Scalia Dead.

[connor_in]

Also go read Cack's post on the last page, he covers how Republicans have been screwing around with Obama's judicial appointees. They won't let him fill seats on the DC Appeals court because he might "stack the court" though Bush and Reagan sure as hell got to appoint more people to it. The fact that the Conservatives on here can't see that just tells me that they don't want to see it. Willful ignorance. Pure obstructionism.

"Willful ignorance. Pure obstructionism." isn't this another quote accurately describing former Senate leader Harry Reid?

 

[pkt77242]

"Willful ignorance. Pure obstructionism." isn't this another quote accurately describing former Senate leader Harry Reid?

Partially but I will add that Bush had significantly better confirmation rates for his judicial nominees than Obama has had. So while yes Reid did a fair amount of obstructionism it is not to the level of McConnell.

 

[Cackalacky]

Do you really think that the Senate would refuse to confirm anyone that Obama nominates, regardless of who it is? I don't. If he nominated, say, Robert George, they'd confirm him with record speed.

I agree. If he nominated someone to replace Scalia then I think the Republicans would confirm them possibly. But that is not going to happen. And I don't think it should happen and I don't think anyone here believes that a Democrat should HAVE to nominate a conservative or vice versa. But as described in the Constitution, the Senate does HAVE to confirm or deny a President's appointment.

What the republicans are doing is the equivalent of the punk schoolyard kid who gets punched in the nose playing tag football and takes his ball home.

I think McConnell's statement: (1) assumed that Obama wouldn't nominate a conservative to replace Scalia; (2) confirmed the obvious in that the Senate wouldn't confirm any non-conservative replacement for Scalia; and (3) thus, Obama shouldn't bother nominating anyone.

1. IMO, yes, though they have by their own statements said they would block any appointment by Obama and there is nothing to lead me to believe they will do anything else unless Obama does in fact decide to put someone far to the right of center (which is all the Senate will be in favor of at this point). That is very unlikely to happen.
2.IMO yes. But why should and since when does a replacement have to maintain the status quo? Obama gets to do it because he won the presidential election. The Senate, regardless of their make up has to confirm or deny the appointment. Not take their football home and leave the game.
3. IMO, no. At this point they are saying Obama should not be able to nominate anyone because he is Obama, just like everything else Obama has done since 2008, as my post above describes.

Just because the Republicans are scared to death of rolling back some of the changes they have implemented with a SC in their favor (dare I say that might not be a bad thing in most cases) does not give them the right or authority to eschew their sworn duties and perform them in a respectable manner.

If they were so honorable in their intentions, they would have at it with a war of ideals during the hearings and make a case why someone as moderate as Sri would be unable to faithfully carry out the duties of a Justice.

 

[connor_in]

Partially but I will add that Bush had significantly better confirmation rates for his judicial nominees than Obama has had. So while yes Reid did a fair amount of obstructionism it is not to the level of McConnell.

but it is a continuum that has progressively gotten worse and worse as we have gone along, and I am not just limiting it to judicial nominees as that excludes myriad other realities that have come into play...

Since before Nixon, things have steadily gone downhill in the relations between the two parties and they have only picked up more and more speed and anger along the way with only some minor truces reached along the way when one side seemed to have a lot more popular opinion on their side than the other (once again on all matters not just judges). The fact that you generally agree with the opposite side of the aisle from me makes you believe the last line of your post while I agree to its antithesis. It is also why the anger and condescension in this thread and that of the other political threads generally rins from relatively high to fever pitch.

 

[Buster Bluth]

They decided what was right for the country in 1789. They formed a core set of rules and principles common to all Americans. Now, anyone who believes in that document is an "extremist."

Oh please.

The Founders had a general lack of confidence regarding whether the Constitution would even work. We know this from their writings of their varied opinions on the process to create it and its outcome. You don't have to go past a 101 class to learn that the Constitution is attempt 2.0 after 1.0, the Articles of Confederation, failed. They then had to turn around and immediately amend the Constitution with an addendum known as the Bill of Rights.

