What will last of Trump?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Each side wants the other side to nominate a Souter, neither wants to nominate one.

Determining judicial philosophy isn't so far from predicting how someone will vote. And NO ONE is going to nominate someone or vote for him/her without considering both philosophy and past rulings by that person--even if no one can really predict/control what an individual will do once nominated.

My concern here is that the Federalist Society has put together a list of nominees with the goal of, among other things, undoing R v Wade. So a special interest group will be assuming a responsibility for nomination which the president has abdicated.  It is probably in his power to so abdicate the responsibility, but again that is the problem with giving this type of person that kind of power.

Also, the reference to "settled law" is not about picking cases to be off limits. It is about respect for precedent and resisting special interests.

Let's just say that a 5-4 liberal lean would not bother me. And yes, quite a lot could go wrong with a 7-2 liberal court. I have lots of great ideas about what should be law, but some would produce great resistance and problems if enacted, and so, great as they are, are unrealistic. Resistance and accountability are important to crafting workable laws. It's not clear a 7-2 court would have that. Further, a court which appears to represent a party de-legitimizes a branch of government. I take checks and balances seriously.

I agree that precedent is very important, if for no other reason than you can't just keep going over the same thing time and again.  I don't think Roe gets touched.  In the end I just don't think they want to deal with what would come after.  I don't think abortion should be legal and yet when I am honest with myself I cringe at the thought of Roe being overturned.  Which pretty much makes me a monster and or a hypocrite.  It's one thing to think it should be legal, and quite another to think it should be illegal but you don't want what will result.    

And of course I take you 100% on your belief of a balanced court.  I've never  understood people who argue against someone when they say what they believe.