Anthony Kennedy Retiring from SCOTUS

[OoohShiny]

What is the relationship between religion and government in the UK? Because if you've been watching or listening to our news, it's obvious that belief in the dogma of the christian bible (yanno the one and only holy book dictated by the one and only real legitimate god, everybody else is a heathen) gives all those white christian males in our government, and their minions on the streets, carte blanche to insert themselves in our vaginas, up our butts, and into our penises.

I am a bit fuzzy on this as politics is not a strong suit... but IIRC the Queen is the head of state and parliament (and the mace must be present in parliament for it to sit, because it represents the Queen, or something like that) and she is also head of the Church of England???

But the Prime Minister is head of the political party that has been put in power to run the country through public elections (although the PM themselves does not have to be actually chosen by the public, they can be determined by the party in power) and the Queen does not interfere with the running of the country.

The church is always there in the background, what with the links to the Queen and the generally Christian values behind a 'classically British' upbringing that most Members of Parliament and also the Lords in the House of Lords will have had, but the Church does not (overtly/publically) interfere or influence politics (AIUI), and there are very few (no?) bible-bashing demagogues using a historic book of disputed authenticity to inform bellowing rants at any sections of society, or to justify decisions that would rigidly enforce attitudes and/or legislation that held progress (in terms of improving lives and attitudes) back.

In fact, Tony Blair, who pushed the UK into war in the middle east using a 'sexed up' document claiming 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' were in Iraq, later (when questioned during the public enquiry over the (in)accuracy of that document) made a weaseling and insincere apology about doing so and claimed (to paraphrase) "It's ok, God said it was the right thing to do.", at which point the general feeling across the nation seemed to be 'OMGWTFSRSLY?', followed by a variety of swear words.


Most/all of the above is only my general, uneducated perceptions of how things stand, though, and I may well be wrong - so please do correct me if I am spouting nonsense! Unlike those shouty types in America, I am British and therefore happy to acknowledge that I may be wrong and there may be another way

In my mind, Church and State should very definitely be separate entities, either way!

 

[tkyasx78]

Well, the news today explains a lot, why kennedy went from being a relavitely moderate conservative for decades- to siding with the new administration - every time - since trump took office.
It sure Looks like he heard the news was going public. And that is why he resigned.
When your kid is probably going to be charged with fraud and you have “ suddenly and without reaaon “ started wholly supporting the views of the criminal in your day job that the kid is paying money to... that tends to look bad.

 

[tkyasx78]

I misspoke Kennedy did not vote for the administrations position every time
Kennedy agreed with Roberts and the administrations position nearly 90% of the time on cases this session, according to SCOTUSblog statistics, and notably did not provide a single fifth vote for the liberals in a close 5-4 case.

So I apologize for saying it was every time. He hasn’t been a 5th vote for the traditionally liberal judges on the bench once . On the non -close ones it is about 90% he sided with the administration

 

[JPie]

EMAILS! BENGHAZI! URANIUM ONE! LORETTA LYNCH AND BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There, saved some folks the trouble here.

 

[Matata]

It sure Looks like he heard the news was going public. And that is why he resigned.

If the Supremes were ever to hear a case against the president and/or his cronies and Kennedy's son turned out to be one of them, Kennedy would have had to recuse himself which may or may not have been potentially good for trump. Now trump has the chance to put in a "ya mein herr" judge which could tilt things in trump's favor. It's a mess from any angle

 

[AGBF]

Let us assume the worst. Trump gets in a conservative who opposes Roe v. Wade. It may not be forever, or even for decades. If the Democrats ever get control of both Houses of Congress and The White House, even as soon as 2020, they can increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court and appoint liberal justices. Then, even if Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions have been overturned by Trump's court, they can be reversed again. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices that are to serve on the Supreme Court and it has varied throughout history.

 

[redwood66]

Let us assume the worst. Trump gets in a conservative who opposes Roe v. Wade. It may not be forever, or even for decades. If the Democrats ever get control of both Houses of Congress and The White House, even as soon as 2020, they can increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court and appoint liberal justices. Then, even if Roe v. Wade and other landmark decisions have been overturned by Trump's court, they can be reversed again. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices that are to serve on the Supreme Court and it has varied throughout history.

I don't see abortion becoming illegal in this country, however I do see some sort of case coming forward to put the decision back to the states to decide for themselves what restrictions may be placed on it's use. Then again it may not happen at all. There has been a very slim conservative leaning SCOTUS since the early 70's and nothing has happened yet.

 

[AGBF]

I don't see abortion becoming illegal in this country, however I do see some sort of case coming forward to put the decision back to the states to decide for themselves what restrictions may be placed on it's use.

That is overturning Roe v. Wade. Many states have laws on their books making abortion illegal right now; the only thing stopping the states from enforcing those laws is Roe v. Wade. Other states have passed laws since the Roe v. Wade decision that will implement bans on abortions as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned. I saw a map on MSNBC of the exact states where abortions would be banned. In some states abortions would be curtailed, placing severe limits on where and how women could obtain them. (That is your "restrictions" argument.) Since late term abortions are already banned, any restrictions are unnecessary unless one believes that women should not have the right to choose at all, which I know some people do. But that is making abortion illegal.

 

[redwood66]

That is overturning Roe v. Wade. Many states have laws on their books making abortion illegal right now; the only thing stopping the states from enforcing those laws is Roe v. Wade. Other states have passed laws since the Roe v. Wade decision that will implement bans on abortions as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned. I saw a map on MSNBC of the exact states where abortions would be banned. In some states abortions would be curtailed, placing severe limits on where and how women could obtain them. (That is your "restrictions" argument.) Since late term abortions are already banned, any restrictions are unnecessary unless one believes that women should not have the right to choose at all, which I know some people do. But that is making abortion illegal.

This is not a fight I am interested in and definitely not an issue I vote on. However, I am a proponent of states' rights as you know.