Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas May Retire

Matlack said:

Incorrect:

Trump (R) 2
Obama (D) 2
Bush (R) 2
Clinton (D) 2
Bush (R) 2
Reagan (R) 3
Carter (D) 0
Ford (R) 1
Nixon (R) 4
Johnson (D) 2
Kennedy (D) 2
Eisenhower (R) 5
Truman (D) 4
Roosevelt (D) 8

R = 19
D = 20

Even if you do recess appointments, which are temporary, it still doesnt match your numbers. Only a few recess appointments havent been confirmed by the Senate. It is why you see some presidents have more appointments, but you dont count them twice and you dont count an Associate Justice being confirmed as Chief Justice, it's still only a single vacancy. I dont know where your number came from. Maybe you included people like Bork who was withdrawn because he couldnt get confirmed or you included an Associate to Chief?

Up until 2017 you had to get them passed the Senate with a 2/3 majority which required support of both parties. Hence why R presidents appointed D justices. But since the Dem's wouldnt even consider a Trump nomination, it was changed. I still dont agree with them doing that even though the D's did it with other judicial appointments. They wanted to push Garland through, even though he should not have been appointed. If anything a recess appointment would have been acceptable. But Obama wouldnt do it that way for political theatre to try and sway the election, which he ultimately did to Trump.

Click to expand...

Bullfrog said:

And what rulings would we have had if Scalia, Thomas and Alito not been on the court, but three other justices appointed by progressives?

How would the rulings on Heller and McDonald gone? Hint: they most likely would never have been heard at all.

We would be facing the same kind of bans that NZ and Canada recently put in place.

Click to expand...

CrueChief said:

If you stop at Eisenhower the count is 20-8 GOP. You missed a Reagan appointee.

Click to expand...

CrueChief said:

Which court has given Heller the credit and precedence it deserves outside of DC? And McDonald outside of Illinois? The stepping stones they were are going to be will be reversed after the next Dem replacement of either Thomas or Alito. The next time the SCOUTUS takes a gun case they will do exactly this unless T45 wins and RBG leaves. If either one doesn't happen the 2A is in real peril.

Click to expand...

Matlack said:

Who did I miss? O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. Rehnquist was a sitting Associate SCOTUS appointed by Nixon and Appointed to to Chief by Reagan. If you stop at Truman its 19 - 12.

Click to expand...

CrueChief said:

My point is the GOP majority SCOTUS has given us most of the leftist agenda for the last 45+ years. They have not been able to get these things through the legislative process so they use the courts and all these GOP appointees have given most of it to them. And when they didn't just give it to them they told them how to get it next time, re: masterpiece bakery in CO. So to say that we need GOP appointed Justices to get our stuff is a complete fallacy. They are never going to give us a major win, only small ones to keep us hooked and saying we need one more Justice. Just like in the congress they keep saying vote GOP give the majority and we will build the wall, rein in government over reach, or whatever never happens we just get another excuse. We can't do anything need 60 votes in the Senate, BS. If anyone thinks the Dems wouldn't get rid of the 60 vote closure rule if they could get away with it, hell the may even be bold enough now to do it if they get the majority back soon. We are electing the wrong kind of GOP people so we are getting the wrong kind of judges, which are leading to the wrong kind of Justices.

More of the same is just more of the same. If Roberts wasn't squishy it would be Kavanaugh. Hell Gorsuch codified mental illness into a protected class with the inclusion of trans into title 9 or whatever. But we need to keep voting GOP for judges i guess.

One day Lucy won't pull he football and Charlie will actually get to kick it, one day.

Click to expand...

Matlack said:

Again, up until 2017 there was a requirement for 2/3 of senate to approve the nominees. That required Dem support and you ended up with mid to dem leaning Justices. Especially when D controlled the Senate. The 4 from Obama and Clinton are hard leftist zealots.

Click to expand...

1841DNG said:

I am pretty frustrated with the court and less likely to vote red because of those appointments. But I still think whomever Trump could appoint next would be better than Biden appointing insane judges who believe that abortion until moment of birth is an enumerated right, the electoral college is bad, the second amendment only applies to muskets, freedom of speech does not apply to "hate speech," and religious institutions can be taxed.

Click to expand...

CrueChief said:

Again you make my point the dems get their hard leftists and the GOP gets center left judges. There is always the exception with people like Thomas and Scalia. But by and large the courts lean left to hard left.

Click to expand...

Matlack said:

The court is supposed to be centered and void of ideology. The saying is Justice is Blind. Instead we have Justices that we already know what their decision will be.

Click to expand...

CrueChief said:

Almost makes using them pointless.

Click to expand...

Matlack said:

Well their sole job is to interpret laws with respect to as written and the COTUS. When they modify laws, as they have been doing, it violates their intent.

Click to expand...

DanGuy48 said:

This is probably just the Post trying to light a fire under democrats to get out the vote, dangling two SCOTUS openings before them. It would be business as usual for them.

Click to expand...

DanGuy48 said:

This is probably just the Post trying to light a fire under democrats to get out the vote, dangling two SCOTUS openings before them. It would be business as usual for them.

Click to expand...