They were not a confident bunch, as history shows, because they adamantly disagreed with each other. Look no further than the first three words of the document to find the first disagreement, "We the People." Plenty of them found this to be unwarranted and that it should be replaced with "We the States," because it wasn't about one American group people at all, in their view. Hell Hamilton got up and gave a six-hour speech about how governors should be appointed for life from a Congress that was appointed for life that rules with an executive who rules for life....yadda yadda yadda.

At the end of the day they were well aware they wouldn't get it totally right. That's why they made it malleable. Thomas Jefferson (not at the convention fwiw, he was in France) laid it out pretty clearly in a 1789 letter to Madison, saying that he thought they should come back and redo the Constitution every 19 years:

The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

I think I can say with confidence that people running around in the 21st century proclaiming that we should govern ourselves as if it were the 18th century are extremists, and that plenty of them would have agreed with me. But generally speaking we have no idea what their thoughts would be today, I'd say mostly because they had no way of seeing the drastic changes the country and world would take as a result of the industrial revolution. Society is urbanized and not even comparable to 1789, I would think anyone can see that. Jefferson's dream of a nation of noble farmers reveals how out of touch they would be today.

Plus I go out of my way to not put too much faith in the works of men who didn't know what germs were, and who owned people as property and were certainly racist and sexist.

 

[connor_in]

I agree. If he nominated someone to replace Scalia then I think the Republicans would confirm them possibly. But that is not going to happen. And I don't think it should happen and I don't think anyone here believes that a Democrat should HAVE to nominate a conservative or vice versa. But as described in the Constitution, the Senate does HAVE to confirm or deny a President's appointment.

What the republicans are doing is the equivalent of the punk schoolyard kid who gets punched in the nose playing tag football and takes his ball home.




1. IMO, yes, though they have by their own statements said they would block any appointment by Obama and there is nothing to lead me to believe they will do anything else unless Obama does in fact decide to put someone far to the right of center (which is all the Senate will be in favor of at this point). That is very unlikely to happen.
2.IMO yes. But why should and since when does a replacement have to maintain the status quo? Obama gets to do it because he won the presidential election. The Senate, regardless of their make up has to confirm or deny the appointment. Not take their football home and leave the game.
3. IMO, no. At this point they are saying Obama should not be able to nominate anyone because he is Obama, just like everything else Obama has done since 2008, as my post above describes.

Just because the Republicans are scared to death of rolling back some of the changes they have implemented with a SC in their favor (dare I say that might not be a bad thing in most cases) does not give them the right or authority to eschew their sworn duties and perform them in a respectable manner.

If they were so honorable in their intentions, they would have at it with a war of ideals during the hearings and make a case why someone as moderate as Sri would be unable to faithfully carry out the duties of a Justice.

What time frame does the Senate have to perform the advise and consent duties per the Constitution?

If they refuse to act on it (like previous Senate leaders have not acted on other items) - which by the way they haven't done yet so this is all posturing anyway for now - wouldn't that be akin to a pocket veto?

As to the bolded...dude, have you paid any attention to DC in the last, what, 50+ years?

 

[NDgradstudent]

At the end of the day they were well aware they wouldn't get it totally right. That's why they made it malleable.

A more relevant Jefferson quote:

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

The left-wing theory of "interpretation" -it means whatever is good and/or in line with current Democratic party preferences- is rooted in the New Deal court, not in the founding period.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What "conservative" causes has the Supreme Court advanced? The "federalism revolution" of the 90s was a joke- federalism is dead, and that was just grasping at meaningless straws. Getting rid of spending restrictions in campaigns is not, in my view, a mainstream "conservative" cause, but let's just suppose I concede that one. What else is there? I can't think of any other examples.

Heller, Citizen's United, McCutcheon, and Hobby Lobby; along with some modest restrictions on abortion.

On the other hand, I can name off the top of my head a dozen left-wing causes the Court has advanced in that period. The Court follows elite opinion. Elite opinion is basically left-wing. The fact that there are four Justices who consistently resist this tendency is a minor miracle.

You just conceded my point. Conservatives have won a few minor battles, but they have been steadily losing the war over the last few decades. If that's what has happened with a nominally center-right SCOTUS, what happens when Scalia is replaced by a moderate and that majority disappears? This represents a existential danger for them.

