Predictions If Donald Trump is re elected in 2020 in terms of the Supreme Court

[Medal506]

Supreme Court

Chief Justice: John Roberts (conservative) appointed by Bush 43 - 2005
Justice: Samuel Alito (conservative) appointed by Bush 43 - 2006
Justice: Thomas Hardiman (conservative) appointed by Trump - 2022
Justice: David Stras (conservative) appointed by Trump - 2021
Justice: Neil Gorsuch (conservative) appointed by Trump - 2017
Justice: William Pryor (conservative) appointed by Trump - 2019
Justice: Diane Sykes (conservative) appointed by Trump - 2021
Justice: Elena Kagan (liberal) appointed by Obama - 2010
Justice: Sonia Sotomayor (liberal) appointed by Obama - 2009


Predictions for cases


April 2021: Roe v Wade will be overturned 6-3 - President Trump came out in approval
for the decision

Majority

John Roberts
Neil Gorsuch
Diane Sykes
William Pryor
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito


Dissent

Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor
Stephen Bryer


June 2021: Immigration enforcement - mass deportation Upheld as consititonal 7 - 2 President Trump[/color] came out in strong approval for the decision

Majority

John Roberts
Neil Gorsuch
Diane Sykes
William Pryor
Clarance Thomas
Samuel Alito


Dissent

Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor


December 2021: Flag burning upheld as consitional 5 - 4 President Trump[/color] came out in dissaproval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
Elena Kagan
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Thomas Hardiman

Dissent

William Pryor
Diane Sykes
David Stras
John Roberts


February 2022: States rights upheld - court ruled that states have a right to legalize drugs unanimously 9 - 0 President Trump[/color] came out in approval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
Thomas Hardiman
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Diane Sykes
David Stras
William Pryor
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan


Dissent - none


July 2022: Freedom of speech upheld - "anti transgender discrimination laws" that require people to use a transgender individual's perferd pronouns has been deemed unconsitional 6 - 3 President Trump[/color] came out in strong approval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
John Roberts
Daine Sykes
Thomas Hardiman
David Stras
Samuel Alito


Dissent

William Pryor
Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I hope we will not have reached the point where the justices need any type of parentheses after their names.

[Rjjr77]

I just hope the next Supreme Court justice didn't attend an Ivy League institution

[Beet]

Oh ho, boy. Can you imagine the backlash that would occur nationwide if Roe was overturned? It'd be unpopular even in the more libertarian Plains.

True, but the target would depend on whether the Democrats were seen as opposing it or trying to trade it in for their own gains. If the latter, the backlash is directed at them.

[Medal506]

January 2023 - second amendment upheld 7 - 2 President Trump came out in strong approval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
John Roberts
Diane Sykes
David Stras
William Pryor
Thomas Hardiman
Samuel Alito


Dissent

Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor


June 2023: states rights upheld - Obergefell v Hodges overturned 7 - 2 President Trump came out in approval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
William Pryor
Samuel Alito
Diane Sykes
David Stras
John Roberts
Thomas Hardiman


Dissent

Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor


January 2024: voter ID laws deemed consitional 7 - 2 President Trump came out in strong approval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
William Pryor
David Stras
Diane Sykes
Thomas Hardiman


Dissent

Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor

[Medal506]

Oh ho, boy. Can you imagine the backlash that would occur nationwide if Roe was overturned? It'd be unpopular even in the more libertarian Plains.

Roe herself is now prolife. A majority of Americans are prolife. As well if Roe v Wade were to be overturned it would not outlaw abortion like some people think. It would only return the power to the states to ban abortion

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Obergefell overturned? You are aware that Trump supports Obergefell, right?

[Medal506]

Obergefell overturned? You are aware that Trump supports Obergefell, right?

Trump himself has said he believes that it should have been left to the states and in his personal opinion marriage is between a man and a woman. But I'm not going to debate this further this is just what I think will happen

[Kamala]

January 2023 - second amendment upheld 7 - 2 President Trump came out in strong approval for the decision

Majority

Neil Gorsuch
John Roberts
Diane Sykes
David Stras
William Pryor
Thomas Hardiman
Samuel Alito


Dissent

Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor

The Second Amendment, a part of the Constitution, is upheld as being constitutional?
I doubt a major second amendment case even comes up to SCOTUS- DC v Heller being so broad and relatively recent that lower courts will probably just defer via stare decisis.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The pronouns thing would get overturned 9-0, even with a less conservative Court.

[Person Man]

Oh ho, boy. Can you imagine the backlash that would occur nationwide if Roe was overturned? It'd be unpopular even in the more libertarian Plains.

