I think that one thing to remember with Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is that fundamentally, little changes from how it was with Scalia. The two are very similar ideologically, in that they are quite conservative and tend to read the constitution very strictly. If he is confirmed, the court will once again have 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and a moderate justice somewhere in the middle.
It’s bad, but it’s not as bad as it could be. This is not an automatic death knell for civil rights, it just makes the fight harder than it could have been if Obama’s justice had been confirmed. The big thing now is to hope that Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Breyer, and Kagan all stay safe and on the Supreme Court. They are the liberal side of the Court and keep things in balance. Kennedy is also one to hope stays as well, as while he leans more Republican, he has often been the swing vote in major cases and has regularly sided with the more liberal rulings the past few years.
We just need these people to hang in another four years, max. Maybe another 2 if we can swing the Senate and House in 2018, who could then block a hardline conservative pick from Trump.
*note: This is not a dismissal of fears nor is it me saying Trump’s pick is acceptable. This is simply meant as a reminder not to panic and exhaust yourself. We are in for a long fight and the opposition wants us to get worn out quickly. If we work together and keep each other informed, we can continue to fight indefinitely.
“On one side, you
have a group of testy male justices needling a female lawyer for Texas
clinics about whether it was even appropriate for them to hear this
appeal. On the other, you’ve got four absolutely smoking hot feminists
pounding on Texas’ solicitor general for passing abortion regulations
that have no plausible health purpose and also seem pretty stupid.
It felt as if, for the first time in history, the gender
playing field at the high court was finally leveled, and as a
consequence the court’s female justices were emboldened to just ignore
the rules. Time limits were flouted to such a degree that Chief Justice
John Roberts pretty much gave up enforcing them. I counted two instances
in which Roberts tried to get advocates to wrap up as Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor simply blew past him with more
questions. There was something wonderful and symbolic about Roberts
losing almost complete control over the court’s indignant women, who are
just not inclined to play nice anymore.“
When marriage equality became the law of the land last year, I made a little picture commemorating the badass women of the US Supreme Court taking the form of the badasses of the cartoon world, the Powerpuff Girls. Now the Powerpuff Girls website has enabled me to make more accurate renditions of the Supreme Court justices. Enjoy!
Today, in honor of International Women’s Day, we’re honoring some smart ladies
— Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
When Kagan was appointed in 2010, it ushered in the first time in U.S. history that three women have served on the Supreme Court bench. Learn more about them here.
Watch this space: We’ll be featuring more women who have been essential to history. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat for more updates throughout the month of March. In the meantime, take our quiz to test your knowledge of Women’s History Month.
In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.
The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.
“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”
The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.”
Monday’s decision and the order on Thursday were dual blows to the Obama administration’s efforts to provide contraception coverage, said Walter Dellinger, who was acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration.
“Before the Hobby Lobby ruling women had guaranteed contraceptive coverage as part of their employment health insurance,” he said. “After today, it is clear that their access to contraception is by no means guaranteed given the administrative complexities the court has now imposed upon” the Department of Health and Human Services.
Justice Sotomayor said the majority had not only introduced pointless complexity into an already byzantine set of regulations and but had also revised its Hobby Lobby decision.
That decision, Justice Sotomayor said, endorsed an arrangement allowing nonprofit groups to sign a form that would transfer the delivery of free contraception under the Affordable Care Act to others. But Thursday’s order rejected the mandatory use of the forms for Wheaton College in Illinois.
Justice Sotomayor said the ruling reached beyond Wheaton and could lead to similar results at many other nonprofit religious organizations that have similar concerns. “The issuance of an injunction in this case will presumably entitle hundreds or thousands of other objectors to the same remedy,” she said.