Thursday, October 1, 2015

Doomsday Supreme Court Scenario if GOP Wins WH-Says Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chermerinsky is the dean of the UC Irvine law school and is considered by some to be one of the nation's foremost constitutional scholars. In reality, he is a liberal, and it consistently shows when he is forming his legal opinions.

Take today's op-ed in the Orange County Register in which Chemo predicts doomsday if a Republican is elected president in 2016. That's because with so many old justices on the Supreme Court, the in-coming president will likely have 4 picks, which would shift the balance of the court dramatically.

At first glance, Chemo's prediction might seem obvious. However, you have to read carefully to see the predictions if a certain majority prevails.

His first example is if a Democrat wins the White House.

"On the one hand, new justices appointed by a Democrat would be likely to overrule Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which held that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns. Previously, the court had upheld laws limiting campaign expenditures by corporations. But the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor created a majority to overrule these decisions. This has led to the so-called Super PACs and to great expenditures by corporations in elections at all levels of government."

Yes, folks. A Democrat-appointed court will get all of that evil corporate money out of politics.

But if the court is dominated by a Republican-appointed majority?

"The current court is the first in American history to find that the Second Amendment creates a right of people to have guns in their homes. From 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, until 2008, the Supreme Court always had held that the Second Amendment protected only a right to have firearms for purpose of militia service. But in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the court declared unconstitutional a 35-year-old District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited private ownership and possession of handguns. The result of this 5-4 decision is unprecedented limits on the ability of governments to prevent handgun violence."

Which means we won't be able to prevent handgun violence. Never mind the millions of guns already out there in the hands of criminals. We can't have people like you and I having guns in our homes to defend ourselves, let alone concealed carry permits for those magic moments when we are walking around in public and El Bad Guy picks you out as his next victim. We just can't have that.

And this:

"On the other hand, it seems virtually certain that a Republican president picking four new justices will create a majority to overrule Roe v. Wade. Each state then would be able to prohibit or regulate abortion however it chooses. About half the states already have statutes on the books forbidding abortions, and overruling Roe would mean that these laws immediately would go into effect. Women with money still will have access to abortion by traveling to states where abortion will be legal. But poorer women and teenagers once more will be forced to choose between an unsafe, back alley abortion and an unwanted child."

To all you women out there the message is clear. Vote for a Republican in 2016 and you will have to go back to the days of the back alley abortions. All those efforts by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v Wade will finally come to fruition.

And finally this:

"Republican appointees almost surely will push to reconsider the Supreme Court’s decision last June that found that the Constitution protects a right to marriage equality. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court ruled 5-4 that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage infringe the fundamental right to marry and deny equal protection to gays and lesbians."

I am no lawyer, but unless they agree to accept a new lawsuit based on a separate aspect of the gay marriage issue, I sure don't see them sitting around some day in the future with a Republican-appointed majority and voting to "reconsider" a previous ruling.

Chemerinsky is basically writing very cleverly to convince the reader that if a Republican president selects four new justices to the Supreme Court, a new age of darkness will descend over us. That must be resisted at all costs. His message?

Vote for a Democrat in 2016.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

I certainly wouldn't want Chemerinsky picking justices for the Supreme Court. I also wouldn't want Hillary Clinton, or any of the bozos running for the Republican nomination doing so. Mostly, I think that anyone who is on record saying that a current precedent MUST be overturned, or that it MUST NOT be overturned under any circumstances, should be disqualified for nomination. President Obama has probably done less damage to the court than John McCain would have, but I was particularly disappointed by Elena Kagen's nomination. Come to think of it, I'm not sure there is any institution I would currently trust to nominate Supreme Court justices.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, the governor of Ohio is going to look awfully good. I've given up on the notion that I could vote for Christie. Apparently so have most Republican likely primary voters.