I agree. If he nominated someone to replace Scalia then I think the Republicans would confirm them possibly. But that is not going to happen. And I don't think it should happen and I don't think anyone here believes that a Democrat should HAVE to nominate a conservative or vice versa. But as described in the Constitution, the Senate does HAVE to confirm or deny a President's appointment.

What the republicans are doing is the equivalent of the punk schoolyard kid who gets punched in the nose playing tag football and takes his ball home.

You are 100% correct in your procedural and (recent) historical arguments. Though I think they largely miss the point. There's no Progressive equivalent to the danger that Scalia's death poses to conservatives.

1. IMO, yes, though they have by their own statements said they would block any appointment by Obama and there is nothing to lead me to believe they will do anything else unless Obama does in fact decide to put someone far to the right of center (which is all the Senate will be in favor of at this point). That is very unlikely to happen.
2.IMO yes. But why should and since when does a replacement have to maintain the status quo? Obama gets to do it because he won the presidential election. The Senate, regardless of their make up has to confirm or deny the appointment. Not take their football home and leave the game.
3. IMO, no. At this point they are saying Obama should not be able to nominate anyone because he is Obama, just like everything else Obama has done since 2008, as my post above describes.

My only point was that McConnell's statement makes much more sense when you assume that Obama won't appoint a conservative and when you account for the existential danger the next appointment likely poses to conservative political causes.

Just because the Republicans are scared to death of rolling back some of the changes they have implemented with a SC in their favor (dare I say that might not be a bad thing in most cases) does not give them the right or authority to eschew their sworn duties and perform them in a respectable manner.

Again, this is a procedural complaint which largely misses the point regarding the special circumstances that obtain in the here and now.

If they were so honorable in their intentions, they would have at it with a war of ideals during the hearings and make a case why someone as moderate as Sri would be unable to faithfully carry out the duties of a Justice.

I never said their intentions were honorable. And honestly, I'm not very invested in most of the specific holdings listed above. But as an orthodox Catholic who is struggling to raise his kids in the faith, I am hugely invested in religious liberty, and I'm 99.9% certain Srinivasan, or any other candidate that Obama is likely to nominate, would join the Progressive block in declaring any American who dissents from the Sexual Revolution as hostis humani generis, so I've got a lot of sympathy for the GOP here.

 

[GoIrish41]

That argument makes perfect sense as far as playground fairness goes: "You had your turn, and now we get to have ours." It makes zero sense when you consider what's at stake for conservatives after Scalia's death.

So the court must retain its Scalia-era configuration no matter who is president? When a democrat is in the White House, he's going to nominate a like-minded individual just like a republican would. You seem to be suggesting that issues that are more pressing to conservatives should take precedent over issues that are important to liberals. I have to believe that isn't what you meant.

 

[pkt77242]

Heller, Citizen's United, McCutcheon, and Hobby Lobby; along with some modest restrictions on abortion.



You just conceded my point. Conservatives have won a few minor battles, but they have been steadily losing the war over the last few decades. If that's what has happened with a nominally center-right SCOTUS, what happens when Scalia is replaced by a moderate and that majority disappears? This represents a existential danger for them.



You are 100% correct in your procedural and (recent) historical arguments. Though I think they largely miss the point. There's no Progressive equivalent to the danger that Scalia's death poses to conservatives.



My only point was that McConnell's statement makes much more sense when you assume that Obama won't appoint a conservative and when you account for the existential danger the next appointment likely poses to conservative political causes.



Again, this is a procedural complaint which largely misses the point regarding the special circumstances that obtain in the here and now.



I never said their intentions were honorable. And honestly, I'm not very invested in most of the specific holdings listed above. But as an orthodox Catholic who is struggling to raise his kids in the faith, I am hugely invested in religious liberty, and I'm 99.9% certain Srinivasan, or any other candidate that Obama is likely to nominate, would join the Progressive block in declaring any American who dissents from the Sexual Revolution as hostis humani generis, so I've got a lot of sympathy for the GOP here.

I just want to say them at the first quote isn't mine it is NDgradstudent's. Not sure I want to be associated with him.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So the court must retain its Scalia-era configuration no matter who is president? When a democrat is in the White House, he's going to nominate a like-minded individual just like a republican would. You seem to be suggesting that issues that are more pressing to conservatives should take precedent over issues that are important to liberals. I have to believe that isn't what you meant.

