[excon]

Hello:

After Hillary wins, and she fills FOUR seats, what decision will be the FIRST to be overturned?

Lemme see, we have Hobby Lobby, Heller, Citizens United, Voter ID, the Patriot Act, TRAP laws, making torture illegal, ending the death penalty, closing Gitmo, ending the drug war..

Oh, there's more, much more. What would be your favorite? I'm so excited about the balance of the century.. I can tell my grandchildren to relax..

excon

PS> The seats: Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy..

[Catsmine]

Hi, Ex.

I'll join you on hoping the drug war(prohibition) goes away, as well as the Patriot Act. Torture is already illegal; re-redefining it would probably be a good thing. Selective enforcement of ANY laws such as TRAP and Citizens United need to be looked at as well.

Heller and Hobby Lobby we'll have to disagree on; Heller because of defining the "Militia" and Hobby Lobby because a private company owner has rights just like his employees do.

[joypulv]

Ginsburg just might hang in there if she has to. I think she might be doing that now.

Citizen's United would be my first, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. Reform has to be in many areas. A simple one would be to shorten the campaign process.
Pot - I mean really. That has to be a SCOTUS issue?

[magprob]

The first day of Donald Trump's duties will be to flush Obama Care down the toilet hole of Marxist poo-poo. Second, mediatory term limits will be made into law. Then we won't have to worry about this libtard agenda driving us into third world oblivion.

[ebaines]

The first day of Donald Trump's duties will be to flush Obama Care down the toilet hole of Marxist poo-poo. Second, mediatory term limits will be made into law. Then we won't have to worry about this libtard agenda driving us into third world oblivion.

IF Trump was to win (highly doubtful at this point), neither of these would come to pass, and certainly not on the first day. Modifying ObamaCare would require Congress to act, and certainly would not survive a Senate filibuster. Congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment, which ain't gonna happen.

[ScottGem]

Citizens United would be my first choice to go. But one has to understand how cases come before the court. Cases start in a lower court and are appealed through the federal court system until they reach SCOTUS. So I doubt if there will be any action on any of these for at least a year. And there will need to be someone to start the ball rolling.

[ScottGem]

The first day of Donald Trump's duties will be to flush Obama Care down the toilet hole of Marxist poo-poo. Second, mediatory term limits will be made into law. Then we won't have to worry about this libtard agenda driving us into third world oblivion.

As ebaines pointed out the above post show that you know very little about how our government works (which does, in some ways explain why you support Trump, since he hasn't a clue either). The Affordable Care Act was enacted into LAW. The only way for it be "flushed" is for someone in Congress to submit a bill for its repeal. While such a bill can come from the White House it has to be submitted by a member of Congress and a Senator. It they has to wind it's way through committee until it is presented to the Congress as a whole. So you are probably looking at a minimum of next summer before it can possibly come up for a vote.

Term limits are a matter of the Constitution. So would require an Amendment. There are a few different ways for an amendment to be proposed. None of them directly involving the Executive Office. Once a proposed amendment passes through Congress or through 2/3 of state constitutional conventions. It has to be ratified by 75% of the states. Generally a Constitutional Amendment takes years to process.

That's one of the reasons I find Trump's promises are so laughable. He couldn't make good on them even if he really wanted to.

[excon]

Hello again,

On a similar subject, Mitch McConnell said that he'll BLOCK each and every one of Clinton's appointments to the Supreme Court, should she win. If he does, and those other three seats become vacant, that will leave the court a 3 - 2 conservative majority... Is that something he's shooting for? Will he get away with it?

excon

[ebaines]

Actually it was Ted Cruz who said that, not McConnell, in response to Sen Jeff Sessions who suggested that if Clinton wins then the Senate ought to get on with approving Merrick Garland, because she is liable to withdraw his nomination if it's still open in favor of someone less palatable to the right. There's no doubt that Cruz would vote against any Clinton nominee, no matter who she may put forward, but to suggest that no confirmation vote should ever come up as long as a democrat is in the White House is extreme (as Cruz usually is).

[excon]

Hello again,

Let me be a little more specific about what I believe will be a right wing DYING game..

The court is now four to four. Two liberal justices and one right winger are ancient, but the libs are OLDER. That's the KEY to their morbid game.. If ONE of 'em dies that'll make the court four to three in favor of the right wingers.

Is that a good plan? Is it what the framers had in mind?

excon

[tomder55]

Hello again,

Let me be a little more specific about what I believe will be a right wing DYING game..

