Is it routine for political attacks on Supreme Court Justices?

bob99 said:
But you said interpretation is cut and dry. If the laws were interpreted as a cut and dry procedure why should new legislature change them? The laws are being changed by the party that has control. Nothing cut and dry about it. Party before country. Business as usual.
Click to expand...
New legislature changes laws because times change or new information is gained where an update or replacement is needed.
 
CatAlum said:
Ridiculous…

Read about the Colorado web designer case. Read about how the Justices (of all stripes) struggled to apply the Constitution to various possible future fact patterns in this area. Sequestered from society? You mean like the Amish? Just silly.

Being an originalist DOES NOT mean you are oblivious to facts or society’s complexities and how it interacts with the Constitution. It means that you don’t allow changing facts (like technology) to impact the original meaning of the Constitutional section in question. You have to live in your world and understand the world and the facts of legal disputes in all of their complexity.

How could a Justice be sequestered and understand Facebook? Twitter? Cell Phones? Complex commercial transactions?
Click to expand...
Not surprised you attacked my position with belittling rhetoric. Par for the course.

I just want them to stay away from undue influence. Fairly simple concept but of course, you won't try to see my posts in their best light, you try to impose your most negative view of me and assume you are correct. Basically, I was trying to say that Justice should be blind but I'm sure you would disagree with that too if I were the one to post it...
 
CatAlum said:
Freedom of religion…a broad principal.

An actual Supreme Court case…Native American tribe wants to be allowed to ingest peyote as part of a religious practice. Fed government wants the right to control use and abuse of drugs. A Supreme Court panel, that doesn’t live in the world, would decide that?
Click to expand...
On their reservation, they aren’t subject to the Supreme Court and peyote only grows in some pretty specific conditions.

after that, in the old logical world, it came down to enforcement and prosecution. Nobody’s going to hassle this trippin’ injun guy if he’s just taking enough to get himself and his family high off the Rez. As long as he’s not trying to make bank selling it to everybody that he can convert on the street corner for a drive by huyuwasca ceremony or some Carlos Castaneda activities, no one really cares, right ?
 
Yappi said:
Not surprised you attacked my position with belittling rhetoric. Par for the course.

I just want them to stay away from undue influence. Fairly simple concept but of course, you won't try to see my posts in their best light, you try to impose your most negative view of me and assume you are correct. Basically, I was trying to say that Justice should be blind but I'm sure you would disagree with that too if I were the one to post it...
Click to expand...
Of course he went Captain Literal with sequestration, but at least he’s got an excuse. He may have just empaneled a jury.
 
Yappi said:
Not surprised you attacked my position with belittling rhetoric. Par for the course.

I just want them to stay away from undue influence. Fairly simple concept but of course, you won't try to see my posts in their best light, you try to impose your most negative view of me and assume you are correct. Basically, I was trying to say that Justice should be blind but I'm sure you would disagree with that too if I were the one to post it...
Click to expand...
You so misunderstand what’s going on that it invites a response.

The Constitution is made up of broad principles. It’s not like a speed limit law. The Justices MUST be in this world, live in it, understand it. What Scalia-types want is for a Justice to have the discipline to say…party to this lawsuit: the remedy you seek is not covered by the Constitution as currently constructed. We will not evolve the Constitution or create a new right. You have a potential remedy…go to Congress and have the Constitution amended. That is not an argument for sequestration (which means full separation) from the world you live in.
 
BTW…the conservative justices talk originalism, discipline, restraint; Scalia was the leader of this movement and a great advocate for his viewpoints.

BUT…the most activist decision in the history of the court was probably Bush v Gore, Scalia being on the activist (Bush) side. A “restrained” judge, in that circumstance, would have taken a deep gulp and said…”my principles compel me to stay out of this most activist of decision. Florida’s Supreme Court decided things ( for Gore) and we’ll leave it at that.” But partisanship took priority over judicial philosophy.
 
CatAlum said:
You so misunderstand what’s going on that it invites a response.

The Constitution is made up of broad principles. It’s not like a speed limit law. The Justices MUST be in this world, live in it, understand it. What Scalia-types want is for a Justice to have the discipline to say…party to this lawsuit: the remedy you seek is not covered by the Constitution as currently constructed. We will not evolve the Constitution or create a new right. You have a potential remedy…go to Congress and have the Constitution amended. That is not an argument for sequestration (which means full separation) from the world you live in.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I understand where Yappi is coming from in his previous comments. Being politically insular and aloof is a nice thing. It would be good if they lived most of their time outside of political considerations. The DC social life and everything should probably be miles away from their existence, and I think ACB in active motherhood and seeing the world through the eyes of a mom of young kids should be celebrated by all. People that diminish her presence on the court, in spite of a nod to replacing a woman with a woman, are the very worst kind of political creature. Just ride or die nutballs
 
Last edited:
cabezadecaballo said:
I agree, but I understand where Yappi is coming from in his previous comments. Being politically insular and aloof is a nice thing. It would be good if they lived most of their time outside of political considerations. The DC social life and everything should probably be miles away from their existence, and I think ACB in active motherhood and seeing the world through the eyes of a mom of young kids should be celebrated by all. People that diminish her presence on the court, in spite of a nod to replacing a woman with a woman, are the very worst kind of political creature. Just ride or die nutballs
Click to expand...
I’m all for motherhood, but aren’t you just making a cleverly worded diversity argument?
 
