EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 27, 2018 19:16:27 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as an impartial arbiter of the Constitution and the laws of the country. Yet, with the same Constitution and the same laws, different justices reach different opinions, usually lining up along the lines of the conservative wing voting in a block and the liberal wing also voting in block. They are no longer impartial arbiters but just another political organization tied to each's political philosophy.
As a consequence, cases are decided based on which political party is more fortunate in having the opportunity to nominate the most justices. This week saw at least three major decisions decided by 5-4 margins, each block voting in opposition to the other.
This is certainly not what the framers intended in establishing the Supreme Court. What can be done about it?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495 
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 27, 2018 19:54:46 GMT -5
I would urge great caution in writing the epitaph for the Court quite yet.
It does seem that most of the highly anticipated decisions have been 5-4 with soon to be departed Justice Kennedy serving as a Court of one.
That said, the Court has been around since the beginning and has survived many attacks.
I think people need to take a breath about the “partisan” Court.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jun 28, 2018 11:22:36 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as an impartial arbiter of the Constitution and the laws of the country. Yet, with the same Constitution and the same laws, different justices reach different opinions, usually lining up along the lines of the conservative wing voting in a block and the liberal wing also voting in block. They are no longer impartial arbiters but just another political organization tied to each's political philosophy. As a consequence, cases are decided based on which political party is more fortunate in having the opportunity to nominate the most justices. This week saw at least three major decisions decided by 5-4 margins, each block voting in opposition to the other. This is certainly not what the framers intended in establishing the Supreme Court. What can be done about it? I don't agree with this. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor were appointed by conservatives, and yet they often swung in the opposite direction -in part, I think, as a reaction to an otherwise conservative-leaning body. Even Chief Justice Roberts has done so. My gut is that even if Trump is able to appoint a reliably-conservative replacement, it will force Roberts to the center on some issues - and likely on the same types of issues where Kennedy and O'Connor tended to swing. |
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 28, 2018 11:25:35 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as an impartial arbiter of the Constitution and the laws of the country. Yet, with the same Constitution and the same laws, different justices reach different opinions, usually lining up along the lines of the conservative wing voting in a block and the liberal wing also voting in block. They are no longer impartial arbiters but just another political organization tied to each's political philosophy. As a consequence, cases are decided based on which political party is more fortunate in having the opportunity to nominate the most justices. This week saw at least three major decisions decided by 5-4 margins, each block voting in opposition to the other. This is certainly not what the framers intended in establishing the Supreme Court. What can be done about it? I don't agree with this. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor were appointed by conservatives, and yet they often swung in the opposite direction -in part, I think, as a reaction to an otherwise conservative-leaning body. Even Chief Justice Roberts has done so. My gut is that even if Trump is able to appoint a reliably-conservative replacement, it will force Roberts to the center on some issues - and likely on the same types of issues where Kennedy and O'Connor tended to swing. Well said. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Jun 28, 2018 11:28:06 GMT -5
Clearly the right thing to do in the case of an authoritarian President who has wholesale abdicated our foreign policy and role in the world to Russia and operates only in his own self interest is to attack the only other functional branch of government for being "too partisan". Clearly the right thing to do is to get rid of the only branch of government that can preserve basic democratic systems. They're not doing a great job of it right now, but they actually have that power.
If you're really concerned about the Supreme Court being "too partisan", write your Senator and asked them to hold out for a moderate.