The court is now four to four. Two liberal justices and one right winger are ancient, but the libs are OLDER. That's the KEY to their morbid game.. If ONE of 'em dies that'll make the court four to three in favor of the right wingers.

Is that a good plan? Is it what the framers had in mind?

excon

As you know ,the framers never envisioned a SCOTUS with as much power they wield . The court seized powers that were not designated to it in the Marbury decision ,and has been on a long mission to rewrite the Constitution by faulty reasoning of penumbras, formed by emanations in the wording of the clauses and amendments . The decisions of the elected branches are rendered secondary to the unelected branch regardless if it is 9 appointed for life oligarchs are 3 or 1 for that matter . Since the intent of the founders was violated in the Marbury decision it was then incumbent on Congress and the states to amend the Constitution to reign in the court .I am hopeful that I will see that happen one day in my lifetime.

[ScottGem]

The framers never envisioned a lot of things. But one thing they did envision was that the future could be different. So they wanted a document and a government that could be fluid. That could adapt as times changed.

Marbury occurred while many of the framers were still active in government. So if Marbury was such a seizure of power (which I don't agree with) action might have been taken at the time. The concept of Judicial Review was not, from what I know, a violation of the intent of the founders. I don't dispute that SCOTUS does have a greater influence on government then might have been intended. But the system of checks and balances was an integral principle in the Constitution and, therefore, the role of SCOTUS to protect the Constitution from Congress is part of the intent of the founders.

[tomder55]

The framers never envisioned a lot of things. But one thing they did envision was that the future could be different. So they wanted a document and a government that could be fluid. That could adapt as times changed.

Marbury occurred while many of the framers were still active in government. So if Marbury was such a seizure of power (which I don't agree with) action might have been taken at the time. The concept of Judicial Review was not, from what I know, a violation of the intent of the founders. I don't dispute that SCOTUS does have a greater influence on government then might have been intended. But the system of checks and balances was an integral principle in the Constitution and, therefore, the role of SCOTUS to protect the Constitution from Congress is part of the intent of the founders.

Yes the founders knew change was necessary and that is why they set up the amendment process. They would be shocked to see that SCOTUS has seized more than their share of the balance by claiming the authority of 'final arbiter 'which is far more extensive than judicial review . What they have now is judicial supremacy ....judicial tyranny by the unelected ,appointed for life branch of the government ....and that is why the biggest issue in this campaign is who will determine the makeup of the courts .
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." (Jefferson)

[magprob]

The Republicans won more than the presidency last night — the party also held onto its majorities in the House and Senate. And for the first time since 2007, Republicans will control both the executive and legislative branches of government.
Control of the legislative branch will near-certainly make it easier for President-elect Donald Trump to pursue significant policy change (repealing Obamacare, for example). And with key Supreme Court nominations at stake, the party has a good chance of changing the balance of power of the judicial branch as well.
Yes Scott, we know how it works.

[excon]

Hello again, magprob:

It's true..

If you're gay married, you should move to San Francisco. If you're undocumented, you should move to Mexico. If you need an abortion, stock up on coat hangers. If you need health care, good luck. If you like clean air, buy a respirator. If you're black and you wanna vote, good luck again..

But, look on the bright side.. If Trump is offended on Twitter, he can NUKE that person, and there's NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY standing in his way... You think I'm JOKING about that, but I AM NOT.. He, and HE ALONE can fire our nukes, and there's NOBODY to stop him.

excon

[ebaines]

I think "repeal and replace" of ObamaCare will be a long, slow process. The Dems in the Senate will filibuster any attempt to abolish the mandate, or to abolish protections for pre-existing conditions (which is a feature most Republicans actually want to keep), or to abolish the subsidies for families with income less than 4 times the poverty rate.

[tomder55]

I think "repeal and replace" of ObamaCare will be a long, slow process. The Dems in the Senate will filibuster any attempt to abolish the mandate, or to abolish protections for pre-existing conditions (which is a feature most Republicans actually want to keep), or to abolish the subsidies for families with income less than 4 times the poverty rate.

The Dems used Parliamentary tricks to pass it in the 1st place. Harry Reid leaves a legacy of abolishing the fillibuster rules . All it will take is if Yertle the Turtle McConnell has the onions to use Reid's precedent .

[paraclete]

I think "repeal and replace" of ObamaCare will be a long, slow process. The Dems in the Senate will filibuster any attempt to abolish the mandate, or to abolish protections for pre-existing conditions (which is a feature most Republicans actually want to keep), or to abolish the subsidies for families with income less than 4 times the poverty rate.

You have forgotten the process which got Obamacare through in the first place, Dump can just wait for the Senate to go on vacation,