World, Writing, Wealth discussion

World & Current Events > What impact will another conservative SC Justice have on the US?

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6172 comments Trump will be appointing a conservative to the Supreme Court. What will this mean for the country? Maybe a repeal of Roe v Wade, which seems of utmost concern to liberals.How do you see this appointment affecting our lives?

message 2: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan I think the amount of noise made is inversely proportional to the impact.

I.e. The more noise, the less impact.

Hence - minimal difference.

The big issues facing the US are not generated or resolved by the actions of the supreme court.

message 3: by Holly (last edited Jul 12, 2018 05:28AM) (new)

Holly (goldikova) I don't know, Scout. Even abortion is affected by technology. With the increased use of drugs like misoprostal used to create a chemically induced miscarriage, abortion may cease to become a political issue.

There are fewer clinics offering abortion services. Also, many women prefer this non-invasive method which is safer and less traumatic for the body. Misoprostal is the generic name for an inexpensive and easily obtainable ulcer treatment drug sold under other brand names. It is often used by OB/GYNs as an alternative to a D&C after a naturally occurring miscarriage when the placenta is retained.

With abortion becoming less of a surgical procedure, government loses control. It then becomes an issue that no longer affects political platforms and truly becomes a private matter for each individual woman. What a relief it would be for women to have their bodies removed from the political roundtable!

Graeme is right about our Supreme Court nominees.

message 4: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11783 comments What would bother me more if I were an American is that the Supreme Court is increasingly voting along party lines, i.e. the Democrat appointments seem to all vote as a bloc, as do the Republican appointments. That itself is bad. They should be addressing the law, not politics.

message 5: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2328 comments I think it comes across that way because only those cases where they split on "party lines" get the attention.

I brought up a pair of cases in another thread concerning gerrymandering where the decision was not so split.

Additionally this past year alone:

Murphy v. NCAA ruling on sports betting was decided on a 7-2 split.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - this was the case of the baker who refused make a cake for a gay you'd think would break on party lines, but it was decided in favor of the baker in another 7-2 decision

Collins v. Virginia - a case involving a warrantless search of a vehicle decided 8-1

message 6: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 16070 comments Supreme judges or any judges for that matter are not politicians. Of course, their worldview comes to the fore in certain cases, but primarily they act within a legal system of coordinates and should be driven by making justice on an ad hoc basis and generally. I imagine those people that are candidates for the Supreme would have an extensive legal career and sufficiently wealthy to be sort of 'independent', so I wouldn't expect them to blindly follow any party line. Yet, their conservative or liberal inclination may manifest on certain, probably - rare, occasions

message 7: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11783 comments Nik, the problem might be that politicians appoint them and while after appointment they are free to change, the fact is that "changing their spots" is something people seldom really do. If the judgments had previously been very conservative, they ar likely to stay that way.

message 8: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6172 comments Ian, I agree that past actions predict future ones. Nik, ideally, justices would make unbiased decisions, but that's not usually the case. A traditionally conservative or liberal judge isn't going to stray far from his/her basic beliefs. A president who appoints a judge knows this, and everyone knows the impact that an appointment can have on the Court. It's a big deal.

message 9: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6172 comments And I have to disagree in part with Graeme's statement that "The big issues facing the US are not generated or resolved by the actions of the supreme court." Of course, issues aren't generated by the Court, but the resolutions of cases brought before the court have wide-ranging impacts on the population. Consider Brown vs. The Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade, Citizens United vs. FEC. These decisions have impacted the lives of all citizens in one way or another.

message 10: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Hi Scout, good points. I'll revise my POV, the SC can have significant impacts.

message 11: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6172 comments Thanks for that, Graeme.

message 12: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 16070 comments I wrote how it should be, in my opinion. The more the court is politicized and the guys appointed see themselves affiliated, the less justice there'll be.
As liberal or conservative inclination shouldn't be relevant when picking a secretary of defense, likewise it shouldn't matter for a judge

message 13: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Objectivity is a virtue in a public servant.

(A virtuous public servant can summon unicorns - both are equally rare I hear....)

message 14: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6172 comments I agree with you, Nik. In the world the founders of our nation envisioned, it wouldn't matter, but in today's world it does matter. It matters a lot. That's just how it is.

message 15: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2328 comments Graeme wrote: "Hi Scout, good points. I'll revise my POV, the SC can have significant impacts."

As it should be. The judicial branch is an equal part of our government alongside Congress and the Administrative branch.

back to top