As to the original question…

I see plenty of evidence of nastiness both ways AND an increasing desire (by Alito, in particular) to conduct constitutional warfare outside of the halls of the Supreme Court.

I think the D’s ushered in the modern age with the Borking of Bork. After all, Scalia was unanimously approved by the Senate just a year or two prior. BUT, the modern age, the politicization of the Court, was inevitable, I think. The D’s have to own it, but I think it had to happen. Whether we can return it to something more civil.. I don’t know.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
I know you try to justify your rubberstamp Democrat support by pretending that others are just the same as you. You are wrong. You are worse.
Click to expand...
I am more of a realist than you Cabe. I expected a major take over of the house and senate by the right. By past midterm elections that should have been a given. I would have bet my last dime on it. I am smart enough to know these are not normal times. Trump is dragging down the right. He is the one person who could lose to Biden again. Enough crazy talk. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, but the system worked and he won by getting the most electoral votes. That is how it is supposed to work. Trump lost the popular vote by an even larger margin in 2020, and Biden won the electoral vote by the same margin as Trump in 2016. Why was it fair in 2016 but not 2020? I have stated numerous times I do not like Trump or Biden. I voted for Trump because I would take Pence over Harris. Now Pence is a RINO according to many on the right. What happened with the Senate vote this cycle should be a wake up call. Kemp, DeSantis etc. are winning by distancing themselves from Trump. You are wrong when you think that the majority here on Yappi being staunch Trump supporters represent the American public. Wake up Cabe. DeSantis will be a sure bet to beat Biden in 2024 unless the Trump supporters let Trump split the Republican party and get Biden reelected.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
Where the heck have you been anyways ? Are you actually Bob’s kid posting with his phone ?
Click to expand...
I have been on the football and college football forums. Not much going on of interest in the Debate forum. Same ol same ol getting rehashed. I made my opinions about the midterms earlier and was proven wrong again. Just like the majority on here. Our foreign policy, economy and immigration problem are a dumpster fire and yet the red wave never happened. A lot to process Cabe.
 
winbypin said:
New legislature changes laws because times change or new information is gained where an update or replacement is needed.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. How did the legislature change Roe vs, Wade? By the House? No.That was controlled big the left. By the Senate? No. That was still in the hands of the left. By the Supreme Court? And which party has the most justices on the court? You are saying that wasn't a political move? Was that "interpretation" made to please the majority of the population? Or was it made to appease a certain political entity of the population?
 
cabezadecaballo said:
That is the privilege of control of the Senate. The system is designed to work that way. Law cares not for your narcissistic frustrations. Be better.
Click to expand...
So the left controls the Senate. So you are in support of the Senate because the system is designed to work that way. So whatever this Senate rubberstamps is ok with you because that is how it is supposed to work. Good to know.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
When’s the last time you saw anything in major media about it ? Going to the home of these judges is pathetic, and it is actually against the law. The problem is the enforcement. That and the fact that the liberal hyenas actually like it. They’re awful people. The best tactic is a tactic that your people enjoy, said Saul Alinsky. They groom and cultivate these people by gaslighting them nonsense, and set them loose on the world.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Cabe! Enforce the law and protect the judges. Same with BLM and January 6th. All pathetic acts and against the law. Make no distinctions between them. They are all awful people.
 
bob99 said:
Gotcha. How did the legislature change Roe vs, Wade? By the House? No.That was controlled big the left. By the Senate? No. That was still in the hands of the left. By the Supreme Court? And which party has the most justices on the court? You are saying that wasn't a political move? Was that "interpretation" made to please the majority of the population? Or was it made to appease a certain political entity of the population?
Click to expand...
Roe vs wade wasn't legislature. It was decision by the court that was overturned when they heard a challenge to the case. Even Ginsburg said it RvW was a bad decision. All they did was move it back to the states where it belonged the whole time.
 
TigerPaw said:
And beer chugging Kavanaugh and the handmaiden were THE 2 singularly most qualified candidates. Lol. Yeah ok.

