Thread: Supreme Court Rulings for 2016

The God Botherers have had their arses kicked again by SCOTUS.

Excellent.

Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics

Last modified on Monday 27 June 2016 15.37 BST

Major victory for reproductive rights activists paves way to overturn dozens of measures that curtail access to abortion providers across the country

The US supreme court on Monday struck down one of the harshest abortion restrictions in the country and potentially paved the way to overturn dozens of measures in other states that curtail access, in what might be the most significant legal victory for reproductive rights advocates since the right to abortion was established in 1973.

The 5-3 ruling will immediately prevent Texas from enforcing a law that would have closed all but nine abortion clinics. But in a coup for abortion rights supporters, the court also in effect barred lawmakers from passing health measures backed by dubious medical evidence as a way of forcing large numbers of abortion clinics to close.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the majority and was joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, andAnthony Kennedy, whose support was key to determining if the liberal or conservative bloc of the court would prevail.

“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Breyer’s opinion read. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access … and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

The case began in 2013, when Texas Republicans, on the heels of an 11-hour filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis, passed one of the most expansive abortion restrictions in the country. The bill, known as House Bill 2, requires abortion providers to have staff privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic and requires clinics to meet expensive, hospital-like building and equipment standards.

Lawmakers claimed these were critical safety measures. But abortion providers argued that HB 2 was a gambit designed to shut clinics down in large numbers. On the day the admitting privileges requirement took effect, in November 2013, the number of Texas abortion clinics plummeted from 41 to 22. Today, there are 18. Had the requirement for clinics to meet hospital-like rules gone into effect, another nine would have shut down. Last year, the four liberal justices plus Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked that requirement until the court could resolve the case.

Around the country, highly similar laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin threatened to shutter another 13 abortion clinics.

Monday’s ruling could give abortion providers in those states ammunition to have those laws struck down in the lower courts.

At the heart of this case was a two-decade old dispute over how strictly states can regulate abortion, so long as they claim to be doing so for health purposes. A 1992 supreme court decision, Planned Parenthood v Casey, gave states the right to restrict abortion to protect women’s health as long as it didn’t create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. “An undue burden exists,” that decision reads, “and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.”

But the court never fully clarified the meaning of “undue burden”. Texas abortion providers argued that a law is an undue burden if it is medically unnecessary. Attorneys for Texas argued that courts should defer to the legislature’s knowledge of what is medically unnecessary, and a law is only an undue burden if it significantly impacts abortion access.

On Monday, the majority ruled that courts should in fact scrutinize the medical evidence behind burdensome abortion restrictions.

In 2014, US district judge Lee Yeakel sided with Whole Woman’s Health and ruled key parts of HB 2 unconstitutional. A three-judge panel from the fifth circuit court of appeals, the most conservative circuit in the US, overturned his decision in June 2015. The supreme court agreed to take up the case in November and heard oral arguments on 2 March 2016.

Abortion clinics and their allies have mounted significant evidence that HB 2’s restrictions were both medically unnecessary and “devastating” to abortion access, in the words of Amy Hagstrom Miller, who runs the group of abortion clinics, Whole Woman’s Health, that led the charge to overturn Texas’s law.

Briefs to the court from leading medical groups, such as the American Medical Association, emphasized that hospital admitting privileges are generally reserved for doctors who treat patients in an inpatient setting. Because abortion is an outpatient procedure with a low complication rate – the risk of a serious complication is between 0.05% and 0.2% – abortion providers rarely meet a hospital’s particular requirements.

In March, researchers with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas-Austin found that with parts of HB 2 in effect, the average number of miles that many women traveled to get an abortion nearly quadrupled. If the law were fully in effect, Texas’s nine remaining clinics would have been clustered in Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio, and there wouldn’t have been a single clinic for 500 miles between San Antonio and the border with New Mexico.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from Breyer’s opinion, with Thomas indicating that he would have voted to uphold the entire law. Roberts and Alito would have remanded the case back down to the lower courts for additional findings.

Following the death of Justice Anontin Scalia, who likely would have voted to uphold the law, many observers expected the court to deadlock in this case along ideological lines. A split would have upheld the fifth circuit court of appeals decision of June 2015 and forced all but nine clinics in Texas to close.

A split also would have sent strong signals that abortion providers would lose their ongoing case against an admitting privileges law in Louisiana, which is also in the fifth circuit with Texas. That law threatens to close two out of four Louisiana abortion clinics; the provider with admitting privileges at a third abortion clinic has said he would quit and leave the state with only one clinic.

Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics | Law | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Blimey, those FoxNews 'experts' are quite scary, and that dead 'judge' saw his judicial appointment as a political opportunity to change laws and interpret laws according to his political ideology - that's criminal, imho, and with such folks running things (exactly as the republicans continue to do) there is no independence of core social structures which leads to inevitable abuse and control of the judicial processes by the highest bidder...

As in the justices rewording a part of Obamacare so they could uphold a lower court ruling.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The God Botherers have had their arses kicked again by SCOTUS.

Excellent.

Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics

Last modified on Monday 27 June 2016 15.37 BST

Major victory for reproductive rights activists paves way to overturn dozens of measures that curtail access to abortion providers across the country

The US supreme court on Monday struck down one of the harshest abortion restrictions in the country and potentially paved the way to overturn dozens of measures in other states that curtail access, in what might be the most significant legal victory for reproductive rights advocates since the right to abortion was established in 1973.

The 5-3 ruling will immediately prevent Texas from enforcing a law that would have closed all but nine abortion clinics. But in a coup for abortion rights supporters, the court also in effect barred lawmakers from passing health measures backed by dubious medical evidence as a way of forcing large numbers of abortion clinics to close.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the majority and was joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, andAnthony Kennedy, whose support was key to determining if the liberal or conservative bloc of the court would prevail.

“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Breyer’s opinion read. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access … and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

The case began in 2013, when Texas Republicans, on the heels of an 11-hour filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis, passed one of the most expansive abortion restrictions in the country. The bill, known as House Bill 2, requires abortion providers to have staff privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic and requires clinics to meet expensive, hospital-like building and equipment standards.

Lawmakers claimed these were critical safety measures. But abortion providers argued that HB 2 was a gambit designed to shut clinics down in large numbers. On the day the admitting privileges requirement took effect, in November 2013, the number of Texas abortion clinics plummeted from 41 to 22. Today, there are 18. Had the requirement for clinics to meet hospital-like rules gone into effect, another nine would have shut down. Last year, the four liberal justices plus Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked that requirement until the court could resolve the case.

Around the country, highly similar laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin threatened to shutter another 13 abortion clinics.

Monday’s ruling could give abortion providers in those states ammunition to have those laws struck down in the lower courts.

At the heart of this case was a two-decade old dispute over how strictly states can regulate abortion, so long as they claim to be doing so for health purposes. A 1992 supreme court decision, Planned Parenthood v Casey, gave states the right to restrict abortion to protect women’s health as long as it didn’t create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. “An undue burden exists,” that decision reads, “and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.”

But the court never fully clarified the meaning of “undue burden”. Texas abortion providers argued that a law is an undue burden if it is medically unnecessary. Attorneys for Texas argued that courts should defer to the legislature’s knowledge of what is medically unnecessary, and a law is only an undue burden if it significantly impacts abortion access.

On Monday, the majority ruled that courts should in fact scrutinize the medical evidence behind burdensome abortion restrictions.

In 2014, US district judge Lee Yeakel sided with Whole Woman’s Health and ruled key parts of HB 2 unconstitutional. A three-judge panel from the fifth circuit court of appeals, the most conservative circuit in the US, overturned his decision in June 2015. The supreme court agreed to take up the case in November and heard oral arguments on 2 March 2016.

Abortion clinics and their allies have mounted significant evidence that HB 2’s restrictions were both medically unnecessary and “devastating” to abortion access, in the words of Amy Hagstrom Miller, who runs the group of abortion clinics, Whole Woman’s Health, that led the charge to overturn Texas’s law.

Briefs to the court from leading medical groups, such as the American Medical Association, emphasized that hospital admitting privileges are generally reserved for doctors who treat patients in an inpatient setting. Because abortion is an outpatient procedure with a low complication rate – the risk of a serious complication is between 0.05% and 0.2% – abortion providers rarely meet a hospital’s particular requirements.

In March, researchers with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas-Austin found that with parts of HB 2 in effect, the average number of miles that many women traveled to get an abortion nearly quadrupled. If the law were fully in effect, Texas’s nine remaining clinics would have been clustered in Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio, and there wouldn’t have been a single clinic for 500 miles between San Antonio and the border with New Mexico.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from Breyer’s opinion, with Thomas indicating that he would have voted to uphold the entire law. Roberts and Alito would have remanded the case back down to the lower courts for additional findings.

Following the death of Justice Anontin Scalia, who likely would have voted to uphold the law, many observers expected the court to deadlock in this case along ideological lines. A split would have upheld the fifth circuit court of appeals decision of June 2015 and forced all but nine clinics in Texas to close.

A split also would have sent strong signals that abortion providers would lose their ongoing case against an admitting privileges law in Louisiana, which is also in the fifth circuit with Texas. That law threatens to close two out of four Louisiana abortion clinics; the provider with admitting privileges at a third abortion clinic has said he would quit and leave the state with only one clinic.

Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics | Law | The Guardian

If you think Christians are the only ones fighting abortion on demand you couldn't be more wrong.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As long as this obstructive, do-nothing Congress are there, they could leave the seats unoccupied for two terms.

And probably will unless they are hoofed out on the arses.

Do nothing? What they are doing is keeping you libtards from taking over the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As long as this obstructive, do-nothing Congress are there, they could leave the seats unoccupied for two terms.

And probably will unless they are hoofed out on the arses.

Do nothing? What they are doing is keeping you libtards from taking over the Supreme Court.

What they are doing is ignoring the Constitution you old fool.

Isn't working out so well, is it?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If you think Christians are the only ones fighting abortion on demand you couldn't be more wrong.

It doesn't matter what I think. It's what the American people think.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As long as this obstructive, do-nothing Congress are there, they could leave the seats unoccupied for two terms.

And probably will unless they are hoofed out on the arses.

Do nothing? What they are doing is keeping you libtards from taking over the Supreme Court.

What they are doing is ignoring the Constitution you old fool.

Isn't working out so well, is it?

Yes and no, it did did stop obama's attempted end run on the constitution giving illegals working rights.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As long as this obstructive, do-nothing Congress are there, they could leave the seats unoccupied for two terms.

And probably will unless they are hoofed out on the arses.

Do nothing? What they are doing is keeping you libtards from taking over the Supreme Court.

What they are doing is ignoring the Constitution you old fool.

Isn't working out so well, is it?

Yes and no, it did did stop obama's attempted end run on the constitution giving illegals working rights.

That's OK, they can fix that with a new immigration bill.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As long as this obstructive, do-nothing Congress are there, they could leave the seats unoccupied for two terms.

And probably will unless they are hoofed out on the arses.

Do nothing? What they are doing is keeping you libtards from taking over the Supreme Court.

What they are doing is ignoring the Constitution you old fool.

Isn't working out so well, is it?

Yes and no, it did did stop obama's attempted end run on the constitution giving illegals working rights.

That's OK, they can fix that with a new immigration bill.

Yes they can but that is not the point, the point is by passing the constitution, a much more important issue, was stopped.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If you think Christians are the only ones fighting abortion on demand you couldn't be more wrong.

It doesn't matter what I think. It's what the American people think.

Again you have let the point of my post sail over your head. The point was your attributing the issue to the intervention by your so called, God botherers, is not what is happening it goes far beyond just being a Christian issue.

By the way how do you define your new word God botherers?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes they can but that is not the point, the point is by passing the constitution, a much more important issue, was stopped.

Don't clutch your pearls so hard PRETER.

Executive orders:

George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 235

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes they can but that is not the point, the point is by passing the constitution, a much more important issue, was stopped.

Don't clutch your pearls so hard PRETER.

Executive orders:

George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 235

You seem to think I was a G.W.Bush fan, not so. Another point, you can not just group executive orders, some pass constitutional muster some don't.
Typical libtard thinking, if you don't like Obama's agenda you must be a Bush fan.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You seem to think I was a G.W.Bush fan

Of course you were, you're just too cowardly to admit it.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You seem to think I was a G.W.Bush fan

Of course you were, you're just too cowardly to admit it.

One thing I am not is cowardly.
Typical response by someone who is of the foolish opinion there is only two sides to any equation. No need to respond as it is easy to see you are just trying to hide your foolishness.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

One thing I am not is cowardly.

Well you are actually.

You don't even have the fortitude to discuss something without hiding behind a never-ending string of spurious and specious 'questions'. Intellectual dishonesty is just another form of cowardice.

McConnell: the next president should be the one to pick the next justice

wonder when senate hearings will begin for Garland

OK. We'll continue on into 2016.

As we know, Scalia kicked the bucket and Obama appointed Merrick Garland, but the Repubs in the Senate refused to vote on it until after the election.

On Tuesday at 8 PM, Trump will reveal his appointee for the USSC. The Dems are vowing to filibuster.

