Inside Trump's Strategy to Remake the Supreme Court

[DonViejo]

January 3, 2017By Taegan Goddard

Politico: “Donald Trump has narrowed his short list for his first Supreme Court pick down to roughly a half-dozen finalists but the president-elect and his top advisers are already thinking about a second selection, as they seek to quickly remodel the high court with a reliably conservative bent. Trump’s team wants to make filling the seat held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia one of the earliest acts of his presidency, according to multiple transition officials, in hopes of scoring an energizing and unifying victory for the conservative movement.”

Josh Gerstein looks at the potential nominees.

###

https://politicalwire.com/2017/01/03/inside-trumps-strategy-remake-supreme-court/

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

1. "Elections have consequences". Consequences that can last generations. nt

[DonCoquixote]

2. a rogues gallery all

to ignore the actual intent of the author of any document is to engage in lies. But these folks do is that they will go ahead and use what they interpret as the words to fit their agenda. Their function is to ensure that when ever something is referred to "tthe states" that the same billionaires will have state legislatures safely locked away in their banks are completely unchallenged. Part of the reason that there is a Supreme Court is because that even the founding fathers acknowledged that state legislatures could become corrupt and that someone above them with need to go ahead and keep them from being corrupt as opposed to the current status quo where not even taking something to the Supreme Court will mean much against billionaires and their lawyers.

Of the right wing will complain that that is exactly what this evil liberal Supreme Court has done. Well as voter ID laws get put up, there is nothing that says that the right to vote can be compromised by the states. Granted we all know that the founding fathers never intended women nor people of color to vote, but if we were to follow that rule we could not have conservative female Supreme Court justices could wait, or for that matter Clarence Thomas himself. If they want to play literal, they would find themselves very much in the world of the antebellum South for half of these folks,, especially Catholics like Tony Scalia,, would not even be able to serve as a dogcatcher. Someone who they claim to venerate one send this "the letter of the law kills, the spirit of the law gives life." But does not mean that laws are interpreted by Willie nearly needs, it means that you take into account the actual context,, and that you do not venerate the founding fathers as someone who's words are never to be examined, or even questioned over the course of time. If the Constitution was not meant to be a "living document" they would never have put an amendment process in it. It's not like the Declaration of Independence that will read the same way today as it did in 1776.

[bdamomma]

3. why doesn't President Obama

just put in Merrick Garland that would shake up things.

[MFM008]

4. He doesn't shake things up

Not like this.
I was hoping he would defend his nominee.