As I mentioned above, there is no Progressive equivalent to the existential danger that Scalia's replacement likely poses to conservatives. So arguments based on recent historical precedent or procedure are largely missing the point. That's not to say that they're therefore correct in being fully obstructionist here. In the end, it probably won't matter. But if you want to convince me to join you in condemning the GOP, advance an argument that recognizes the unprecedented danger they're facing here.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I just want to say them at the first quote isn't mine it is NDgradstudent's. Not sure I want to be associated with him.

Not sure why that was attributed to you when I quoted it. Apologies.

 

[wizards8507]

Fun fact that everyone seems to be ignoring: there's nothing in the Constitution that the Supreme Court even has to be nine justices.

 

[woolybug25]

Fun fact that everyone seems to be ignoring: there's nothing in the Constitution that the Supreme Court even has to be nine justices.

No, but it did give that role to Congress and they clearly made the decision.

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.

So Congress would have to actually make that determination through actual action. It isn't the simple oversight you are implying.

 

[wizards8507]

There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.

-Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-Illinois)

 

[Cackalacky]

You are 100% correct in your procedural and (recent) historical arguments. Though I think they largely miss the point. There's no Progressive equivalent to the danger that Scalia's death poses to conservatives.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think maybe you are underestimating how important environmentalism, women's health, religious freedom for all (and from all) religions, and human rights, among others, are to even moderates of both sides. The country as a whole holds very liberal positions on most topics. Progressive ideals have been damaged very much by the SC especially recently, though they have also confirmed some progressive policies just by having to hold to their pro-business stances held in other cases (eg Obamacare) when it in fact goes against the moral case of forcing Nuns to provide access to contraception.

My only point was that McConnell's statement makes much more sense when you assume that Obama won't appoint a conservative and when you account for the existential danger the next appointment likely poses to conservative political causes.

I understand. And he won't. Again, though, just because it poses a perceived threat to your causes is no reason to blowup a democratic process that has gone unhindered for 200 years. I am not so naive to think that current conservative issues would not have caused an uproar previously, but even through the period adding slave and free states and the Civil War, nothing like this was ever attempted, and it leads me to believe the people executing this run-around have lost the ability to delinate or illucidate their ideals adequately to the rest of the country.

Again, this is a procedural complaint which largely misses the point regarding the special circumstances that obtain in the here and now.

The procedural complaint is extremely important IMO. Its important because it is part of the process that has been established by our Constitution and I think most everyone wants that to be faithfully executed. We expect that to be faithfully executed. I understand you personal reticence with this as it is clear where the American people are heading.

I never said their intentions were honorable. And honestly, I'm not very invested in most of the specific holdings listed above. But as an orthodox Catholic who is struggling to raise his kids in the faith, I am hugely invested in religious liberty, and I'm 99.9% certain Srinivasan, or any other candidate that Obama is likely to nominate, would join the Progressive block in declaring any American who dissents from the Sexual Revolution as hostis humani generis, so I've got a lot of sympathy for the GOP here.

I certainly respect and understand your position as we have grappled with this at length . I am fearful of allowing this behavior to occur though as I think the ideals of the Constitution are that important. I think this behavior on both sides is reprehensible and destructive to our society. I am likewise concerned about the stability of our country though I think that many of our problems can be aided by Progressive policies and are ultimately harmed by conservative ones.

 

[Bubbles]

Snippety snip...

They were not a confident bunch, as history shows, because they adamantly disagreed with each other.

You seem to find this a flaw, but I think it was both intentional and well reasoned. I am terrified by idea of a unified group of fundamentalist who all agree with each other and what damage that could do to this country; left OR right. I think the constant state of teetering, ebbs and flows is part of why this whole thing has worked well. Power corrupts and all that jazz.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think maybe you are underestimating how important environmentalism, women's health, religious freedom for all (and from all) religions, and human rights, among others, are to even moderates of both sides. The country as a whole holds very liberal positions on most topics. Progressive ideals have been damaged very much by the SC especially recently, though they have also confirmed some progressive policies just by having to hold to their pro-business stances held in other cases (eg Obamacare) when it in fact goes against the moral case of forcing Nuns to provide access to contraception.