I have googled and searched and no name are coming up for the pick, although 3 names are under "close consideration."

Who will it be? Guess correctly and win a prize.

Will this pick influence any laws, regs, or policies?


Trump set to name U.S. high court pick as Democrats plan fight



President Donald Trump said he will announce his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday as he looks to quickly put his stamp on the court by restoring its conservative majority, even as Democrats geared up for a Senate confirmation fight.

Trump, set to fill the lingering vacancy on the nation's highest court left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, said on Monday he will reveal his choice at the White House at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, two days earlier than previously planned.

Three conservative U.S. appeals court judges appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush were among those under close consideration. They are: Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Thomas Hardiman, who serves on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and William Pryor, a judge on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Since Scalia's death, the Supreme Court has been ideologically split with four conservatives and four liberals. Another conservative justice could be pivotal in cases involving abortion, gun, religious and transgender rights, the death penalty and other contentious matters.

Trump's appointee to the lifetime post could face stiff opposition from Democrats in the Republican-led U.S. Senate, which must confirm nominees to the high court. Some liberal groups have urged Democrats to do everything possible to block Trump's nominee.

Democrats remain furious over Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal last year to allow the Senate to consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nomination of appeals court Judge Merrick Garland for the vacant seat, an action with little precedent in U.S. history.

Trump set to name U.S. high court pick as Democrats plan fight | Reuters

OK, more on T's possible pick. *Drumroll*

Neil Gorsuch:


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has said Democrats will oppose any nominee outside the mainstream. He will likely decide whether to try to block, or filibuster, based on the nominee's performance in confirmation hearings and feedback from his Democratic caucus, including the 10 senators who are up for re-election in states that Trump won last year.



Some elections coming up for Dem Senators that may / likely influence their vote on Trump's pick:

'We will force vulnerable senators up for re-election in 2018 like Joe Donnelly and Claire McCaskill to decide between keeping their Senate seats or following Chuck Schumer's liberal, obstructionist agenda,' said Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the group.

Donnelly of Indiana and McCaskill of Missouri are both Democrats who represent states that Trump won with more than 55 percent of the vote.

Read more: Trump's Supreme Court nomination will come TUESDAY | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

More on Gursuch:



Meet Judge Neil Gorsuch — a front-runner for Trump's Supreme Court nominee
Michelle Mark

Circuit Court of Appeals via Associated Press

As President Donald Trump whittles down his short-list for a Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who serves on the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, has emerged as one of the likely selections.

Trump said during his campaign that he would seek to "appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice [Antonin] Scalia" — a characteristic that Gorsuch embodies in particular.

In a speech to Case Western Reserve University's law school shortly after Scalia's death in February 2016, Gorsuch praised Scalia for his unyielding textualism — interpreting a law according to its plain text, rather than considering the intent of the lawmakers or the consequences of its implementation.

Gorsuch said Scalia's greatest achievement was perhaps his emphasis on the differences between legislators, who, he said, use the law according to their own morals and ambitions for society's future, and judges, who "should do none of these things in a democratic society."

"Judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly, to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be," Gorsuch said.

Scalia's method of statutory interpretation was done "correctly" and was undoubtedly a "success," according to Gorsuch, who quoted Scalia as saying: "If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong."

Similarly, Gorsuch also supports originalism, meaning he seeks to interpret the law according to the meaning of the Constitution as it was written. Gorsuch would frequently ask his clerks to scour historical sources when a constitutional issue arose in a case, David Feder, one of his former clerks, wrote in a blog post for the Yale Journal on Regulation.

"'We need to get this right,' was the motto — and right meant 'as originally understood,'" Feder said.

'Conservatives will love him'

Gorsuch, who at 49 would be the youngest justice on the current Supreme Court bench, comes with a prestigious academic and legal background, as well as staunchly conservative credentials.

He graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. A Denver native, Gorsuch was appointed in 2006 by President George W. Bush to the federal appeals court for the 10th circuit. He worked in the administration's Justice Department before his appointment.

Like Scalia, Gorsuch has become known for his writing style, which is often infused with his wit and personality. But, [b]in a departure from the famously combative justice, Gorsuch has a reputation for projecting an easygoing demeanor — a trait that could work in his favor during confirmation hearings in which Democrats have vowed to fight "tooth and nail."

"I think the conservatives will love him and the liberals will find very little to fault," Mark Hansen, a former partner of Gorsuch's at Kellogg Huber Hansen, told CNN. "He's an affable, collegial, unpretentious man with a good sense of humor."