Ridiculous thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 14:43:30 GMT -5
Trump has been Twitter-ranting for months about the OBSTRUCTIONIST DEMOCRATS in Congress who are blocking approval of his nominees for ambassadorships and other senior government positions. I assume they have the ability to do the same with the Supreme Court nominee.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,218
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jun 28, 2018 20:15:23 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as an impartial arbiter of the Constitution and the laws of the country. Yet, with the same Constitution and the same laws, different justices reach different opinions, usually lining up along the lines of the conservative wing voting in a block and the liberal wing also voting in block. They are no longer impartial arbiters but just another political organization tied to each's political philosophy. As a consequence, cases are decided based on which political party is more fortunate in having the opportunity to nominate the most justices. This week saw at least three major decisions decided by 5-4 margins, each block voting in opposition to the other. This is certainly not what the framers intended in establishing the Supreme Court. What can be done about it? I don't agree with this. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice O'Connor were appointed by conservatives, and yet they often swung in the opposite direction -in part, I think, as a reaction to an otherwise conservative-leaning body. Even Chief Justice Roberts has done so. My gut is that even if Trump is able to appoint a reliably-conservative replacement, it will force Roberts to the center on some issues - and likely on the same types of issues where Kennedy and O'Connor tended to swing. This is exactly what I have been thinking, and I hope and pray that we are both right. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 2, 2018 13:04:16 GMT -5
Clearly the right thing to do in the case of an authoritarian President who has wholesale abdicated our foreign policy and role in the world to Russia and operates only in his own self interest is to attack the only other functional branch of government for being "too partisan". Clearly the right thing to do is to get rid of the only branch of government that can preserve basic democratic systems. They're not doing a great job of it right now, but they actually have that power. If you're really concerned about the Supreme Court being "too partisan", write your Senator and asked them to hold out for a moderate. Ridiculous thread. Ridiculous thread? Have you listened to the discussions about the next person Trump might nominate? Then, you might recognize the conversations have not been about education and experience and other qualities that might have prepared a nominee to become a Supreme Court justice. No, it is about Roe v. Wade. It's about the political views of potential nominees. We might as well have people run for these offices just like any other political position. |
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Jul 2, 2018 14:02:54 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is a political arm now. There's no point in pretending otherwise. But if it quickly devolves into a situation where the majority strikes down any legislation it doesn't like and upholds any that it does, then we've got a much bigger problem. The "rule of law" will have no legitimacy whatsoever.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Jul 2, 2018 14:29:57 GMT -5
Ridiculous thread? Have you listened to the discussions about the next person Trump might nominate? Then, you might recognize the conversations have not been about education and experience and other qualities that might have prepared a nominee to become a Supreme Court justice. No, it is about Roe v. Wade. It's about the political views of potential nominees. We might as well have people run for these offices just like any other political position. Oh, I recognize that appointment is inherently political. When was it not that way? Asking whether it is "obsolete" in the face of a fascist President / would-be-dictator is entirely different. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 2, 2018 19:15:06 GMT -5
Ridiculous thread? Have you listened to the discussions about the next person Trump might nominate? Then, you might recognize the conversations have not been about education and experience and other qualities that might have prepared a nominee to become a Supreme Court justice. No, it is about Roe v. Wade. It's about the political views of potential nominees. We might as well have people run for these offices just like any other political position. Oh, I recognize that appointment is inherently political. When was it not that way? Asking whether it is "obsolete" in the face of a fascist President / would-be-dictator is entirely different. Anthony Kennedy was approved by a unanimous vote. Even more recent, Sotomayor was approved 68-31 and Kagen 63-37. Your over-the-top biased comments on Trump are not worthy of comment. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Jul 2, 2018 20:55:33 GMT -5
Anthony Kennedy was approved by a unanimous vote. Even more recent, Sotomayor was approved 68-31 and Kagen 63-37. Anthony Kennedy is ancient history and was only nominated because Bork went down in defeat. It was political back then too. In Kagan and Sotomayor's case, control of the court didn't matter and a handful of New England Republicans voted for a Democratic nominee so they could look moderate. How does that not prove my point? When Scalia died and control of the court was up for grabs, Republicans refused to consider any nominees. When Clinton was polling well in September, Republican Senators went on record that they would block nominees indefinitely. Sure they are. Trump is a criminal and allowing him to nominate anyone for a court that will hear his crimes is a brazen conflict of interest, not to mention that the Supreme Court is one of the only checks we have on his fascist power plays. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2018 15:33:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 6:32:44 GMT -5
Amazing... Kavanaugh's Ken Starr colleague tries to clean up this insane document mess by saying Kavanaugh was "sleep deprived" when he wrote it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 6:37:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2018 8:11:32 GMT -5
Republicans are really going to release only about 3% of his documents to the Public before his hearing. Why the lack of transparency for a lifetime appointment?
|
|
