Next SCOTUS retiree/appointee?

[Tonitrus]

Indeed.  His nomination was blocked.  In the biggest way possible. 

[MadImmortalMan]

to be honest I'd actually like to see a 5th vote to ban abortion. Perhaps you'd get around to making it a medical health and ethics issue than a rights issue. Leaving it to the court has always been an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.

Overturning RvW wouldn't be a vote to ban. It would be a vote to return it to the states to decide like the recent gay marriage one did. The next day, a couple dozen states would pass laws allowing abortion. Eight or ten might manage to pass some banning it eventually, but it seems unlikely.

[Martinus]

Can individual states prohibit their own inhabitants from engagining in activity in another state that is legal in that other state? For example (assuming no RvW), could a state criminalise someone travelling to another state to get a legal abortion?

I assume the answer is "no" (since it is not even possible within the EU and the US is a much stronger union) but just checking.

[MadImmortalMan]

Reno got on the radar as a divorce town for exactly that reason.

[CountDeMoney]

Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? 

His nomination suffered from being an asshole.

Then again, we see how Scalia turned out.

[celedhring]

Can individual states prohibit their own inhabitants from engagining in activity in another state that is legal in that other state? For example (assuming no RvW), could a state criminalise someone travelling to another state to get a legal abortion?

I assume the answer is "no" (since it is not even possible within the EU and the US is a much stronger union) but just checking.

Is there actually a push to jail women that have an abortion vs just the doctors that perform it? Not even fascist, ultra-Catholic Spain under Franco did that.

[DGuller]

to be honest I'd actually like to see a 5th vote to ban abortion. Perhaps you'd get around to making it a medical health and ethics issue than a rights issue. Leaving it to the court has always been an abdication of responsibility by the legislature.

Overturning RvW wouldn't be a vote to ban. It would be a vote to return it to the states to decide like the recent gay marriage one did. The next day, a couple dozen states would pass laws allowing abortion. Eight or ten might manage to pass some banning it eventually, but it seems unlikely.

Is that a given that it's only going to go that far?  This is a court that decided that corporations have a free speech right.  Giving unborn the right to life doesn't seem that outlandish by comparison.

[Razgovory]

Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? 

His nomination suffered from being an asshole.

Then again, we see how Scalia turned out.

I don't think the whole Saturday Night Massacre thing worked for him either.

[Martinus]

Can individual states prohibit their own inhabitants from engagining in activity in another state that is legal in that other state? For example (assuming no RvW), could a state criminalise someone travelling to another state to get a legal abortion?

I assume the answer is "no" (since it is not even possible within the EU and the US is a much stronger union) but just checking.

Is there actually a push to jail women that have an abortion vs just the doctors that perform it? Not even fascist, ultra-Catholic Spain under Franco did that.

Ireland tried that I think, that's why the ECJ ruled on the matter.

That being said, Polish ultra-conservatives tried (and failed) recently to introduce an amendment to anti-abortion law that would jail women for having a "negligent miscarriage". So yeah, if left unchecked, conservatives do not really have a limit.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hey, Yanks. I have two questions:

Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?

Ginsburg is the oldest and has had a few health issues over the years.  But she has made it clear she is not retiring in the Obama administration.  I think she will probably stay on the job as long as physically and mentally possible, she has no interest in retiring.  the next oldest are Scalia and Kennedy (and then Breyer) but all three of those are healthy and appear to enjoy being on the Court.

[CountDeMoney]

Have we all forgotten Robert Bork? 

His nomination suffered from being an asshole.

Then again, we see how Scalia turned out.

I don't think the whole Saturday Night Massacre thing worked for him either.

Yeah, but by the time it trickled down to him, he was just the camp guard at Nuremberg;  i dont think the Senate had as much of a problem with that than they did with the fact that he was smarter than they were, and he told them so.

[dps]

Hey, Yanks. I have two questions:

Who will be the most likely next SCOTUS retiree and is he/she likely to retire during the Obama's administration?

Ginsburg is the oldest and has had a few health issues over the years.  But she has made it clear she is not retiring in the Obama administration.  I think she will probably stay on the job as long as physically and mentally possible, she has no interest in retiring.  the next oldest are Scalia and Kennedy (and then Breyer) but all three of those are healthy and appear to enjoy being on the Court.

That's the thing.  Justices don't generally time their retirements based on who gets to nominate their successor on the bench--they time it based on hanging on to the position as long as possible.  Can't much blame 'em--it's a good gig.

[The Minsky Moment]

Pre-war, the Supreme Court reguarly heard over 200 cases per year.
After the war, the norm was around 150 cases.  But that started to drop around 1980.
Now a typical term involves decisions on about 70 cases.  So one could argue that being a justice has become a part-time job, although a possible resjoinder would be that the Court now spends a more time on each case they do take.

[Barrister]

Pre-war, the Supreme Court reguarly heard over 200 cases per year.
After the war, the norm was around 150 cases.  But that started to drop around 1980.
Now a typical term involves decisions on about 70 cases.  So one could argue that being a justice has become a part-time job, although a possible resjoinder would be that the Court now spends a more time on each case they do take.

Now break it down based on how many words in its decisions the Court produces per year.

[DGuller]

Pre-war, the Supreme Court reguarly heard over 200 cases per year.
After the war, the norm was around 150 cases.  But that started to drop around 1980.
Now a typical term involves decisions on about 70 cases.  So one could argue that being a justice has become a part-time job, although a possible resjoinder would be that the Court now spends a more time on each case they do take.

Or maybe they're so overburdened with their caseload that 70 is all they can handle.  I recommend adding some justices right away to ease the burden.