Gorsuch is also known for his votes and opinions in favor of religious liberty. In perhaps his most notable case, he sided with claimants Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor, who argued that their religious beliefs were violated by the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

The government must not force those with "sincerely held religious beliefs" to be complicit in "conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong," Gorsuch wrote in his opinion.

The case went to the Supreme Court in 2014. In a 5-4 vote, it came to the same decision as Gorsuch.

In criminal law, too, Gorsuch applies a textualist interpretation and often sides with defendants over prosecutors in an effort to avoid criminalizing conduct that could potentially be innocent.

In one 2013 case, for instance, Gorsuch upheld a lower court's ruling that a police officer in Lafayette, Colorado, who used a stun gun on 22-year-old Ryan Wilson, who died from the incident, had qualified immunity, The Denver Post reported.

According to Gorsuch, all officers were protected under broadly applied qualified-immunity laws, with the exception of "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."

Gorsuch has also been a staunch opponent of what he calls "executive overreach," a position that could appease many Republicans who criticized the Obama administration's use of executive orders to cut through congressional gridlock, while also reassuring Democrats worried about the ramifications of Trump's executive orders.

Executive bureaucracies, according to Gorsuch, "concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design."

"Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth," he wrote.

In keeping with Republican tradition, Gorsuch leans in favor of state power over federal power — an approach that can be challenging in civil-rights cases that frequently revolve around the power of "rogue" state laws, Justin Marceau, a University of Denver law professor, told The Denver Post.

"We would see a judge who, while perhaps not as combative in personal style as Justice Scalia, is perhaps his intellectual equal," Marceau said, "and almost certainly his equal on conservative jurisprudential approaches to criminal justice and social justice issues that are bound to keep coming up in the country."

Meet Judge Neil Gorsuch ? a frontrunner for Trump's Supreme Court nominee - Business Insider

My inside sources were correct. I called it right.

Here' more info on this new appointee with more details on past rulings.

Cool, hip video at link also:
Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court: Facts about Donald Trump's pick

It's not a given that Ginsberg will retire from the Court within the 3 years and 9 month:

Ginsburg's future was on the minds of many in the audience during a meeting sponsored by The Jewish Federations. Donald Trump's unexpected victory at the polls means that if anything were to happen to the 83-year-old justice in the next few years, she might be replaced by a conservative.

The moderator, lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, asked her what the election meant.
Ginsburg, treading carefully, responded, "most immediately a vacancy will be filled." And then she repeated something she said even before the election when Senate Republicans blocked the nomination hearings of President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.

"Eight is not a good number for a multi-member court," she said.
She also suggested perhaps the legislative branch get moving again. "There is an existing vacancy and President Trump will fill it. Then, perhaps Congress will do some work. One reason the court has not had as many petitions as usual is that there hasn't been any legislative activity," Ginsburg said.

Trump's election and actions by Senate Republicans will have a critical impact on the court, which will likely maintain its conservative majority for years to come. It will also mean that Ginsburg will remain in the minority on some social issues that closely divide the justices.

Some liberals have questioned whether Ginsburg should have stepped down during the Obama administration. In 2014, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, suggested in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that she step down in order to "advance all the things she has spent her life working for." But she did not heed that advice.

And now, the liberal icon who has inspired generations of young lawyers for her early work on gender discrimination, will likely seek to stay on the bench at least until a Democratic president wins an election.

That will keep her in the spotlight -- something she has dominated like no other sitting justice.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses impact of Trump on SCOTUS - CNNPolitics.com

It would appear that you don't know the difference between Supreme Court rulings for 2016 and Supreme Court nominations for 2017.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It would appear that you don't know the difference between Supreme Court rulings for 2016 and Supreme Court nominations for 2017.

I clarified this a post above.

You obviously have not read my post above, which everyone else on this forum knows.

You didn't read this; you post nonsense, and you post bullshit.


You're too old. Please die soon, loser.

I liked his speech.....

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It would appear that you don't know the difference between Supreme Court rulings for 2016 and Supreme Court nominations for 2017.

I clarified this a post above.

You obviously have not read my post above, which everyone else on this forum knows.

You didn't read this; you post nonsense, and you post bullshit.


You're too old. Please die soon, loser.

I don't care what you clarified, you're typing in another dead thread you cock.

At least open one with right topic, you open enough shit ones.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

I liked his speech.....

Feel free to elucidate if you so desire.