It is true that Dems value diversity and representation more than pubs. That is obvious. She is supremely qualified AND the first black female justice. I like that. Boo hoo.
Click to expand...
Diversity has nothing to do with interpretation of the law.

She's there because she's a black female period. Only qualification necessary. Just like the VP, Press secretary, gay man at Transportation, trans #2 at health, weirdo in charge of nuclear waste etc.
 
chs1971 said:
Robert Bork, 1987.

Democrats destroy the character and reputation of conservative nominees with lies and innuendo.

Up until Garland, Republicans might ask pointed questions but then voted to confirm Justices nominated by Democrats.

Anyone who claims different is lying or ignorant.
Click to expand...
Clarence Thomas
 
Cubsandtigers said:
The politicians have made the court political and the court will suffer for it. A couple thoughts on the court.

1. McConnell’s decision to weaponize Supreme Court nominations nuked public confidence in the court.

2. Democrats owe Brett Kavanaugh an apology. He’ll never get it but what was done to that man was terrible.
Click to expand...
Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Bret Kavanaugh.

Who weaponized SC nominations?
 
y2h said:
Diversity has nothing to do with interpretation of the law.

She's there because she's a black female period. Only qualification necessary. Just like the VP, Press secretary, gay man at Transportation, trans #2 at health, weirdo in charge of nuclear waste etc.
Click to expand...

Some diversity vs. no diversity has nothing to do w/ interpreting our Constitutional rights regarding full citizenship, suffrage, voting rights, interracial marriage, marriage equality, religious rights, reproductive rights? Ok if you say so.
 
TigerPaw said:
And beer chugging Kavanaugh and the handmaiden were THE 2 singularly most qualified candidates. Lol. Yeah ok.

It is true that Dems value diversity and representation more than pubs. That is obvious. She is supremely qualified AND the first black female justice. I like that. Boo hoo.
Click to expand...
The issues with Kavanaugh had nothing to do with qualifications. He has/had stellar legal and academic qualifications. There were allegations related to personal misconduct in his his past.

Coney Barrett, due to the right’s belief that she had “correct” views on Roe, was put on a fast track. Not unqualified, but thinner credentials than many…
 
bob99 said:
I have been on the football and college football forums. Not much going on of interest in the Debate forum. Same ol same ol getting rehashed. I made my opinions about the midterms earlier and was proven wrong again. Just like the majority on here. Our foreign policy, economy and immigration problem are a dumpster fire and yet the red wave never happened. A lot to process Cabe.
Click to expand...
Scary how many ill informed stupid people there are in the electorate. They voted for a potato in Pennsylvania
 
CatAlum said:
BTW…the conservative justices talk originalism, discipline, restraint; Scalia was the leader of this movement and a great advocate for his viewpoints.

BUT…the most activist decision in the history of the court was probably Bush v Gore, Scalia being on the activist (Bush) side. A “restrained” judge, in that circumstance, would have taken a deep gulp and said…”my principles compel me to stay out of this most activist of decision. Florida’s Supreme Court decided things ( for Gore) and we’ll leave it at that.” But partisanship took priority over judicial philosophy.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade was the most activist decision.
 
TigerPaw said:
Fair enough. Just say that then. It is more honest.

Democrat Presidents appoint liberal justices and Republican Presidents appoint conservative justices, duh, and under normal circumstances the court shifts between right or left lean and is more closely aligned with the populace. Till recently. I hope Dems stack the court in their favor at their first viable opportunity.
Click to expand...
Leftist are always for stacking the court.. Wonder Why?
 
Yappi said:
In my perfect world, I would sequester the Supreme Court away from all American society and have them never interact with (or represent) any American citizens. Their sole purpose would be to interpret the Constitution without any outside biases.

I don't want them to represent anyone. They should be intellectual free thinkers who only want what is best for our country based on the laws set out in the Constitution. They should be above partisan politics. No one should ever attempt to sway their opinions based on rewards or intimidation. Picketing in front of a Supreme Court Justice's house no matter the issue should be universally condemned.
Click to expand...
Yes.. Unfortunately the SC has been used as another legislative branch for many years.. Their primary purpose is to grant “special” rights not defined in the Constitution.
Fortunately for us they still uphold the 2A.. 2A is the dam holding back complete and total tyranny in our country.
 
CatAlum said:
The issues with Kavanaugh had nothing to do with qualifications. He has/had stellar legal and academic qualifications. There were allegations related to personal misconduct in his his past.

Coney Barrett, due to the right’s belief that she had “correct” views on Roe, was put on a fast track. Not unqualified, but thinner credentials than many…
Click to expand...

Can't disagree. KBJ has stellar qualifications also, minus any past personal conduct controversies, which was my point. The partisans can argue who is "more qualified" till the cows come home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top