|Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):|
Even though no Christian churches have been burned to the ground and no Christian churches have been shuttered by government decree.
Actually, a few Christian churches even in recent years have been burned to the ground. In almost all of these cases they were predominantly African-American churches being torched by White Supremacists. Now, I will not charge that all White Supremacists are Republicans, but I will argue that a vanishingly small minority are Democrats...
|Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120):|
I happen to be pro-choice (for a number of reasons, as intensely distasteful as I find it),
Wow, we agree on something. Mark that one down in the calendar. I also despise abortion but remain pro-choice.
Now, I'd like to turn everyone's attention to an interesting article in the Washington Post:
Of course, the justices will also continue to hear future arguments, but upcoming closely decided cases — such as the abortion case out of Texas also widely predicted to lead to a 5 to 4 vote — will now be tied, 4 to 4. In this term’s contentious, controversial docket, split decisions are inevitable. The court can reargue the pending cases and hear the upcoming ones, but they will be too divided to decide anything truly sweeping. Unresolved cases will stack up.
That means only Congress and the White House can resolve the deadlock. And Obama has the power there, even though Republicans control the Senate. By Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until the next president is in office, 11 months from now. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
But the GOP might soon reconsider if they see the implications of refusing to allow Obama to replace Scalia: A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4 to 4, that would leave the lower court decision in place. That’s what would happen with a proposal to apportion Congress in an entirely new way that would heavily favor Republican districts, which was argued recently. The lower court (in this case a district court which went directly to the Supreme Court for technical reasons) tossed the plan out; conservatives had been hoping the justices would restore it.
Basically, with 2/3 of the lower courts being liberal-dominated, it takes a conservative Supreme Court to overturn
those lower court rulings. In other words, the default state for a lower-court ruling is for that ruling to be upheld and it takes a majority ruling from SCOTUS to overturn
such a ruling. In a 4-4 split, a hung court would simply uphold
the lower court ruling. And with a POTUS who is liberal, that means that most of the cases are being brought by Conservative interests. Either way, the GOP loses.
But there is one way the GOP can cut their losses and that is to approve a moderate appointee. If they do not, then the Senate goes to the DNC at the next election. On the GOP field, the two most likely nominees at this point are Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump. Neither has a very good chance at winning a national election even against a comparatively weak DNC challenger. So with a DNC President and a DNC Senate, a real radical could be ushered into the halls of the Supreme Court in Justice Scalia's place if the GOP does not approve a more moderate candidate now. Is the GOP willing to assume that risk? I would honestly advise them that they would be foolish to.