I can't see how it isn't game over with 5 Trumpies on SCOTUS.

[Girard442]

At least at the federal level. Stuff could happen at the state level, maybe. But seriously, what if Trump fires Mueller outright and SCOTUS, in an emergency session, rules 5-4 that that’s just hunky-dory?

[Iliyah]

1. Game over for you but not for me

and others. It has just started.

[CrispyQ]

2. If the dems don't gain control of at least one chamber of Congress this November,

it will be game over. It might be game over, even if they do.

[uponit7771]

3. It's not totally, Roberts has swung for more American policies once or twice

[Still In Wisconsin]

4. It probably is game over. I'm going to put my personal affairs in order, and exit

this mortal plane in a peaceful and painless way. Others are free to do as they please, fight on, whatever. But for the USA? Yeah, it's done. Hell if I'm going to live on in a dystopian Trump-ruled hell.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. What if, what if, what if............

let's first let Kennedy retire, then see how long it takes to replace him.............

[H2O Man]

6. Not even close to over.

Democracy has always been a constant struggle. It always will be, unless we quit.

[mythology]

7. Quit being defeatist

It wasn't permanent when the Supreme Court ruled in Drew Scott or Plessey vs Ferguson.

[Blue_true]

8. How old are you.

There were routinely 6-3 conservative votes in the 80s. Bush I tried for a knockout in the late 80 by appointing Souter, but Souter turned out to be a liberal jurist, so ruling became 5-4 conservative with O'Connor occasionally crossing over. The court pretty much remained 5-4 conservative since, with first O'Connor and Kennedy crossing over. Republican Presidents simply have been more strategic, after the Bush I mistake with Souter, they have appointed young doctrinaire conservatives, while our Presidents appoint based upon expertise.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Because Supreme Court justices aren't always predictable.

Exhibit A: Earl Warren. Look him up, see how he started out as a conservative and then surprised everybody once he made it to the Supreme Court.

I don't expect that there will be any Earl Warrens, but there could be some surprises.

The fundamental difference between conservative and liberal judges is that the conservatives will tend to take a narrow, literal view of the statute or constitutional provision they are considering, interpreting it without much consideration for social trends or other outside forces. Scalia and his successor, Gorsuch, are fairly extreme examples of this - their judicial philosophy is called "originalism," meaning the Constitution should be interpreted to mean exactly what it meant in 1787, without reference to any changes in society that have occurred since then. As a result many of their decisions are prime examples of modern Scholasticism, very technical, and seemingly divorced from the real world. And because state and federal statues are often drafted to favor business interests, conservative judges' decisions tend to favor business over individuals. Liberal judges tend to take a broader view of what the Constitution was intended to mean, and they are more likely to look at the possible effects their decisions have on individuals. They take the position that the Constitution was intended as a living document that should be interpreted in accordance with current events and contemporary thought.

But this doesn't mean that decisions are always predictable. There will always be surprises. This article is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices The chart at the end suggests that the most conservative judge is Clarence Thomas, who has the worst score in civil rights cases (ruling against plaintiffs in civil rights cases). He's worse than Scalia was. And look at David Souter's stats - he was appointed by Bush I and turned out to be almost as liberal as Breyer and Ginsburg.

It's never game over.

[Amishman]

10. It's never over. That being said I'm seriously considering buying a gun

Next time my gun nut brother-in-law offers to take me shooting, I think I'll take him up on it and learn what I can. The idea of having a military rifle around suddenly makes sense in case this all falls apart.