A Prediction Related to SCOTUS

[carpedm9587]

So, I was reading this article from NBC. It got me thinking about what is likely to unfold over the next few years. First of all, I think there is no question that Trump will appoint a far-right conservative justice to replace Kennedy. I'm going to predict that this justice will also be white and male. After that, two things are likely to happen.

1) A test case for reversing Roe v. Wade will work its way up through the courts within a short period of time.
2) A test case for reversing same-sex marriages will work its way through the courts in a short period of time.

If either of these succeeds at the SCOTUS level, I'm going to make a prediction. The first will so rally women in the country that Republican seats will begin to fall in significant numbers and Democrats will end up with the Executive and Legislative branches for a significant period, perhaps as long as the 1931-1997 period, during which Republicans had control of both the House and Senate a total of 8 years and had control of only the Senate for another 12, out of the 66 year period. If the second also happens, it will cement the shift because it will also pick up the LGBTQ community and most young people who see the anti-LGBTQ position as archaic and unkind.

I think there is a significant possibility that what I said when Trump was first elected will come to pass: we will have to pay a significant price in pain in the short term. We are seeing that as we see what is unfolding for immigrants, what is happening to ecological regulation, what is happening to the deficit, and how our relationships with strategic partners are being undermined. Then U.S. citizens will reject what Trump represents, and he will be left with his devoted core base only. Then, perhaps, the GOP will come to its senses and put forward a candidate in the spirit of former great men of the GOP: Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

What the GOP has now is a sad reminder of just how far from its ideals the GOP has drifted.

[Terraceth]

When and why in the world did people start commonly using "LGBTQ"? Queer is synonymous with Gay, adding another letter to an acronym that was already redundant is just plain goofy.

[carpedm9587]

When and why in the world did people start commonly using "LGBTQ"? Queer is synonymous with Gay, adding another letter to an acronym that was already redundant is just plain goofy.

Actually, the "Q" can mean either "Queer" or "Questioning." And "Queer" is not synonymous with "Gay" anymore. It is more of an umbrella term that covers anyone who is not strictly heterosexual and cisgender. So by adding it to the end it basically means, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and anyone else who isn't convinced they're heterosexual and cisgender."

It's getting to be a more complex world...

[Terraceth]

Actually, the "Q" can mean either "Queer" or "Questioning." And "Queer" is not synonymous with "Gay" anymore. It is more of an umbrella term that covers anyone who is not strictly heterosexual and cisgender. So by adding it to the end it basically means, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and anyone else who isn't convinced they're heterosexual and cisgender."

For a while I assumed it was "Questioning" (which is still a needless addition but at least makes some sense) but every 'official' explanation I've seen for it has it mean Queer, which is utterly pointless to add. In fact, outside of the Q in LGBTQ, I've almost never actually seen the word Queer used.

It's getting to be a more complex world...

Which is why I've seen people taking it less and less seriously.

[carpedm9587]

For a while I assumed it was "Questioning" (which is still a needless addition but at least makes some sense) but every 'official' explanation I've seen for it has it mean Queer, which is utterly pointless to add. In fact, outside of the Q in LGBTQ, I've almost never actually seen the word Queer used.

It actually gets used in the LGBTQ community itself, and (as I noted before) covers all of the other variations (e.g., asexual, pansexual, etc.). It has long been used as a negative label by heterosexuals, but it has been reclaimed by the community.

Kind of like Obama did with "Obamacare," and the early Nazarenes apparently did with the term "Christian."

Which is why I've seen people taking it less and less seriously.

Some take it less and less seriously. In my experience, it's usually those who reject everything but heterosexuality and cisgender as "abnormal."

[seer]

So, I was reading this article from NBC. It got me thinking about what is likely to unfold over the next few years. First of all, I think there is no question that Trump will appoint a far-right conservative justice to replace Kennedy. I'm going to predict that this justice will also be white and male. After that, two things are likely to happen.

1) A test case for reversing Roe v. Wade will work its way up through the courts within a short period of time.
2) A test case for reversing same-sex marriages will work its way through the courts in a short period of time.

