18 thoughts on “Supreme Court Justices”

  1. As an outsider, it appears The Supreme Court has been used to overturn the will of the people for over a hundred years. They push through pet projects for the rich and powerful. The latest Ruth Vader controversy is about abortion. Abortion turns a people into consumers. Sex addled consumers. Industrialists want people as pawns that consume their crap unquestioningly. Do not waver on the off chance that the America people might take back control of the star chamber. This is popularism and the deep state is on the back foot. IMO.

    1. Abortion was championed to reduce the population of unwanted groups. Little has changed now except some adjectives.

  2. The big issue now is abortion. The Roe vs Wade decision ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. It should be noted that all but 11 states have pro-abortion laws so there would be little or no change for the large majority if struck down. Yet the issue is being sold as the end of abortion in order to generate as much political pressure as possible. This is a function, again, of the news media as an adjunct arm of the Democratic party. If the news became more of an independent observer of events than a cheerleader for the left, the level of stress and pressure being generated would decrease enormously.

  3. Well, John Roberts saying there were no dem and rep judges; didn’t go far.
    And it seems Justice Ginsburg’s death wish was, fake news.
    {Certainly she was not so stupid and/or drugged to say this??}

    But then again, perhaps, maybe, John has some breaking news to confirm this Ruth’s dying wish story.

    1. The idea that there are no Democrat or Republican (liberal or conservative) judges is absurd on its face. On any given supreme court decision, you can predict with high certainty how particular justices are going to vote based on their liberal or conservative nature.

  4. Well too bad it just pure Power, if Republicans were truly about principals that they spoke of in 2016 they should push for something like this.
    Use the RBG Seat as a bargaining chip to get it passed. Prevent the gaming of the system and let RBG seat be the 2021, and Thomas the 2023 and so on. Allow more consistent turn over.

    1. I forgot to mention that don’t quite like the Section 3 mentioning of party leaders and codifying parties in the constitution. But no real way of trying to keep the original intent beside maybe at the start of every session of congress each Judge could name a sitting senator to represent them but their are issues with that.

    2. “Well too bad it just pure Power, ”

      To some extent yes. In both cases, it is the power granted under the Constitution, or in other words, following the law.

      Democrats always want to skirt the law. They use prosecutorial discretion to avoid prosecuting elected officials who broke serious crimes just as they use it to persecute dissidents and reward their activist murders and looters.

      They always have some sort of shenanigans in place to justify why laws shouldn’t be followed, as we see with SCOTUS nominees. And when all that fails, they accuse people of being gang rapists and racists or they go around assaulting people in public while doing billions in property damage.

      You see, putting mobs in the street and using corporations to enact party policy is power too. There are some big differences between how the parties use power.

      1. Wodan you nuts to say it the law. Essentially the bare essence of the McConnell rule now is as long as their separate control of the Senate and the presidency the Senate leader shouldn’t hold a confirmation vote.
        That all it boils down to now.

        Please name example of the prosecutorial discretion to not go after elected official and NO HILLARY does not count. She should of lost her job.

        I don’t think I’ve seen a democrat do something as egregious as this. In reference to another topic II Duce would be proud.

        1. ‘Elections have consequences,’ to quote a past President.

          What you’re complaining about is that a liberal Justice who continually voted against the law because of her personal politics may be replaced with a conservative Justice who votes according to the law.

          The idea is that Justices judge based on the law, and therefore it doesn’t really matter who’s nominated. But Democrats have been putting political operatives into the Supreme Court for decades, in order to gain by law the powers they couldn’t achieve through votes.

          Imagine if the Supreme Court actually made their judgements based on the law. At least 90% of laws of the last hundred years would be tossed out as unconstitutional.

          And that’s what the Democrats fear.

        2. @Engineer

          Trump’s replacement for RBG, if chosen right, should allow the Trump Supreme Court to declare Democrat ballots fraudulent. Then afterwards, Trump can pack the Supreme Court with 200 more justices.

          Afterwards, I won’t have to obey the Democrats and their human trash class anymore. Long live the Trump dynasty.

        3. the McConnell rule

          Uh huh, McConnell isn’t that smart to come up with this. It was Harry Reid. McConnell just got the first chance to implement it.

          Please name example of the prosecutorial discretion to not go after elected official and NO HILLARY does not count.

          Ah yes, you can’t use the most obvious example, because (spins the wheel of excuses) “She should of lost her job.” Except that proves Wodun’s point. She didn’t lose her job, and instead was being considered for a promotion. However, the far junior submariner was prosecuted and sent to jail.

          Anyway, I’m detracting from the great response by Edward Grant.

        4. If you haven’t seen Dems do anything as egregious as that, you weren’t paying attention.
          Since when did your spelling and grammar get so bad? Did someone hack your account?

    3. “Use the RBG Seat as a bargaining chip to get it passed.”

      Never know, maybe McConnell will use the chip to get House of Representatives pass an actual budget bill- before the election.

  5. Careful Rand. Talk like that makes you sound like a libertarian, and we all know that libertarians aren’t folks anyone should listen to. Right…?

  6. From what I’ve read, a supreme court vacancy has opened in the last year of a presidential term 29 times in US history. In every single time, the president has nominated someone to fill that vacancy. When control of the Senate is in the hands of the same political party as the president, the nominations are confirmed in almost every case, usually before the election. When the presidency and Senate are not of the same party, the nominations are not confirmed. This has happened many times before. Trump has an obligation to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. The Senate has the prerogative to act on that nomination or not as it sees fit.

Comments are closed.