Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» OF COURSE Supreme Court Justices are ABSOLUTELY PARTISAN! Why else did Trump voters say they wanted a Republican to pick the next Justice?
At the Gorsuch swearing-in, Trump acted like he just got an award like a Grammy or something. "I want to thank this person. I want to thank that one. Senator so-in-so, please stand. Mrs. Somebody, where are you? Plerase giver her a hand, folks". It was cringe-worthy - how UN-presidential this guy is. Naturally, he made it about himself - "My first hundred days..." I switched to The Price Is Right. At least, they're honest over there.
Yep. Their MO. They SAY they support the rule of law. Sure they do. They keep changing them to suit themselves! What's not to LOVE? Thank you for your reply GJ and Happy Tuesday! :)
Because Democrats think a supreme court justice should have views that are "mainstream" or in other words popular. the job, however, of a supreme court justice is to interpret lower court rulings in light of the constitution. That is the difference. Political or social bias should have nothing to do with it.
Are you saying only Dems are partisan? If that is true why did McConnell stonewall the Obama appointee, go against the Constitution, dig his heels in and ignore precedent/protocol/propriety? McConnell said that is his proudest moment. What a piece of trash he is. In my opinion of course. I'm pretty sure you think he is a hero. Many do. As a Progressive Liberal Democrat popularity isn't of any concern to me. Never has been. Never will be FAIR is. JUST is. When the Supremes go 5-4 in favor of the wealthy/business/the big guy that is not fair, not just, not American! Please explain to me the merits of the Citizen's United ruling if you can. Also the merits of gutting the voting rights act? Or don't bother. As you wish. Thank you for your reply Omy and Happy Tuesday to thee! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at April 11, 2017 6:24 AM MDT
All I am saying is it is the job of a supreme court justice to make decisions based on the constitution. Democrats including president Obama say they want justices who rules based on thoughts and ideas that are in what they call the mainstream of political ideas. First of all what is and what is not in the mainstream is subject to interpretation. Liberals, at least the ones that I know, seem to think the rest of the world think like they do and they marginalize those who do not. This type of thinking give us supreme court justices who make rulings that are in line with liberal dogma. That is why I prefer supreme court justices who do not take stands on specific issues but who interpret the law and the constitution as it is written.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply Omy and Happy Saturday. You support the Citizen's United abomination as well as the gutting of the voting rights act? Different strokes. :(
I am talking about the the duties and qualifications of supreme court justices and you are talking about specific decisions. Apples and oranges my friend. Also don't you find it interesting that Hillary Clinton complained about the citizens united ruling but too millions of dollars from the super pacs it created? If such contributions are evil why did she accept their money?
Thank you for your reply. Happy Sunday. SIGH. Another reply having nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary dragging her in anyway. Non-responsive. Misdirection. SIGH.
Republicans want extremist vies that do not reflect a civilized America. The constitution was written in such a way where is is open to interpretation. If Political or social bias had nothing to do with it, Republicans would not have illegally denied Obama the right to pick a SCJ
The US constitution is outdated shitte and should be re-written
Goatjumper the constitution can be changed but it goes against established law to just reinterpret the constitution to fit what a justice thinks is fair. I see nothing extremist in wanting to interpret that laws and the constitution as they are written.
I'm sorry but that is what lawyers do all the time...Interpret the constitution. That is their job. A document written over 200 years ago has no relevance in today's world. An example of extremism is that people inteject God into every aspect of a document that does not make any reference to it and tries to shape it using Christian doctrine. It's needs to go
They do it in ways that have nothing to do with the constitution at all. They also choose to ignore laws as they are written and sometimes make up new laws with their rulings. There has to be respect for the law. If you do not like the laws or the constitution then change them but don't ignore them or invent new "right" you think people supposedly have based on nothing other than what you as an individual think is right. That is what activist judges do and it is wrong. If we cease to be a nation of laws anarchy is the only alternative.
Trump is ignoring the Emoluments clause in the Constitution Omy. Do you support him anyway or do you admit he is breaking Constitutional Law? Will the Supremes rule against him if he is ever brought up on charges? 5-4 is what you will always get if there are 5 Conservatives because they will NEVER vote against their own party. They are not untouched by bias/partisanship. In my opinion.
Nothing you or the goat are saying has anything to do with the point I am making which is that conservatives want supreme court justices that rule based on the law and the constitution as they are written not by some contrived idea of what is "fair" or what ideas are "mainstream". You keep talking about individual decisions and I am talking about what the job of a judge is.
The right to bear arms had to do with muskets. Yet the gun people tell you that of course the right to bear arms includes any and all arms that are invented forever after. Strict Constitutional interpretation of a document written in that time should stick to what it referred to that existed in that time. In my opinion.
Louie 