General News Justice will retire from Supreme Court

As if our country hadn't received enough blows from the Trump administration yet

 

People who say "Oh, no big deal. He was conservative either way" don't understand how many times Justice Kennedy was the deciding factor on so many cases. Things can really go badly from here.

If you are in despair just know that its not the end. State legislature will be more important than ever so make sure to get involved in local politics

 

In the worst case scenario, gay marriage could be repealed and abortion might be made illegal once again in the U.S.

Public opinion has advanced a great deal on those two issues so if that happens then that would be a political earthquake of epic proportions.

 

This is bad. Really bad.

My dad has constantly joked that if Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to croak during the Trump administration, we might as well have a "Weekend At Bernie's" scenario until we have a Democrat administration in power. Didn't think it would be Kennedy that'd be the hinge point on this.

To call the worst-possible scenario a "political earthquake" is an understatement. This is a political apocalypse. I hope that the political 'pendulum swing' comes back to reason sooner rather than later.

 

Such convenient timing. Clearly this guy doesn't care for his country, I think retirement could've been put on hold at least until after elections considering everything that's going on. I honestly kind of wonder if there's like some secret scheme here, like as in someone was possibly paid to retire. This is all messed up.

 

This is really good news!

Now, maybe the Supreme Court can get more consistently back to it's Constitutionally-defined role of interpreting laws within the context of the US Constitution instead of trying to legislate from the bench.

 

I mean reading into the founders' minds to try to solve very specific modern problems they almost certainly didn't contemplate is hardly less interventionist than liberal interventionism. Interpreting the concept of legal person (including the corporation) as the same sort of person contemplated by the constitutional right to free speech is a bold, very interventionist act. Law relating to things unimaginable at the time of the framing of the Constitution lie outside the original context.

Interpreting law sounds all very neutral to the until you realise that it actually just involves creating new law, on the basis of basic but sometimes contested principles. All judges create law. How they do so is distinct from party politics but it can never be wholly distinct from politics and political philosophy.

Indefinite judicial appointments put enormous pressure on judges. They sometimes have to yield to it. He's quite old and being a judge of a national court of last appeal is enormously stressful. Being remunerated so much less than they'd make in private practice, with high public scrutiny, only makes that worse. I think it indicates he cares quite deeply to have stayed in the role so long. Give the bloke a break - he's 81.

That isn't to say this is good. Obviously Trump could nominate someone deeply repugnant. I imagine he will. It doesn't change the fact that non-conservatives are also responsible for the polarisation of US judicial politics by over-investment and using courts as an advocacy route where democratic means were more difficult.

 

I really, really hope I'm wrong about this. All of it. But I follow the evidence, and the US doesn't seem like it'll recover from it's downwards spiral into oblivion anytime soon.

Chances are, we'll get another mindless Hobby Lobby lawyer in his place.

 

I genuinely fear for the republic. I think the Civil Rights Era in the US may be drawing to a close. I really hate when people talk about every last thing in terms of moving to Canada, but with the way things are going I really can see a time in the next couple decades when my husband and I would need to flee this country. I hope if the time comes Canada will have us.

 

Some people in this thread are overreacting so much. I mean come on, it's one judge, the apocalypse and fleeing the country stuff is kinda ridiculous.

It would be pretty much impossible for things like gay marriage and Roe v. Wade to be repealed - no matter what the judges say there's far too much support for it already for it to be taken away all of a sudden. Also Congress has the power to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a 2/3 vote which they could easily get for something as commonplace as abortion (which i disagree with except for medical reasons but recognize it'll always be around).

As for the concerns of physicians not treating LGBT patients, most of them still would because not doing it violates the Hippocratic oath all physicians take regardless of what the law says. In an emergency room situation, I honestly doubt there's a single ER physician in the country who would refuse to treat a dying person for any reason, and my dad is one so I've met quite a lot of them. They picked that specialty to help anyone who comes through the door, not to discriminate against severely ill or dying people.

 

I seriously doubt Congress could get a simple majority to support marriage equality or abortion rights. They've never been able to before. What exactly makes you think they'd magically be able to get a two thirds now?

 

Judges face no democratic mandate. It is immaterial how popular Roe v. Wade may be (I would argue it's popular and reviled on the margins, but ambivalently accepted by a very large number), if ideologically hostile judges choose to throw it out on the basis that states may to choose to maintain abortion or not. The judges are submitted to no electorate. Congress will presumably have enough Republicans committed to the overturning of Roe v. Wade to prevent a Congressional override of a 2/3 majority, because conservative areas, and consequently Republicans, are structurally overrepresented in both houses.

It is significant, even if it isn't apocalyptic. US elections have taken a terrifyingly expensive and dark turn since financing regulations were gutted. Labour rights and competition law may shift in ways even the moderate right-wing reviles. The Republicans have submitted ideologically partisan, not merely conservative, justices for consideration before. Trump, so far removed from norms of judicial politics, is hardly going to reverse that trend.

 

Officially you're correct, but all people in power face a democratic mandate whether it's supported by legality or not. You can't enforce laws when half the country is against it, that's been proven many times across the world with uprisings and government collapses. Judges are impacted by public opinion just like everyone else, judicial and political authority only goes as far as the public allows it to go.

The marriage equality one would be hard because it's only been around a few years, but I don't think abortion would be at all anymore. Conservatives are a lot more open to that now compared to before because it's become normal. It's a lot harder to take something away that everyone has grown up seeing as normal than it is to add something new.

 

I'm not sure what world you are living in, but it wasn't long enough were doctors allowed thousands of gay men to rot in hospitals because they refused to treat them. We had mainly women who would be in charge of whole wings because no other doctor would touch gay patients. These aren't hypothetical it has all happened before. On top of that, for the first time in a long time public opinion on LGBT rights is going back.

And lets say you are right that there are no longer any homophobes in medicine, right now trans patients are being denied service left and right. not in the ER, but with your every day practitioners. It has happened to people here on EC. You are sadly just not paying attention.

This is literally the only purpose of the supreme court. We have enforced unpopular rulings time and time again. Many of the rights of black people in america were enforced with the help of the military. Same-sex marriage was enforced when more than half the country was against it.

Again, you aren't paying attention. Many republican states have been able to virtually ban abortion in their states. There are now 2 states where there is only 3 abortion clinics in the whole state. Its already happening. Going through the courts would just guarantee that it happens nationwide.

I want to share you optimisin, but sadly I thin you haven't been fighting for anything just yet. All your fights have been fought for you so you might not be aware of just how many of them were won through the courts. And they can all be taken away if we get complaisant