Lion of the Blogosphere

A prediction I made in 2014 that I’m glad turned out wrong

The coming liberal Supreme Court

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 1, 2017 at 9:27 am

Posted in Uncategorized

57 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yes, that’s the problem in a nutshell. The Leftists insist that the Constitution requires whatever policies they prefer and frequently they can get activist judges to agree. This is another difference between the Left and everyone else.

    For example, I believe that it’s good policy to exclude immigrants from parts of the world where terrorism is deeply ingrained in the culture. But I would not argue that the Constitution requires the exclusion of such persons.

    I’m not wishing death on anyone, but I wouldn’t be too sad if Trump gets to appoint another 2 or 3 healthy conservatives to the Supreme Court.

    fortaleza84

    February 1, 2017 at 10:09 am

    • Ginsburg will be 87 by the time Trump’s first term ends, and has already shown signs of poor health, like conking out during court sessions. It was pretty arrogant of her not to retire when Obama could still do something about it.

      Richard

      February 1, 2017 at 10:58 am

      • Very. I wonder if that says something about Obama’s leadership skills. Maybe he tried to convince her and she told him to take a hike.

        I think we should have term limits for Supreme Court justices. 12 years. It will never happen though, every law school grad dreams of clerking for some 88 year old “iconic” geezer. And all the geezers are obsessed with their legacies.

        gothamette

        February 1, 2017 at 6:59 pm

      • It was pretty arrogant of her not to retire when Obama could still do something about it.

        I think she wanted the symbolism of retiring and being replaced by the choice of the first female president of the US.

        She lives in a liberal DC bubble both physically and in mindset.

        They all thought Hillary was going to win probably after she lost to Obama. It was understood she was going to run in 2016 and sec of state job was part of the preparation.

        Rifleman

        February 2, 2017 at 12:08 am

      • Simple explanation is that she really really really didn’t want to retire, and she placed her own desires above the consequences of a Republican being elected in 2016.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 2, 2017 at 9:22 am

      • “I think we should have term limits for Supreme Court justices. 12 years”

        I think Supreme Court term limits are a good idea. 12 years probably won’t fly, but if you’ve been on the court for, say 24 years, can’t we say enough already? Having regular terms for Justices would put some regularity into their turnover instead of every time a justices is smoot— dies in their sleep, we don’t have a political crisis.

        Mike Street Station

        February 2, 2017 at 7:56 am

      • @gothamette: I think we should have term limits for Supreme Court justices. 12 years.

        Yes, and for all federal judgships.

        E. Rekshun

        February 2, 2017 at 5:11 pm

    • @fortaleza84: I wouldn’t be too sad if Trump gets to appoint another 2 or 3 healthy conservatives to the Supreme Court.

      I hope I’m wrong, but Pres. Trump will not seek a second term and USSCJ Ginsberg will hang on to her seat for three more years and it’ll be too late for Trump to get a nomination through the confirmation process. Gorsuch will be Trump’s one and only USSC nomination and it will be a bloody one.

      E. Rekshun

      February 2, 2017 at 11:56 am

      • Of course Trump will seek a second term. He wants to go down in history as the greatest president, and that requires two terms.

        This is like the dumb predictions that Trump would drop out after he won and give it to Pence because he didn’t really want to be President.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 2, 2017 at 11:58 am

      • I hope my dumb prediction is wrong.

        E. Rekshun

        February 2, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      • ^ Pres. Trump will not seek a second term

        Pres. Trump has started out like a ball of fire and I hope he keeps it up for as long as he’s President. But Republicans always campaign as conservatives but govern as moderates. Trump will moderate.

        And, remember, before magically becoming a Republican, Trump was a long-time Democrat for a reason.

        E. Rekshun

        February 2, 2017 at 5:16 pm

  2. Democrats want to see flyover whites genocided. Literally any group likely to murder flyover whites will be welcomed to America by Dems. We are lucky the cannibal tribes of New Guinea are not asking for Asylum or Dems would let them in! Thank god that sanity is about to return to the supreme court

    Wencil

    February 1, 2017 at 10:46 am

    • What many of them do not want to understand is that it is hard to plan an attack inside the US, because of the low density of radical muslim population and FBI/CIA. On the other hand it takes only about 4 guys to create a horrible massacre. For example you can choose another Bataclan and block the exits with burning cars/PVC/rubber material and just stand outside, with vests and guns, taking shoots at the police/firemen (assuming small, gun free liberal city with a SWAT response time upwards of 10 minutes). So, it is very easy to stage another 9/11-like attack even with moderate number of low-skill imigrants.

      bombexpert

      February 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm

  3. Huffington Post tracker has Trump’s approval looking pretty good. SurveyMonkey has Trump at 48 amongst adults and Morning Consult has Trump at 49 amongst registered voters. Ras has Trump at 53 but that is amongst “likely voters”, and determining a likely voter 4 years out seems like it can only be so reliable.

