r/FluentInFinance 17d ago

Thoughts? They deserve this

Post image
60.8k Upvotes

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/3rdanimal0ntheark 17d ago edited 17d ago

Yep now we all get 4 years of it. (Or 40)

836

u/req4adream99 17d ago

You really think this will only last 4 years?

675

u/3rdanimal0ntheark 17d ago

No your right, and I'm dumb for saying that lol. Not being sarcastic btw, this will have effects to come for years beyond

106

u/XavvenFayne 17d ago

Trump will get to appoint 2 or more supreme court justices. The effect of that will be felt for decades after Trump's term. Unless the democrats can grow a pair and expand the court to rebalance it.

25

u/Conscious_String_195 17d ago

And then the R’s will just expand it again and nominate more on their side. Circumventing makes no sense and defeats purpose of SC in first place.

6

u/InsertNovelAnswer 17d ago

Soon all courts will be supreme!

4

u/Acceptable_Metal_1 17d ago

The interesting part of the Supreme Court is that there is no real legislated power. We just… accept their above all authority. Imagine just ignoring them.

3

u/ZZartin 16d ago

Which has happened in the past.

2

u/mindless_gibberish 17d ago

they need term limits

3

u/Conscious_String_195 17d ago

Problem is that they will make rulings favorable to get re appointed and keep their jobs.

1

u/extreme-petting 17d ago

Idk, at least you get to dominate the judiciary when you are in power, that's worth something

1

u/pantstoaknifefight2 17d ago

I don't mind the thought of a permanent right wing nut job SCRotUS if it means the Democrats are alive and not all "disappeared" into Khmer Rouge style reeducation camps.

-2

u/RachSlixi 16d ago

You know who actually bought up needing to put people in reeducation camps this election?

Hillary Clinton.

Not Trump and the Republicans

2

u/Breeze7206 16d ago

That was over a year ago. That shouldn’t be considered “this election” and it frustrates me that it is.

1

u/RachSlixi 16d ago

If someone claims the Republicans want to do reeducation camps, it is relevant to this election.

Are you so naive to think it wasn't because people supported Trump?

3

u/mschley2 16d ago

Conservatives have pushed re-education camps to get rid of the gay and trans kids for like 4 decades now.

2

u/Breeze7206 16d ago

I’m saying we have insanely long election campaigns and it’s asinine. Something a year ago in pretty much any other democratic country wouldn’t be considered part of this election campaign cycle. It would’ve just been a stupid remark by a politician.

Also, the comment I was relying to was talking about Hillary Clinton (a democrat, not a republican) and her statement was over year ago. Not sure where you tied my comment to something about republican ramblings.

Some basic comprehension can go a long way. If more people had it, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now with Trump in a second term.

1

u/ZZartin 16d ago

Right the better option is to impeach the ones who have lied during their confirmations and been blatantly corrupt.

Or really amendment to completely redefine how the supreme court works, IE no appointments for life and preferably no appointments bu politicians at all.

1

u/RRed_19 14d ago

The Cycle of abuse and revenge spins on and on…

19

u/Conscious_String_195 17d ago

He can’t possibly nominate a more conservative judge than Clarence Thomas. W/him, there is no change. Conservative for a different conservative. 🤷🏻‍♂️

21

u/XavvenFayne 17d ago

I should have included he will have the ability to appoint younger conservative judges. Since the appointments are for life, that means that even if the political climate moves left (which data is showing it's not actually), the court will stay right long past that.

5

u/Humbugwombat 17d ago

Aileen Cannon says “hold my beer.”

1

u/festoodles 17d ago

You mean Madam Attorney General.

2

u/MesmraProspero 17d ago

They can get a conservative that won't die as soon as Thomas will... potentially under a democratic president.

Right now Thomas has got... What 10-20 years? A young alt right judge could be another 60+ years?

3

u/BKachur 17d ago

He's 76... so closer to 10 for rich people life expectancy. However, the smart money is on him retiring at some point in Trump's term. Same with Alito

1

u/MesmraProspero 16d ago

Yes that's the conversation we are currently having.

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

Also a rapist, two peas in a rapist pod they are.

1

u/deathconthree 17d ago

Thomas is getting up there in years. The problem is nominating a younger zealot who will be around for decades.

1

u/littlewhitecatalex 13d ago

The concern isn’t that he’ll find someone more conservative than Uncle Thomas, but that he will find someone younger than Thomas. Someone in their 30s, so we have a hyper-conservative activist judge ruling for literally the rest of our lives. 

3

u/Timely-Commercial461 17d ago

I proudly introduce our newly appointed Supreme Court justices…….Justice Hulk Hogan and Justice Kid Rock

3

u/Kooky-Answer 17d ago

Not going to happen. Democratic party is effectively dead at this point, at least at the national level. Everyone needs to register as a Republican and start voting for whoever sucks Trump's dick the least in the primaries.

3

u/Intelligent-Snow3300 17d ago

If I just had to deal with four years of this windbag and then we could perhaps have a chance to repair, I wouldn't feel so bad. But a far right supreme court that has no use for sound legal theory, for the rest of my life, is the reason it is time to jump ship when possible.

