• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Justice Thomas considering retiring after presidential election

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrArchon

Member
This is fantastic. If he retires, even if the GOP wants to keep blocking SCOTUS noms for the entirety of Hillary's 1st term (don't lie, you know they'd at least think about it) there wouldn't be an even split anymore so the court could actually get stuff done even in the case of the GOP stonewalling everything.

And if they don't stonewall, then you're looking at 2 new liberal SCOTUS judges. Win-win.
 
Seems like a strategic miscalculation by Justice Thomas, he probably thinks this will energize republicans to go out and vote but all I can see it doing is getting more democrats out to ensure their candidate picks the next, now guaranteed two, Supreme Court nominees.

Its likely the next President will select 3, maybe even 4, SC judges. Thats kinda insane.
 

AxelFoley

Member
Thomas's seat on the Supreme Court is unofficially viewed by Congress as the "black" seat as he replaced Thurgood Marshall, the first African American supreme court justice. I could see Hilary make history by appointing the first African American woman in that seat if she were to get elected.


So Atty. General Lynch then? I'm good with that.
 
Thomas's seat on the Supreme Court is unofficially viewed by Congress as the "black" seat as he replaced Thurgood Marshall, the first African American supreme court justice. I could see Hilary make history by appointing the first African American woman in that seat if she were to get elected.
Yeah I think she would
 
AgGTidM.gif
 
Seems like a strategic miscalculation by Justice Thomas, he probably thinks this will energize republicans to go out and vote but all I can see it doing is getting more democrats out to ensure their candidate picks the next, now guaranteed two, Supreme Court nominees.

.


Exactly, except they wont retire after Clinton gets in. But hey, at least this stupidity will charge up dem voters in the mean time.
 

LosDaddie

Banned
Was Thomas one of the Good One?


Kinda make sense since he was a puppet of Scalia. He's lost without him.

Indeed.

For such a supposed conservative intellect, Thomas being utterly silent on the bench speaks volumes to me about how much sway he had on the bench. He knew his role was to be Scalia's second vote and little more.
 
6-3 to 7-2 from the look of it. She could have one of the most important presidencies in modern times just based off the number of Supreme Court justices she could wind up replacing.



We'd need huge Congressional majorities for that, but Heller would easily be struck down and we could start moving on gun control like it was the 90's again.
Would be strange, one Clinton riding the internet boom wave
The other riding the supreme Court changes
If Chelsea runs in 16 years she'll ride the cold fusion wave
 
You cant overturn an amendment. You can repeal it, but good luck getting 3/4ths of the country to agree to that when all polls say the greater majority of people want to not do that.

People's hatred of firearms on this forum is fucking fascinating.
Is it really fascinating? We are a 1st world country with a bunch of 3rd world problems, high murder rate being one of the main ones due to every fucking body being able to purchase a gun without prejudice.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Given that he can't follow along with everything Scalia says and does anymore, it makes perfect sense for him to step down.

That's another liberal/moderate judges to place on the bench. That has huge implications for some actual good to happen in the states for a change.
 
Now THIS is fucking huge. I want a pro-environment SCOTUS member up there finally. Environmental reform seems to have taken a backseat over other issues, but I'd like this to be a guarantee of that.

As posted earlier, don't fuck this up America.

As for gun rights (if we make it down the road to hit SCOTUS), we need stronger regulation and rules, no doubt about it. The US needs to catch up to, at the very least, Switzerland in terms of firearm safety and restriction.

The longest term is to make it near impossible for large corporations to donate to either party - I want NRA's influence on politics to be destroyed. And propaganda type media to be fact checked prior to feeding it to constituents.
 

Aurongel

Member
Not happening, you wouldn't say something like this publicly and mean it when the SC is already one conservative justice down.
 

AwesomeMeat

PossumMeat
Wow that is scary. I like my supreme court to be balanced. I don't care to have a supreme court full of liberal or conservatives.
 

turtle553

Member
All the justices agree at least 2/3 of the time. I don't think you will see any massive reinterpretation of existing precedence.

rLoCPsC.png
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Guys, this is nothing.