Roe herself is now prolife. A majority of Americans are prolife. As well if Roe v Wade were to be overturned it would not outlaw abortion like some people think. It would only return the power to the states to ban abortion

That a deceased lady had a change of heart means nothing. Americans are "anti-abortion" until it actually comes down to it. Look at literally any referendum on the issue ever. Regardless though, I'm sure you'll come up woth some asinine reason to convince yourself that Americans want abortion outlawed indefinitely, so I'm just going to cut off my response here.

And do people really want to relitigate the issue outside of the 10 or so states that have decided ti keep abortion legal regardless or the handful of states that have already committed to automaticly rebanning it?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

does it matter? if dear ol' donny wins reëlection, the country's beyond saving anyways

[Cynthia]

Kushner and Ivanka in power wouldn't mean that many conservative justices.

Also even if this is the court, Obergefall isn't getting overturned (MAYBE Roe, but even that's unlikely), and yes I agree that transgender pronoun thing would get overturned 9-0.

Bill Pryor isn't that conservative, at least not as conservative as people describe.

Stras also isn't that conservative, cuz extremists don't get elected in Minnesota, even though his opponent was more of an extremist. Stras has a trackable moderate record.

So no, we can't really predict how never-seated justices would vote on potential issues, given that there are so many factors we just have no idea.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Oh ho, boy. Can you imagine the backlash that would occur nationwide if Roe was overturned? It'd be unpopular even in the more libertarian Plains.

I bet those people in Wyoming are going to up in arms if abortion becomes illegal in Oklahoma!

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Oh ho, boy. Can you imagine the backlash that would occur nationwide if Roe was overturned? It'd be unpopular even in the more libertarian Plains.

Roe herself is now prolife. A majority of Americans are prolife. As well if Roe v Wade were to be overturned it would not outlaw abortion like some people think. It would only return the power to the states to ban abortion

The majority of Americans are against the idea of abortion, but when it comes to actually doing something, the majority decides not to.  In 1860 many Northerners viewed slavery in a negative light, but it didn't bother them too much, as long as it was far away from them.

[Shadows]

As of now the pro-choice voters outnumber the anti-choice voters in many polls & this will only grow with more young people coming in - It will be a semi-civil war if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Roberts will 100% stand beside Roe vs Wade & there is a good chance that even Alito will support Roe vs Rode, that is with more cutbacks & abortion restrictions. Hardiman will possibly oppose full Roe vs Wade repeal as well.

I don't see Trump winning in 2020, more likely he will lose in a landslide. But Roe vs Wade being over-turned is every more unlikely.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

God is not done with America just yet!

[Medal506]

I don't see Trump winning in 2020, more likely he will lose in a landslide. But Roe vs Wade being over-turned is every more unlikely.

Lol just like how Trump was going to lose in a landslide last year? Not only is Trump undermined but the entire Republican Party is being undermined and pretty much over 95 percent of the predictions made on this website turn out wrong

[MarkD]

I hope we will not have reached the point where the justices need any type of parentheses after their names.

Amen. We are supposed to have the nine most highly objective interpreters of law serving on the Supreme Court. With attitudes towards the Court being what they are now (and those attitudes are not undeserved), we might as well be holding national elections for the seats on the Court.

FYI, "Jane Roe" has passed away.

If Obergefell is overturned, what do the state governments who re-adopt their bans on SSM say and do to all of the gay couples who were married?

[Medal506]

I hope we will not have reached the point where the justices need any type of parentheses after their names.

If Obergefell is overturned, what do the state governments who re-adopt their bans on SSM say and do to all of the gay couples who were married?

Simple. Say Obergefell v Hodges is overturned in 2025 and a state like Texas or Alabama or Ohio or Indiana wants to reinstate their same sex marriage bans after the supreme court struck them down. Say Texas bans same sex marriage in May of 2025. In the bill it can say all same sex marriages will be annulled on January 1, 2026. As well let's not forget that the LGB people make up only 2 - 4 percent of the population and an over whelming majority of them don't even have any interest in having a same sex marriage so we're talking about very few people here

[MarkD]

I'm overwhelmed at your assumption that the overwhelming majority of LGB people do not have any interest in getting married.

It's that simple, really? Just tell people - however many of them there are - who want to be married, and who did get married, that their marriages are annulled? That's all there is to it?

Here are my views on what the Supreme Court did wrong in Obergefell (look at the thread called "Originalism" under Constitution and Law): marriage is not any kind of constitutionally-protected right whatsoever, and the Court has been wrong to say so in Section 2 of the Loving v. Virginia opinion, and it was wrong to say it is a constitutionally-protected right in cases such as Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley. Saying again in Obergefell that it is a constitutionally-protected right was merely a matter of repeating the same mistake as before. Also, the concept of equality between gay and straight was not, at all, the intended meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I can easily imagine the ... ahem ... overwhelming majority of the men who adopted the 14th sitting up in the graves in late June 2015 and shouting that is not what we meant!

