By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Is Retiring.

NightlyPoe said:
Conejo said:
This is frightening because there is a chance that Trump will appoint someone either unqualified or ultra-conservative.

Having the Supreme Court be a battle ground for bi-partisan politics is one of the U.S. system's failures.

Trump's got his list, and pretty much all of them are qualified.  The person he chooses will most likely have sterling credentials.

I agree that having the Supreme Court be a battleground for politics is a huge failure.  But I blame one ideological camp for that, liberals.  They long ago decided that the law isn't important and that rulings should be based on who they morally think should win.  They have set up a super-legislature.  The reason that the Federalist Society was born was a direct allergic reaction to such an unprincipled and dangerous abuse of our least democratic and supposedly neutral branch of government.

vivster said:
- snip -

- snip -

There's a lot to unpack in this. First of all you need to elaborate on why you blame specifically liberals for the politicization the Supreme Court. There's been a literalism vs contextualism debate essentially since the Constitution was drafted, and each side essentially translates to conservatives vs liberals. They have been fighting for sway in the Supreme Court since I don't even know how long. 

Plus to say that liberals deem that "the law isn't important" is fairly inaccurate, and honestly charged with bias.  To place the blame entirely on one camp is part of the issue. 

As it stands, I do not agree that all of Trump's candidates have great credentials, and I certainly wouldn't even agree that many measure up to the position. Mike Lee for example is a Utah Republic Senator who has never even served as a judge. He is also a person who is know to be committed to his conservative principles. This does not seem unbiased to me. 

Again, the entire American system and the divide between liberal and conservative in the country is simply backwards. Trump can and probably will elect a very conservative judge and turn this Supreme Court to the most Conservative in recent American history. This is also in light that Conservative judges have already had the number advantage for the last half century. It would be equally wrong if it was this liberal dominated.

Not to mention that laws by definition are to uphold what is morally right in society. If we were to begin a discussion on this though it would involve a lot of unpacking of premises that is simply too time-consuming. 



Around the Network

Hold on tight my American friends you are about to take a hard right turn. I just wished that parties first priority isn't undoing everything the last one did, instead of how new policy going forward can improve where we are today. I am not talking budget cuts but it is very obvious that Trump is looking at reversing Roe vs Wade and fundamentally changing America. Make no mistake about it this, this is not entirely the fault of Trump it was Nevada Harry Reed who first changed the rules for the nuclear option to give away the 60 vote threshold so this is where it is right now. To be honest with you, if it came to my decision I would rather stand with the world then stand with America at this point and this has nothing to do with the American people only American policy from President Trump.



NightlyPoe said: Now, such low-hanging fruit is generally gone.  Any "progress" liberals want to make in the courts is on a scaffold of increasingly shaking reasoning and nonsense like empathy standards.  Go back and watch the presidential debates where Clinton and Obama address the Supreme Court nominees they would send up.  Fidelity to the law as it is written is rarely mentioned if at all.  It's a place to win.

The problem is that the conservative justices make equally idiotic decisions based on shaky reasoning. I mean, I agree that the abortion ruling is a total strech, and I'm generally pro-abortion. But take a look at these moronic rights destroying rulings... 

Texas Racial Gerrymandering

I shouldn't even have to explain this one. 

Yellow Dog Contracts

Back in the early 1900's, when you got a job your employer made you sign a contract to give up all your legal rights. It basically lowered you to the level of a yellow dog. In the 30's laws were passed to make these contracts illegal. Modern law offers something called arbitration, where you and another party agree to have a dispute settled, not by a judge, but by a third party. Many modern employers force you to sign an arbitration clause. Once both sides have signed an arbitration clause a dispute cannot legally enter court. This way long, unneeded court battles won't ensue, because arbitration is infinitely faster. It's better for both parties. But now, many employers include a clause in their arbitration contracts that say something like "You must pay a fee of $10,000 for any arbitration." So if your employer decides to stiff you on $5,000 of overtime pay, you legally can't get the money back without first paying $10,000 for arbitration. And so arbitration contracts have legally become the same as yellow dog contracts. This of course is a clear violation of laws written in the 30's, and illegal. But the current supreme court has ruled otherwise. 

Discrimination based on country of origin. 

During WW2, we threw all of our Japanese citizens into camps, under B.S. national security reasoning. This of course was illegal, and was ruled illegal decades later. The Supreme court just ruled that Trump's travel ban is legal. Nevermind that the reasoning for Trump's travel ban of majority Muslim countries is using the same B.S. national security logic. 

If you don't believe me, read the dissenting opinions, and majority opinions of these rulings. Any idiot can see that the current Supreme Court is a Kangaroo court, just as much as the court that ruled in favor of abortion based on shaky "Freedom of Search and Siezure" grounds. Just as much as any court that would have ignored people's Right to Bear Arms, based on shaky reasoning. 

Prediction: The Supreme court will rule that there's no such thing as separation between court and state in the next ten years. Even though it is clearly written in the constitution that there is, and any moron can see it. 



Early 1900s and WW2?! I can name cases from yesterday where Leftist SCOTUS and federal judges completely ignored the law. They are a joke. The Supreme Court ruled that some wanker federal judge in Hawaii can’t infringe on the constitutional authority of the president. What a fascist bench lol. And the leftist judges on the SCOTUS agreed with the Hawaiian judge lmao. They are useless, “social justice” isn’t law.

 

 

also, if you meant “separation of church and state”, it’s nowhete in the constitution. That’s some random quote from Thomas jefferson lol. So no, it’s clearly not “where any moron can read” and that prediction is silly and over dramatic.

Last edited by massimus - on 28 June 2018