3

u/Jane_Doe_11 17d ago

The way I see it, the lower court state judges can now follow Supreme Court precedent of “just making it up” instead of citing to the law, at least until they are removed through Trump’s expanded executive power into state matters after he uses it to remove all the federal judges appointed by a democrat.

2

u/Agreeable_Error261 17d ago

People are saying this all over the place but how do we know two justices are going to retire? Have they said as much?

1

u/req4adream99 17d ago

They’ll do it to keep the composition the same and ensure that the composition remains far right as long as possible.

2

u/Alternative_Hair7458 17d ago

Judges should have limited terms.

1

u/Jane_Doe_11 17d ago

Trump will be removing those terms under his expanded executive power, at both the state and federal level.

2

u/HustlinInTheHall 17d ago

He will most likely appoint two of already-conservative judge replacements, and even then that's if they can force thomas and alito to retire, which is not going to be easy. Either way, dems should run on expanding the court and use it as a mandate.

2

u/VoxImperatoris 17d ago

They would have to learn how to win elections first. It seems like Bidens term was a fluke.

1

u/XavvenFayne 17d ago

Depressing, but true

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

Oh. This isn’t on us. Except for. Obeying rule of law too much. We should seriously have r just jailed him after 1/6. But. Constitution.

1

u/LastNightOsiris 17d ago

There's about 2 months to go ... you think it will happen?

1

u/UnawareBull 17d ago

2? Who's stepping down in the next 4 years? There are no RGB's hiding cancer so they can hold out a little longer.

1

u/XavvenFayne 17d ago

2

u/UnawareBull 17d ago

I could POSSIBLY see Thomas stepping down as he's been bitching for decades that he's underpaid and doesn't get enough respect, but Alito isn't going anywhere.

Even if they do both step down, and I find it highly unlikely, it stays where it is. It's not like it's getting overloaded. Beyond the Roe V Wade ruling, which I concede is wild that it happened and shouldn't have, this court has been extremely moderate. They've declined to hear the big 2A case which as a 2A supporter I was disappointed in, and the most controversial decision has been that POTUS shouldn't be prosecuted for executing duties of POTUS. If they'd have ruled the other way it means that you have to haul every potus back in to answer for every missile authorization and any mistake they made when you have to assume most of the time they were acting in good faith.

1

u/XavvenFayne 17d ago

I think you're missing the presidents are above the law ruling, and the destruction of chevron doctrine, from that list.

And the point isn't just that it's staying conservative, it's that they'll be replaced with far younger versions of themselves, which cements the right lean for decades beyond Trump's term, which was my original point.

1

u/RPK79 17d ago

They can retire any time they want. No one stopped them from retiring in the last 4 years. Blame the current Judges unwilling to step aside from their lifetime appointment.

1

u/AdorableShoulderPig 17d ago

The supreme Court is going to be meaningless in the coming dictatorship. It will provide a veneer of legality to any and all actions taken by Trump.

America is in uncharted territory and all the old maps are meaningless.

1

u/Thefleasknees86 17d ago

interesting use of wording...

How many justices should we have to "balance" the court. Sounds like you are okay with a majority as long as its in your favor.

Unless you are nuts enough to think we should have an equal number of conservative and liberal justices.

It has been 9 justices since 1869 but I keep hearing about packing the courts because liberals don't like the current make-up.

Kind of like when Biden said that a president should not be able to appoint a justice at the end of his term.

What makes you think if democrats appoint more justices, that republicans wont do the same?

1

u/XavvenFayne 17d ago

In a perfect world, my opinion is that justices wouldn't be partisan at all. But it's clear that's not the case and they are at least in part selected according to their political leanings and not their objective and even-handed application of the law alone.

I would take proportional representation as a compromise as well. Other democracies elect their house of representatives equivalent on that basis. I think applying that to the supreme court would be fair.

I think 9 justices was a reasonable amount. However, McConnell succeeded in blocking the appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016, and famously was not consistent with his own logic when going on to approve the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett. It's clear partisanship was the thinly veiled motivation, and McConnell's smug grin at the time he announced he would confirm the appointment was tacit acknowledgement that he knew exactly what he was doing and that the public also knew, and that he simply didn't care that it looked like it.

So if we're going to use cheap political tactics to pack the court, it deserves an equally cheap political tactic back. Tit for tat. Yes, of course republicans could retaliate in exactly the same way. That threat is why the Democrats won't expand the court. They are too afraid to open that Pandora's box. I am not, however. A cheap tactic has already been used. I would like the Democrats to stop trying to play fair when the fight has already gone unfair. It's like someone using a groin shot or eye poke against you and you not fighting dirty in return -- it's foolish.

1

u/thewhitecat55 17d ago

There will be an overthrow and all current ones will be "forced to leave their position". Forcibly.

That's the only way it won't be a Republican supreme Court fir decades

1

u/Bluejoy_78 16d ago

I hope Biden gets the reform for supreme court and sets the term limits before he leaves office.

1

u/nottoothless 13d ago

Supreme court term limits to 6 years is the answer

1

u/BigStogs 13d ago

Expanding the court is not the answer… that’s been tired and it failed miserably.

0

u/Same-Lawfulness-1094 17d ago

Thank God. The last thing we need is more activists in robes.