    It will be interesting to see Gallup’s results today. Gallup seems much more bearish on Trump then all the other polls.

    So far, all the polls seem to agree that the Muslim ban hasn’t hurt Trump at all.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 1, 2017 at 10:46 am

    • But it wasn’t a Muslim ban, it was a ban of people from six lawless countries with terrorist training camps, and one country that’s officially a “state sponsor of terrorism” and an enemy that has long been subject to sanctions.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 1, 2017 at 10:48 am

      • Otis is trying to shift the Overton window.

        Richard

        February 1, 2017 at 10:59 am

      • It *should* be a Muslim ban and a whole lot else. This country doesn’t need any more people, let alone the kinds we’re importing by the millions.

        fakeemail

        February 1, 2017 at 11:05 am

      • I suggest that if Trump ever needs a powerful media decoy that he open (or threaten to open) a criminal investigation into the Obama administration’s ties to Islamic terrorism.

        If the supposed hacking of Podesta’s non-classified emails by Russia warrants a Congressional investigation, it’s only fair to ask former Obama officials under oath why, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood was making visits to the Obama White House before and during the Egyptian MB’s overthrow of Mubarak.

        I’m sure mikeca would agree an investigation into Obama’s Islamic terrorist buddies is in order:

        https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/a-suggested-decoy-for-the-trump-administration-a-doj-investigation-into-obamas-terrorist-connections/

        A powerful decoy it is, but too powerful to waste on just another media cycle. I therefore recommend sending this terrifying device of chemically pure persuasion off into the political atmosphere only if circumstances demand a major distraction.

        Given all the other diversions chewing up DC’s bandwidth – the latest being the administration’s nominee to the Supreme Court – my proposed decoy will most likely not be needed for some time. But eventually events happen. When they do, Trump and his team would do well to keep this ace up their sleeve.

        The ace to play when the moment arrives is a threat to open a criminal investigation into the Obama administration over its potential connections to Islamic terrorism.

        The advantages this maneuver brings to the card table are numerous.

        First it is useful because the investigation can be broken down into many sub-investigations into distinct terrorist groups and terrorist nations Obama seemed to have an deep affinity for. Collectively each investigation has the potential to distract for years. One investigation could be made into Obama’s deals with Iran; if he secretly flew $400 million worth of Swiss franc notes to Iran there is no telling what other deals he made with them. Another could look into why the Egyptian representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood were going in and out of the Obama White House before and during the Muslim Brotherhood’s coup attempt against the Mubarak regime. Then are questions to be answered about why America was really arming ISIS in its war against Syria’s Assad, and many other matters. None of the answers are likely to put the last administration in a positive light.

        The second advantage is that Trump as President now has access to the Federal records about Obama’s cozy relationship with Islamic terrorism. Given how well planet Hillary handled her email system it is unlikely Obama’s goons were smart enough to erase the vast paper trail Trump now has at his fingertips. As President he can choose to declassify bits and pieces of information about Obama’s dealings anytime it suits his media manipulation strategy. He can also send the media and Democrats in the wrong the direction by hinting at false leads about where the investigation is really going. Obama did not pardon anyone in his administration for any crimes they may have committee; as a result Trump is both able to have his Justice Department bring Obama’s henchmen and henchwomen under oath and/or have them brought before a Congressional Committee.

        The final advantage is that its use would tie the Left in a feedback loop of recriminations. Because the ego of Obama would compel him to publicly dispute the investigation’s findings, the Democrats would circle the wagons around Obama not knowing what information bombshells Trump might be holding back on instead of fighting Trump on ground more favorable for the Left.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 1, 2017 at 6:14 pm

      • But it wasn’t a Muslim ban…

        It wasn’t even a “ban”, simply a “pause”.

        Ideally I’d prefer an actual ban. More muslims have come to the US post 911 than were here BEFORE.

        Why?

        Rifleman

        February 2, 2017 at 12:13 am

    • Haven’t we learned not to rely on these polls, especially when it comes to Trump? Ignore the polls and the mainstream media, it’ll make you crazy.