But now that the mistake has been perpetrated, I don't think there is any practical way to overturn Obergefell. So what should we do now, even for those of us who were opposed to that feat of judicial legislation? I think the answer is to adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th to make its meaning narrower and clearer. We should tell the federal judiciary that their job is NOT to define the rights that states cannot violate, but to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution. Adopt an amendment to tell the states to: (Libertarianism) not violate most of the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments, do not violate the right to travel within the United States; and do not engage in discrimination (egalitarianism) against anyone on the grounds of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status.

Take out of the Constitution this sentence: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” ... and replace those vague rules with a list of much more specific and detailed rules. States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot adopt, and the federal courts should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down.  Tell the federal judiciary that they are not to define liberty or equality.

Three years ago I drafted an amendment accomplishing this, and I purposely designed it to have some specific things that would appeal to conservatives, while being unappealing to liberals, while other specific things would have the opposite effect. In other words, I designed it to be a compromise. One of the things that liberals will like and conservatives won't will be that there will be an explicit guarantee of sexual orientation equality, and an explicit preservation of Obergefell as a correctly-decided precedent. But one of the things conservatives will like and liberals will hate is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Is that a compromise you could live with? If you get to overturn Roe but you have to keep Obergefell, can you live with that? Furthermore, I think an amendment like this will go a long way in significantly reducing the need to assess which Supreme Court Justices are the conservative ones and which ones are the liberal ones.

[uti2]

The answer to the OP's question is that if this event were to occur, it would drive the Dems into a frenzy. Imagine, Dems nominate a 'another corporate democrat' like Booker who ends up losing to Trump. It would drive the Dem base into a state of deep rage where upon they would nominate a radical progressive in the make of Gabbard in 2024, who upon being elected would use the FDR plan to pack the court with additional seats.

[Medal506]

I'm overwhelmed at your assumption that the overwhelming majority of LGB people do not have any interest in getting married.

It's that simple, really? Just tell people - however many of them there are - who want to be married, and who did get married, that their marriages are annulled? That's all there is to it?

Here are my views on what the Supreme Court did wrong in Obergefell (look at the thread called "Originalism" under Constitution and Law): marriage is not any kind of constitutionally-protected right whatsoever, and the Court has been wrong to say so in Section 2 of the Loving v. Virginia opinion, and it was wrong to say it is a constitutionally-protected right in cases such as Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley. Saying again in Obergefell that it is a constitutionally-protected right was merely a matter of repeating the same mistake as before. Also, the concept of equality between gay and straight was not, at all, the intended meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I can easily imagine the ... ahem ... overwhelming majority of the men who adopted the 14th sitting up in the graves in late June 2015 and shouting that is not what we meant!

But now that the mistake has been perpetrated, I don't think there is any practical way to overturn Obergefell. So what should we do now, even for those of us who were opposed to that feat of judicial legislation? I think the answer is to adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th to make its meaning narrower and clearer. We should tell the federal judiciary that their job is NOT to define the rights that states cannot violate, but to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution. Adopt an amendment to tell the states to: (Libertarianism) not violate most of the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments, do not violate the right to travel within the United States; and do not engage in discrimination (egalitarianism) against anyone on the grounds of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status.

Take out of the Constitution this sentence: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” ... and replace those vague rules with a list of much more specific and detailed rules. States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot adopt, and the federal courts should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down.  Tell the federal judiciary that they are not to define liberty or equality.

Three years ago I drafted an amendment accomplishing this, and I purposely designed it to have some specific things that would appeal to conservatives, while being unappealing to liberals, while other specific things would have the opposite effect. In other words, I designed it to be a compromise. One of the things that liberals will like and conservatives won't will be that there will be an explicit guarantee of sexual orientation equality, and an explicit preservation of Obergefell as a correctly-decided precedent. But one of the things conservatives will like and liberals will hate is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Is that a compromise you could live with? If you get to overturn Roe but you have to keep Obergefell, can you live with that? Furthermore, I think an amendment like this will go a long way in significantly reducing the need to assess which Supreme Court Justices are the conservative ones and which ones are the liberal ones.

Too answer your question no. I'd rather Obergefell v Hodges to be overturned and same sex marriage to be outlawed and keep Roe v Wade than vise versa. But I do believe both Roe and Obegefell will be overturned eventually in the 2020s so I don't think we need a compromise