments as each cycle waxes and wanes, the elected and appointed add more bureaucratic crap and legislation (that's what they are elected to do, right?) but nobody ever cleans anything out. Code has been inflating from the inception of our country faster than a fresh dead whale.

2) REAL checks and balances were never instituted. Judicial appointments afford no check nor balance upon that entire branch of our government. It permits judges to be politicized, and from the inception, made the judiciary start legislating from the bench without any risk of repercussion. There is, plain and simple, no motivation to strictly interpret the constitution and there never has been from inception.
(A real check and balance would have been providing a citizen - managed initiative that has the ability to initiate action to quickly terminate any judiciary with brutal efficiency (or any other state or federal employee) whom deviates from the constitution, with capital treason being available in certain situations) -- Then people STOP infecting their own bias into the system, and START paying attention to what the plain language is even if they disagree with it. If society needs change, they amend the constitution.

There are many others I can add to this list.

Make no mistake friends, despite what we'd like to believe this country was founded quite imperfectly, and it dooms us within the next generation or two. It was born with a terminal illness, and the unchecked abuses go back to within just a few decades of founding.

---

Quotes of the Founding Fathers
The Importance of a Moral Society

Quote:

---

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

---

And that's the real point. The less moral society becomes the worse government gets.


"Hell is other people."
-Jean-Paul Sartre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

There is no teeth behind "checks and balances". The country survived perhaps as long as it has on a concept of respect alone.

...

Basically, without garbage collection and teeth, our country has ran as long as it has on a principle of respect. The executive in generations past had enough respect not to legislate through executive orders, and feared old-time repercussions of bad press and election results. The judicial in generations past had a small reverence towards the constitution, even as they slowly eroded it by convenience. That reverence is gone across the board.

The problem with checks and balances is unless they are provided real teeth... It's about as effective as repeatedly telling a three year old "no" from a great distance where the kid knows you're not permitted to do anything. Good luck!

---

I've been saying something to this effect to my friends and family for a while now, though I'm not nearly as well-versed as you evidently are.

It is at least refreshing to hear someone else type out eloquently my impression of the deepest problems in our system. I'd really like to hear what you think adequate "teeth" would be; I can't think of any mechanism that would be reliable, expedient, and incorruptible.