      DdR

      February 1, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    • The point of the EO was clearly to set the stage for a restriction of Islamic immigration and travel to the US along with the eventual shutdown of the refugee resettlement program.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 1, 2017 at 1:48 pm

      • If the order is sent back to Miller, Bannon, and Sessions for a rewrite I hope its list of Muslim nations is expanded.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 1, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    • Why is voter participation so low in the US? If 80% of whytes showed up it would be the end of everything.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      February 1, 2017 at 2:35 pm

  4. (Somewhat off-topic) – Jeff Sessions AG confirmation hearing going on right now in Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrat Al Franken speaking – lighting into Sessions. Not so much talking about racism now, going after his substantive legal scholarship/ experience / etc.

    Thoughts …

    – good news that the confirmation hearing is even happening. Yesterday, Dems stalled by refusing to show up. Seem to realize they can’t do that forever.

    – Dems need just one flip to stop the appointment from advancing to the full Senate. Looks like one R going from “yay” to “no vote”(not a flip, but just choosing to abstain) would be overcome-able, but two of those would also scuttle it.

    – Once it gets to the full Senate floor, Republicans need every single vote to confirm. Not sure which Republican senators might be likely to chicken out? Susan Collins of Maine is squishy, but not up for re-election next year.
    Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was just elected from WI in the same year that Trump pulled his shock upset in that state. He better know which side his bread is buttered on.
    Dean Heller of NV is in a state that Clinton won and IS up for re-election next year. Hmm …

    – Sessions himself is still a member of the Senate, and theoretically could vote on his own nomination. Kerry abstained from voting on his own nom as Secretary of State, and it would be nice if Sessions could do the same. Having said that, if Sessions voting for himself is a possibility, Republicans could otherwise afford to lose one vote and still get the 51 necessary to confirm.

    Franken still rambling on. Hopefully a vote before lunch. Keep in mind this is just a COMMITTEE vote, full Senate would would still need to come. Lion, you mind if I keep commenting to update on this?

    MKP

    February 1, 2017 at 11:08 am

    • Susan Collins gave the speech introducing Sessions before his nomination hearing, so she at least is 100% behind him. Ron Johnson is one of the most solid immigration hawks and Trump allies, so I wouldn’t worry about him either.

      snorlaxwp

      February 1, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    • Pretty sure that Trump has already told McConnell that he needs to hold his caucus together, or he’ll withdraw Mrs. McConnell’s nomination for transportation secretary.

      Sgt. Joe Friday

      February 1, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    • Excellent stuff, keep it up.

      mel belli

      February 1, 2017 at 4:20 pm

  5. No, you were pretty much right. You said that there would be a liberal Supreme court majority if the Democrats won the next presidential election, Well, ha ha, they lost, so the majority will be conservative, not liberal.

    The Constitution does not require the exclusion of certain immigrants, but it does not forbid it either. Immigration policy is set by the government and historically has varied from near-open borders to tight restriction. Congress and the president can set it as they see fit. Constitutional protections do not apply to would-be immigrants.

    Recent events have demonstrated clearly that Islam doesn’t fit well into non-Islamic societies, and, although most Muslims are not terrorists, almost all terrorists are Muslims. Best to keep them out, lest we suffer another 9/11, Orlando, San Bernardino or Fort Hood.

    BTW, Thurgood Marshall, one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices of all time, pretty much summarized the leftist philosophy regarding court decisions when he said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

    The Supreme Court, like the rest of the federal government has gotten too powerful. The difference, of course, is that the president and Congress must periodically answer to the voters, while the Supreme Court just keeps on rolling. It is essentially impossible to remove a lousy justice. Only one (Samuel Chase), has ever been impeached, and he was acquitted by the Senate.

    Bad constitutionally based Supreme Court decisions can only be reversed by a constitutional amendment, which is near impossible. Many states elect their judges, and federal judges should be elected too. I’ve heard all the arguments about judicial independence. In colonial times, the king appointed the judges, and if he did not like their rulings, he got rid of them and appointed somebody else. So our constitution granted federal judges lifetime tenure (at a time when mean life expectancy was around 50). But now we have judges serving into their 80’s and timing their retirements until someone who is ideologically compatible is in the White House. It would be best to elect and term-limit the judges rather than allowing them to run on until they croak. BTW, I would also favor a constitutional amendment allowing any decision by any branch of the federal government to be invalidated by a two-thirds vote of the state legislatures.

    Black Death

    February 1, 2017 at 11:09 am

  6. 11:20 AM. Sessions nomination approved and sent to the full Senate. 11-9 on a straight party line vote. Some lunatic stands up and starts yelling “SHAME!” before being removed.

    Huge win for the Republicans and for Chuck Grassley, the chair. Sessions goes up for a full Senate vote, possibly as early as this week. Lion, how about a post discussing his chances? Believe it or not, I think there’s even a chance 1 or 2 Dems might flip and vote for him.

    MKP

    February 1, 2017 at 11:24 am

  7. You may be premature in declaring yourself wrong. To me, this guy Goresuch looks like the type who might “grow” in office. This morning on radio I heard a well-known libertarian “right to work” litigator say that Goresuch dislikes the doctrine known as “Chevron deference,” i. e. he’d be good on checking the power of administrative agencies. That might be helpful in rolling back the AGW nonsense, but it doesn’t tell us anything about how he’d deal with everyone’s biggest problem, out-of-control blacks.

    Explainer 21

    February 1, 2017 at 11:49 am

  8. Actually, your prediction was wrong in a different (unblameworthy) way than just being pessimistic about the upcoming SC lineup. The watershed development of 2016 was law enforcement going comp!etely prostrate in the face of violent demonstration by blacks, and by the Left generally. In other words, in the face of uncontrolled mob rule, it’s obviously irrelevant whether affirmative action is mandatory or merely permissive in the eyes of The Law. We could have ten Scalias on the Court but it means nothing once there are enough whackos are out there like the Seattle preschool teacher the other day who called for exproproplriating all white property. Despite Goresuch, se still live in an era where nobody has the guts to say directly to blacks, “you’re entirely unreasonable.”

    marty

    February 1, 2017 at 12:31 pm

  9. Don’t bail on your prediction just yet. The timing of the next S.Ct vacancy is critical, especially if the Republicans lose the Senate in two years (which history says they will).

    I don’t think Trump actually cares about the court at all, and the nomination of this guy was just the result of a campaign promise. The next nominee could well be bartered for something Trump really does care about, like votes for a better trade deal.

    Trump’s decision to hold with a young guy is also worrisome, given that judges become more left wing as they age.

    Think about Republican Appointees:

    Reagan: 2 moderates, one conservative
    Bush: 1 ultra liberal, one conservative
    Bush 2: one moderate conservative, one moderate liberal

    Rotten

    February 1, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    • I don’t think Trump actually cares about the court at all,

      Trump cares about his people. And Trump knows his people care about the Supreme Court. So Trump cares about his nominations to the court.

      Andrew E.

      February 1, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    • The Republicans are going to lose the Senate in 2 years? Which seats that they currently hold are they going to lose?

      The only seat they have a chance of losing is NV and they have chances for pickups in at least 3 seats.

      The Senate is a permanent Republican gerrymander. There will never be a Dem majority Senate again in our lifetimes.

      Otis the Sweaty

      February 1, 2017 at 6:13 pm

      • Republicans have the advantage that small Republican states in the midwest count equally with the hugely populated Democratic states like California and New York.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 1, 2017 at 8:34 pm

      • Trump could lose them the Senate, but structurally 2018 looks good for them.

        It will be hard to gauge how much Dem money will be sloshing around in this next election. I expect it to be their Flight 93 election

        Lion o' the Turambar

        February 1, 2017 at 9:28 pm

      • Flake in AZ and Cruz in TX are also potentially vulnerable.

        snorlaxwp

        February 1, 2017 at 9:30 pm

      • The only way the Republicans lose the Senate is if they cuck. Trump won’t lose anything. If the R’s run Trumpists they will sweep the 10 vulnerable Dem Senate seats in states Trump won in 2016, giving Trump a filibuster proof Senate.

        Andrew E.

        February 1, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      • “It will be hard to gauge how much Dem money will be sloshing around in this next election. I expect it to be their Flight 93 election”

        I don’t think the Democrats will ever have a Flight 93 election. They still have demographics on their side, regardless of anything that Trump does or doesn’t do. 2018 may not look great, but frankly, each Presidential election year for them look better and better.

        Mike Street Station

        February 2, 2017 at 8:17 am

      • Elections are all about turn out and turnout is about Hate and Love.

        Pundits underestimate how much people hated Hillary.

        Trump might be right back there by 2018 and motivate Dems to vote in the mid-terms. The Democrats got killed in 2010 because all of the Obama-haters were motivated and few of the Obama-lovers were.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        February 2, 2017 at 9:56 am

      • Mike Street Station: The electorate of Texas is as non-white as the electorate of CA. Demographics are not nearly as good for the Dems as people think. The Dems cannot win elections if white people hate them.

        Otis the Sweaty

        February 2, 2017 at 1:44 pm

  10. Gallup still has Trump at 43, although his disapproval has ticked up to 53. The trend lines are what are more important though: Trump’s approval has only dropped 2 points since inauguration day according to Gallup. Ras shows the same small drop.