If either of these succeeds at the SCOTUS level, I'm going to make a prediction. The first will so rally women in the country that Republican seats will begin to fall in significant numbers and Democrats will end up with the Executive and Legislative branches for a significant period, perhaps as long as the 1931-1997 period, during which Republicans had control of both the House and Senate a total of 8 years and had control of only the Senate for another 12, out of the 66 year period. If the second also happens, it will cement the shift because it will also pick up the LGBTQ community and most young people who see the anti-LGBTQ position as archaic and unkind.

I think there is a significant possibility that what I said when Trump was first elected will come to pass: we will have to pay a significant price in pain in the short term. We are seeing that as we see what is unfolding for immigrants, what is happening to ecological regulation, what is happening to the deficit, and how our relationships with strategic partners are being undermined. Then U.S. citizens will reject what Trump represents, and he will be left with his devoted core base only. Then, perhaps, the GOP will come to its senses and put forward a candidate in the spirit of former great men of the GOP: Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

What the GOP has now is a sad reminder of just how far from its ideals the GOP has drifted.

I don't think you have any idea what will happen. Even if both are over turned they revert back to the states where they should have been in the first place.

[rogue06]

My prediction is that when the Democrats do regain control of the presidency and the Senate (the political pendulum pretty much guarantees that eventuality), their utter refusal to accept a conservative court will cause them to play a card from FDR's old deck -- namely court packing.

I think they'll gladly trade losing control of the Senate (due to voter backlash) in exchange for the SCOTUS.

[carpedm9587]

I don't think you have any idea what will happen. Even if both are over turned they revert back to the states where they should have been in the first place.

And the left will come out of the woodwork...

My prediction...

...shall see...

[carpedm9587]

My prediction is that when the Democrats do regain control of the presidency and the Senate (the political pendulum pretty much guarantees that eventuality), their utter refusal to accept a conservative court will cause them to play a card from FDR's old deck -- namely court packing.

I think they'll gladly trade losing control of the Senate (due to voter backlash) in exchange for the SCOTUS.

I agree that is entirely possible. As for "voter backlash," I think that will depend on how badly they pack the court. If they add two justices, and appoint one liberal and one moderate, I can't imagine there being a huge backlash. If they try to do an FDR...I suspect the backlash will be more extreme.

But these are all predictions.... we'll have to wait and see what is actually going to happen.


Come one, come all, ye prognosticators and oracles. What do YOU see in the future?

[Terraceth]

More back on topic:

So, I was reading this article from NBC. It got me thinking about what is likely to unfold over the next few years. First of all, I think there is no question that Trump will appoint a far-right conservative justice to replace Kennedy.

Why? Which of the prospective justices would you consider "far-right"? I'll admit I haven't investigated all of them but the ones I looked at didn't seem that way (outside of perhaps Bill Pylor, but lack of buzz concerning him indicates he probably isn't a top candidate this time around). Trump's first pick, Neil Gorsuch, certainly wasn't "far-right" despite the attempt of a few liberals to paint him as such (his nomination would've been fairly uncontroversial if not for the Merrick Garland thing).

I'm going to predict that this justice will also be white and male.

Based on what? That doesn't describe 28-32% (depending on how someone counts Federico Moreno) of the people on his list.

My prediction is that when the Democrats do regain control of the presidency and the Senate (the political pendulum pretty much guarantees that eventuality), their utter refusal to accept a conservative court will cause them to play a card from FDR's old deck -- namely court packing.

I think they'll gladly trade losing control of the Senate (due to voter backlash) in exchange for the SCOTUS.

The Democrats would need Senate, House, and President to make that happen, as bills need to be passed in both Senate and House (well, I suppose they could do without the presidency if they somehow got the requisite 2/3 in each house to override the veto).

However, I'm not sure if they would or could do it. Let's recall FDR was an incredibly popular president who had a Democratic supermajority in House and Senate. And with all of that, he still couldn't get his court packing bill through. Granted, it seems there's more call for that by the Democrat's base currently than there was before, but the inability of FDR to pull it off indicates it could be difficult even with Democratic control of the executive and legislature.

There's also the fact that if the Democrats try that, the Republicans will just turn around and to the same thing when the pendulum swings back in their favor.

[rogue06]

I agree that is entirely possible. As for "voter backlash," I think that will depend on how badly they pack the court. If they add two justices, and appoint one liberal and one moderate, I can't imagine there being a huge backlash. If they try to do an FDR...I suspect the backlash will be more extreme.

Even Roosevelt (who was never more popular at that point^[1]) understood that everyone would see it as a naked power grab and tried to mask it as an attempt to ease the burden on all those poor elderly justices (who were just swamped by an ever increasing workload).












1 with the most lop-sided victory in the Electoral College since James Monroe ran unopposed in 1820 and with Republicans having just 18 Senators

[rogue06]

The Democrats would need Senate, House, and President to make that happen, as bills need to be passed in both Senate and House (well, I suppose they could do without the presidency if they somehow got the requisite 2/3 in each house to override the veto).

However, I'm not sure if they would or could do it. Let's recall FDR was an incredibly popular president who had a Democratic supermajority in House and Senate. And with all of that, he still couldn't get his court packing bill through. Granted, it seems there's more call for that by the Democrat's base currently than there was before, but the inability of FDR to pull it off indicates it could be difficult even with Democratic control of the executive and legislature.

There's also the fact that if the Democrats try that, the Republicans will just turn around and to the same thing when the pendulum swings back in their favor.

Never before has a party held such a large percentage of the American public is such complete and utter contempt. They're "irredeemably deplorable," evil and to be shunned. There is a visceral hatred.

I think its entirely possible they'd roll the dice and push it through (for the good of the people of course) regardless of the outcry. Something FDR wouldn't risk.

[seer]

And the left will come out of the woodwork...

My prediction...

...shall see...

I mean really, what percentage of the voting population is that far left.

[carpedm9587]

More back on topic:
Why? Which of the prospective justices would you consider "far-right"? I'll admit I haven't investigated all of them but the ones I looked at didn't seem that way (outside of perhaps Bill Pylor, but lack of buzz concerning him indicates he probably isn't a top candidate this time around). Trump's first pick, Neil Gorsuch, certainly wasn't "far-right" despite the attempt of a few liberals to paint him as such (his nomination would've been fairly uncontroversial if not for the Merrick Garland thing).

As best I can tell, Gorsuch is as far to the right as Scalia and I am expecting another such justice.

Based on what? That doesn't describe 28-32% (depending on how someone counts Federico Moreno) of the people on his list.

Based on how he has filled most of the positions in the administration.

The Democrats would need Senate, House, and President to make that happen, as bills need to be passed in both Senate and House (well, I suppose they could do without the presidency if they somehow got the requisite 2/3 in each house to override the veto).

However, I'm not sure if they would or could do it. Let's recall FDR was an incredibly popular president who had a Democratic supermajority in House and Senate. And with all of that, he still couldn't get his court packing bill through. Granted, it seems there's more call for that by the Democrat's base currently than there was before, but the inability of FDR to pull it off indicates it could be difficult even with Democratic control of the executive and legislature.

There's also the fact that if the Democrats try that, the Republicans will just turn around and to the same thing when the pendulum swings back in their favor.

That last part is a really possibility, but perhaps that pendulum swing will take as long as the 1933-1995 window (my previous post had those dates wrong). In that 62-year window, the GOP had both houses twice for 2 years each time (also wrong in my first post). The first was 1947-1949, but Truman (D) was president. The second was 1953-1955 and Eisenhower (R) was president, giving them a trifecta for 2 years. Outside of that they had the Senate for 6 years from 1981 to 1987 (also wrong in my first post), which would have been the end of Carter's term (D) and all of Reagan's first term (R).

I suspect that Trump's "trifecta" (quad fecta, now that SCOTUS is also Republican dominated) will last only his first two years. I predict he will lose the House this year, but pick up a couple of Senate seats. Then he will lose the Senate and Executive branch in 2020. The one thing that might keep the executive branch in the hands of the GOP is if Trump gets primaried, which is entirely possible. My prediction is that Kasich will try to do it.


P.S. Man - I got three things wrong in my OP.

[carpedm9587]

Never before has a party held such a large percentage of the American public is such complete and utter contempt. They're "irredeemably deplorable," evil and to be shunned. There is a visceral hatred.

I think its entirely possible they'd roll the dice and push it through (for the good of the people of course) regardless of the outcry. Something FDR wouldn't risk.

I presume you're talking about the GOP?