What a disgusting sentiment. The great moral dilemma of the intellectual left is how to make sure infanticide is a protected right.

The Supreme Court's job is not to push a progressive agenda or a conservative agenda. The Supreme Court's job is to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. There's nothing in there about abortion or red velvet cupcakes at gay weddings.

 

[woolybug25]

There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.

-Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-Illinois)

So how does that the same as not considering anyone? He doesn't say that he thinks it is fair to obstruct the process, the entire quote is that the nominee shouldn't be simply rubber stamped if they are capable and likeable, but rather it should be examined further in order to include philosophy, ideology and record.

I haven't read any comments that disagree with that premise.

 

[NorthDakota]

For some reason it really bugs me when people call it "Women's Health."

 

[pkt77242]

Meet potential Obama Supreme Court nominee Sri Srinivasan | Fusion

 

[woolybug25]

What a disgusting post. The great moral dilemma of the intellectual left is how to make sure infanticide is a protected right.

The Supreme Court's job is not to push a progressive agenda or a conservative agenda. The Supreme Court's job is to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. There's nothing in there about abortion or red velvet cupcakes at gay weddings.

Geez... reach much? His post wasn't saying that a certain ideology should be pushed, his comment was regarding how certain issues shouldn't be disregarded simply because of what side of the party line it falls on.

The "disgusting" comment is uncalled for. Cack is always respectful and he deserves the same amount of respect you damn well think you deserve.

 

[woolybug25]

For some reason it really bugs me when people call it "Women's Health."

Why? The issue isn't this clear cut issue only regarding abortion. Women's health issues like contraception, medical procedures (non-abortion) and access to care are all wrapped up into the same argument. It's a complex discussion, regardless of what politicians would like you to think (on both sides of the aisle).

 

[wizards8507]

Geez... reach much? His post wasn't saying that a certain ideology should be pushed, his comment was regarding how certain issues shouldn't be disregarded simply because of what side of the party line it falls on.

The "disgusting" comment is uncalled for. Cack is always respectful and he deserves the same amount of respect you damn well think you deserve.

Fair enough. The thing I find "disgusting" is the framing of abortion as a "women's health" issue and suggesting that opposition to abortion is somehow anti-woman. My problem is with those who hold that belief and whose stakes in the supreme court nomination rest on that believe, not with Cack for pointing it out.

Why? The issue isn't this clear cut issue only regarding abortion. Women's health issues like contraception, medical procedures (non-abortion) and access to care are all wrapped up into the same argument. It's a complex discussion, regardless of what politicians would like you to think (on both sides of the aisle).

It means abortion. Men have health problems, too. Men have medical procedures and access to care. None of that is unique to women. "Women's health" means abortion, plain and simple. A mammogram is fundamentally no different than a prostate exam.

 

[Cackalacky]

What a disgusting sentiment. The great moral dilemma of the intellectual left is how to make sure infanticide is a protected right.

The Supreme Court's job is not to push a progressive agenda or a conservative agenda. The Supreme Court's job is to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. There's nothing in there about abortion or red velvet cupcakes at gay weddings.

Respectfully.... I have no idea how you read my post and came up with this^^^^^^

 

[Buster Bluth]

A more relevant Jefferson quote:


The left-wing theory of "interpretation" -it means whatever is good and/or in line with current Democratic party preferences- is rooted in the New Deal court, not in the founding period.

It's almost like there is a balance and it must be approached carefully...

 

[GoIrish41]

As I mentioned above, there is no Progressive equivalent to the existential danger that Scalia's replacement likely poses to conservatives. So arguments based on recent historical precedent or procedure are largely missing the point. That's not to say that they're therefore correct in being fully obstructionist here. In the end, it probably won't matter. But if you want to convince me to join you in condemning the GOP, advance an argument that recognizes the unprecedented danger they're facing here.

Just trying to understand what you mean by the unprecedented danger they are facing. I suspect that such danger was confronted by parties as the Civil War gave way to reconstruction, during the suffrage movement, the fight for civil rights, and a slew of other dated ideological fights that consigned old ways of thinking to the scrap heap of history. I may have missed it, but I don't recall you ever bringing up an existential danger to liberals when Supreme Court was controlled by conservatives.