    Bottom line: the battle lines have been drawn and people have chosen their sides. People are not going to budge.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 1, 2017 at 1:56 pm

  11. OT: Gay black guy expelled from the DNC chairman race for criticizing Muslim treatment of gays. Muslims now officially the Holiest, Most Sacred minority of all.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/01/dnc-chairman-candidate-expelled-race-criticising-islam/

    snorlaxwp

    February 1, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    • Fascinating.

      Two in the Bush

      February 1, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    • “Muslims now officially the Holiest, Most Sacred minority of all.”

      That was something I noticed after the Orlando shooting. Protect Muslims at all costs, even if they kill gays.

      Mike Street Station

      February 2, 2017 at 8:18 am

    • Muslims have been improving their victim status for years. And they will continue to do so even more under Trump. But they’re still not even close to blacks. Blacks are numero uno. I don’t see blacks being replaced as the ultimate victims any time soon. When Muslims blow things up, at least some liberals are taken aback. When blacks rape, rob and murder all you hear are excuses.

      Lewis Medlock

      February 2, 2017 at 8:23 pm

      • ” When Muslims blow things up”

        If only we could show our love for them by having open borders, then they would see how much we love them and stop doing that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 3, 2017 at 12:27 am

  12. What the country need is judges that think like the Founding Fathers, real dinosaurs. Is this guy a dinosaur? Anything else is treason.

    Yakov

    February 1, 2017 at 6:34 pm

  13. This is a plot of Trump. He takes the least extreme judge of his list. Democrats bullie him for show off purpose and because he’s still ultra-conservative. Trump has an excuse to change the rules of bi-partisanship nomination, saying the fault rely on Democrats and pass his candidates. And then, he can give the second time the big git to the tea party : a judge from Alabama that promise to overturn Roe vs Wade and all positive discriminations rules. Even if i believe Trump dont really buy this conservative pact, it’s too good for him to rely on the bible belt and evangelical conservatives people. That’s a crucial 20% of the electorate. So the supreme court will be one of the most conservative since the Renquist court, and i guess it will even more conservative than Rehnquist.

    Bruno from Paris

    February 1, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    • I do think there is a strategy to picking a fairly moderate conservative judge. If Democrats refuse his nomination, and call him Hitler or whatever, the next guy up can be Attila the Hun and Dems will have fired all of their crazy shots.

      Mike Street Station

      February 2, 2017 at 8:20 am

    • Gorsuch was actually one of the most conservative judges on his list, he’s just also the smartest and best-qualified.

      snorlaxwp

      February 2, 2017 at 9:45 am

  14. Just read that Trump Admin is changing the Countering Violent Extremism Unit (CVE) to Countering Islamic Extremism. This agency will now solely focus on Muslim groups and removes white supremacy previously being investigated..could this be a dog whistle to the alt right?

    B.T.D.T.

    February 1, 2017 at 8:47 pm

  15. According to the highly regarded Otis Index, Trump’s approve/disapprove numbers are dead even amongst adults nationally. These have been a very busy 2 weeks so I feel what you see now is what you are going to get, this isn’t some honeymoon period where people are going to abandon Trump in a few months. Not saying his approval can’t go down, but he is much closer to his floor than Presidents traditionally are at this time in their Presidency.

    Ras is taking flack from the left for showing Trump at +6, but Ras was the most accurate pollster this election and Ras uses a “likely voter” model and does not allow undecideds, which increases Trump’s margin by ~4% over most other polls. Subtract 4% from the Ras margin and you get +2, which is much closer to the mean, although still 11 points shy of Gallup’s -9 margin.

    This is like the election and Brexit all over again where we are getting widely divergent polls. But do not despair, when the polls vary dramatically, polling aggregators have proven to be reliable. The HuffPo poll tracker average was only off by 2.8% in the 2016 US Presidential Election and by 4.1% in Brexit. Nate Silver’s aggregator was only off by 0.8% in favor of Clinton. The highly regarded Otis Index was off by 0.2% in favor of Trump.

    Trust the averages.

    Otis the Sweaty

    February 2, 2017 at 12:46 am

  16. You are also getting close to your prediction on self driving cars turning wrong.

    My Two Cents

    February 3, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    • What prediction was that?

      “The Lion predicts that by 2060, it will be illegal for humans to drive by themselves, because human drivers will be considered a menace compared to the much better safety record for self-driving cars.”

      Get back to me in 2060 if I am still alive (I probably won’t be unless someone invents life-extending nanites really soon).

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 3, 2017 at 4:32 pm

      • There was one about 2020. It takes about 20 years from the proof of concept to initial sustained adoption. There was no proof of concept for self-driving cars yet, so it is not clear if they woud be around by 2060.

        My Two Cents

        February 3, 2017 at 9:23 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: