Kennedy was a Reagan appointee who turned out to be one of the most important justices on the bench since his unpredictable swing vote was the deciding factor in many crucial landmark votes. Because of the lifespan of the average justice, and the near even split in liberal vs. "conservative" presidents, the appointees political persuasion has always been close to evenly split.
With the assumption that Trump will appoint a conservative justice, and that assumption is more than reasonable, this divide is likely over for a generation. And that's assuming Ginsberg lasts till the end of Trumps admin.
Now, a conservative judge, IMO, rules based on a strict interpretation of the constitution, which is the basic job description of a supreme court justice. Since many of the most significant liberal victories of the last 60 years or more have come from judicial activism, (otherwise known as judicial liberalism using meta-constitutional interpretation of the law), this is one more significant blow to the liberal (socialist) movement in this country. In other words, a significant victory for the U.S., again assuming that Trump picks a conservative, i.e. qualified candidate.
The hand wringing from the left, so far, resembles that of election eve 2016, but will be nothing compared t the day a conservative justice is appointed. I expect the confrontation in the senate will be epic. Certainly, the left will be hoping for delays pending their much anticipated "Blue Wave" come November.
Imagine if Trump tries to pull off a recess appointment....
This will be political theater at it's finest :-)
and who can ever forget that awful filled with lies speech Ted Kennedy gave on the floor during the Bork lynching which led to the Thomas lynching. In other words the left has had much practice in trying to destroy fine conservative appointees and has succeeded with some pitiful smearing of good people.
" This will be political theater at it's finest :-) "
A Drama for you, a Tragedy for me.
yes Carl a tragedy. The list Trump will pick from includes people who actually have read the constitution, believe in it, and do not legislate from the bench....what a tragedy
Opinion of the Court in Rico decision
In a 7–2 decision, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that the jury instructions were correct …
Stevens's dissent
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, dissented. Stevens wrote that, based on prior statutes and on the ordinary usage of the word, Congress intended "enterprise" to be more than a group of people. The term meant, Stevens believed, "to refer only to business-like entities that have an existence apart from the predicate acts committed by their employees or associates." The Court’s interpretation, he wrote, "will allow juries to infer the existence of an enterprise in every case involving a pattern of racketeering activity undertaken by two or more associates."
Today's interpretation of RICO seems to allow the seizure of property without due process ... clearly unconstitutional.
Are you referring to 2009 Boyle v. U.S.?
Boyle … yes.
The RICO act sux, plain and simple. There was a need for it, as is the case for most laws, but it's application goes far beyond the intended consequences, which is the case for most laws. Congress passes a law and then a bunch of unelected officials in some basement somewhere write the regulations. It's a flawed process.
But, in order to control organized crime and help stamp it out, the RICO act of 1970 allows the confiscation of property and money when suspected of being the result of RICO related activity. Without Due Process.
The Boyle ruling did not create this nonsense, but it did allow for an expanded interpretation of the laws and regulations in defining just what constitutes RICO. It was a 7-2 decision as you noted, and was probably correct. It's up to congress to modify the law, not the courts.
*Note: Edited above comment to "expanded interpretation" from "expanded definition".
" But, in order to control organized crime and help stamp it out, the RICO act of 1970 allows the confiscation of property and money when suspected of being the result of RICO related activity. Without Due Process " .
Correct, It was necessary to prevent the distribution of property and money of individuals charged with crimes or about to be charged . Due process.
As I said before, " Today's interpretation of RICO seems to allow the seizure of property without the " following " due process ... clearly unconstitutional. "
I agree that RICO allows for seizure without due process, but that is not a new development. It's been going on for decades.