I'm certainly not teaching you anything, here, but laws are made by representatives of the people. Justices are not on the bench to write new laws that are in line with their individual ideology, but to determine if the ones the lawmakers (elected by the people) adopt fall in line with the Constitution. I am not asking you to condemn the GOP, but to acknowledge that there is a process for choosing justices that has absolutely nothing to do with one way of thinking being more important or more in peril than any other.

The president nominates and the Senate confirms. Finally, if the GOP wants to nominate, they must win the presidency. They cannot strong arm the person who wins the election into picking someone whose ideologies he does not agree with. They can certainly take a stand and choose not to confirm the nominee of the president, but that tactic will carry political consequences -- especially after the way they have pretty brazenly obstructed just about everything in the past seven years. In my view, they made some serious political miscalculations over Obama's two terms -- not the least of which was understanding that the country has become more progressive (largely due to their own despicable behavior) in the past decade.

That said, the GOP is free to hold on to its old ideological purity, even as the country has moved on to more progressive political views. I don't agree with many of the ideologies that (I assume) you believe are at risk, so naturally I'm not going to fret when these ideas take their rightful place in our nation's past.

 

[woolybug25]

It means abortion. Men have health problems, too. Men have medical procedures and access to care. None of that is unique to women. "Women's health" means abortion, plain and simple. A mammogram is fundamentally no different than a prostate exam.

Really? Only three percent of Planned Parenthoods total services is abortion. Yet, all of their services (often free, serving low income citizens) are lumped into "abortion". But it is blasphemy that those same services are lumped into the term "women's health" when people want to talk about these issues?

Access to preventative care, contraception, and procedures like D&C, etc are all very different conversation from abortion. All have been under attack under the guise of "Pro Life". It's a simple convenience that on one end they are supposed to be blindly lumped into the issue, but they should be completely ignored on the other.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think maybe you are underestimating how important environmentalism, women's health, religious freedom for all (and from all) religions, and human rights, among others, are to even moderates of both sides. The country as a whole holds very liberal positions on most topics. Progressive ideals have been damaged very much by the SC especially recently, though they have also confirmed some progressive policies just by having to hold to their pro-business stances held in other cases (eg Obamacare) when it in fact goes against the moral case of forcing Nuns to provide access to contraception.

Let's assume Obama nominates Srinivasan and the Senate confirms him. How do you expect SCOTUS to rule on abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy, adoption, and "transhumanism" over the coming decades? These are issues that touch upon the heart of what we, as a society, believe the human person is, and the legal consequences that flow from that belief. The Progressive trend in those areas is obvious, and it is utterly at odds with the Catholic Church's concept of human dignity (and with human rights generally). That's what I care most passionately about, because there's no way that the Catholic Church and its institutions will be afforded the religious liberty necessary to live out our ancient conception of human dignity in the public square if SCOTUS takes us down that dark road.

I'm not a Republican, and I'm with you on many issues (like environmentalism). But anyone who doesn't adhere to secular orthodoxy should be terrified of what is likely coming after Scalia's death.

I certainly respect and understand your position as we have grappled with this at length . I am fearful of allowing this behavior to occur though as I think the ideals of the Constitution are that important. I think this behavior on both sides is reprehensible and destructive to our society. I am likewise concerned about the stability of our country though I think that many of our problems can be aided by Progressive policies and are ultimately harmed by conservative ones.

My concerns about the stability of our republic going forward relate to the apparently unbridgeable chasm between those who believe in Natural Law (like the Americans Founders did) and those who don't (like the Progressives.) We cannot be said to be a single "people" when we, as a nation, have so little in common anymore. Increasingly, this manifests itself as naked cynical power politics in DC. You think that's dangerous. I see it as the predictable death roes of a republic we gave up on long ago. Dutifully handing over SCOTUS to a Progressive majority in the name of fairness, procedural rectitude, or polite politics isn't going to reverse any of this.

 

[woolybug25]

Let's assume Obama nominates Srinivasan and the Senate confirms him. How do you expect SCOTUS to rule on abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy, adoption, and "transhumanism" over the coming decades?

How can we possibly know that though? Srinivasan has argued a lot of cases on both sides of the political spectrum. Furthermore, the next POTUS will most likely be replacing two of the liberal justices. Which would tilt it right back to where we are today.