This is the Washington Examiner citing court watchers. Not close friends or associates of Thomas. Court watchers.
 
No way he retires if Clinton gets elected. I remember reading an article years ago about how Sandra Day O'Connor considered retiring when Bill Clinton was in office, but couldn't because she didn't trust a Democrat to replace her. Thomas is way more extreme right than O'Connor, so he's most likely going to be there for life.
 
All the justices agree at least 2/3 of the time. I don't think you will see any massive reinterpretation of existing precedence.

rLoCPsC.png

This isn't really accurate since it includes many votes where something is long established or very clear.

If you narrowed it down to issues that people actually care about, the gap would be much wider.
 
Guys, this is nothing.

This is the Washington Examiner citing court watchers. Not close friends or associates of Thomas. Court watchers.

People get practiced at seeking/sharing news in questionable ways.

Supreme Court rumors ain't the same as Marvel rumors.
 
Lol. If I remember right only 17 states would have to vote against an amendment. Just off the top of my head, states that would almost certainly vote against any sort of gun control amendment:

WV
TN
KY
TX
AL
GA
FL
MS
LA
NE
AR
WY
ID
MT
SC
ND
SD
AK
OK
KS

Maybe/borderline states would be
OH
PA
IN
IL
NC
VT
ME
Maybe a few others who's laws I'm not familiar with.

That's assuming it even made it out of the House which right now is lol.

I'm all for reasonable control methods, but we are a looooooong way off from passing an amendment of any sort, much less something as polarizing as gun control. Sure we could try, and symbolic voted are important for getting the word out for sure, but it shouldn't expected to pass any time soon.
Right, I'm aware of how impractical/difficult it would be. But it's a lot more plausible than repealing the second which will never happen. But it's really the only solution or way anything gets done regarding the issue on the federal level. I don't see any other way anything happens that would actually have an impact.
 
Seems like a strategic miscalculation by Justice Thomas, he probably thinks this will energize republicans to go out and vote but all I can see it doing is getting more democrats out to ensure their candidate picks the next, now guaranteed two, Supreme Court nominees.

Its likely the next President will select 3, maybe even 4, SC judges. Thats kinda insane.

Pretty much, I'll be surprised if he actually retires if/when Hillary wins certain members of the GOP would probably push for him to at least stay on for four more years. Giving Hillary two seats would make the "conservative" right even more nervous.


EDIT: Oh, it's from a poor source, well that kind of cements it, no way he'll retire until he absolutely needs to or before there's a Republican in the White House again.
 

Madness

Member
Cross-post:

How sad is it that you can pretty much accurately guess what the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States will be before they've even looked at cases or rendered decisions. Makes you wonder what the point even is. I wish more justices that weren't beholden to either parties or a strict conservative/liberal stance were appointed.
 
How sad is it that you can pretty much accurately guess what the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States will be before they've even looked at cases or rendered decisions. Makes you wonder what the point even is. I wish more justices that weren't beholden to either parties or a strict conservative/liberal stance were appointed.

Did anyone see Chief Justice Roberts siding with the ACA?
 

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
Reminder that it was a SC decision that decided that the 2nd amendment is a right to possess lethal weaponry for non-militia usage.
 

Blader

Member
How sad is it that you can pretty much accurately guess what the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States will be before they've even looked at cases or rendered decisions. Makes you wonder what the point even is. I wish more justices that weren't beholden to either parties or a strict conservative/liberal stance were appointed.

The point is for justices to issue rulings based on their interpretations of the law, not to surprise you.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
The silent one is going~



Serious question actually... in what major cases can you think of Supreme Court Justices being corporate shills :eek:?



Purely as a power move, I hope she selects four female judges of each major ethnic group. One white, one black, one brown, and one yellow :D.


Citizens united is an obscure one.
 

Apathy

Member
Please do. RBG is getting up there in she and I do not want to see a world where the right wing judges outnumber the left
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom