Your Ideal Supreme Court Makeup (Liberal/Conservative axis)

What Supreme Court Political Lean Would You Prefer?


  • Total voters
    67
Can you actually cite the first one?

Regarding Phillips, you know this was a state level case that had zero to do with Obama right? The case dealt with public accommodations and denying protected classes on the basis of a 1sr amendment claim. The court gave an extremely narrow decision where Co civ rights comm fucked up by not treating every bakery who was in violation of those laws as they did Jack Phillips .

If Co had tteated all the same, my guess is the court would rule correctly in that you can't be a place of public accommodation and discriminate . That's any religion .If you wanted to discriminate then you'd have to be private entity who doesn't afford itself to the advantages of operating in the public domain . Pretty straightforward this is nothing to do with religious freedoms . Those protections don't apply when you place yourself as a public accommodation. That goes for any religion

The other points I'll assume you're conceeding

Don't expect @Ripskater to even try to answer your questions beside repeating empty talking points. Even as those points are proven wrong or if he is asked to substantiate them he will simply then disappear to only repeat the same wrong points again and again in trolling other threads.

He is avoiding this issue below with me like the plague because it exposes his immense hypocrisy and lack of morals and penchant for lying.


Once again you show your hypocrisy knows no bounds and that your morals are vacant as I am quite sure you were one who complained about 'un-elected judges' in the past when it came to them over ruling issues you agreed with and now you embrace using them the other way.
 
Seven impartial justices absent of all partisanship or biases in their scrutiny of the law.

Then it wouldn't matter what shitshow the rest of American politics puts on.
 
it can exist in a person's jurisprudence history. You can examine their record and see if they tend to follow partisan lines.

Again the prior history of those on the Supreme Court until recently was that you could not simply assume by looking at a Judges prior Judgement History which way he would Find on any given issue by looking at partisan lines. Prior judges did not have histories of their findings strictly following partisan lines. There Findings history or Judgement spanned across the spectrum given the issue put forth. It is only a relatively recent thing that you can almost 100% peg which way the Judges will find via partisan lines and that is because Presidents are ensuring they only put forth Judges who signal their partisanship as Kavanaugh did to Trump.

You can look at their past rulings to see which way they stand.

Ginsburg,
 
lets bet then.

Stand behind your point and man up. Sig and Ave bet. I can easily substantiate whether I am American or not.

And my posting history certainly factually shows I fight more with the Left on this forum than the right.
<{MingNope}>
 
Strong conservative court is necessary to reverse the leftist agenda of the last president. Our borders need protected, the lgbtq agenda needs to be shut down and we need religious freedom and 2nd amendment protected after Obama
Honestly what religious freedoms have been stifled. Anyone stopping you from praying or going to church?
That religious freedom is the biggest lie told to the right wing Rubes. Hell you can even worship Satan in the US as long as you are not breaking laws.
Christians in Muslim countries are laughing their asses off listening to Christians in America complain about religious freedoms.
 
Honestly what religious freedoms have been stifled. Anyone stopping you from praying or going to church?
That religious freedom is the biggest lie told to the right wing Rubes. Hell you can even worship Satan in the US as long as you are not breaking laws.
Christians in Muslim countries are laughing their asses off listening to Christians in America complain about religious freedoms.
merlin_126564587_61cbce47-8b20-4676-b08e-8b0f2287f63a-articleLarge.jpg


And many others like him have been sued.
 
@Fawlty no offense, and I think you're a super neat guy, but this thread topic suuuuucks

Might as well ask a group of kids at the McDonald's ball pit whether they prefer defined contribution or defined benefit pension plan policy.

Anyways, if we were to list the landmark decisions by conservative majority courts (Dred Scott, Lochner, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore) versus the landmark decisions by liberal courts (Brown v. Board, NY Times v. Sullivan, Miranda v. Arizona, Tinker v. Des Moines), it's not even close. History looks favorably on liberal courts' decisions and shits on conservative courts' decisions, since the former is based in principle and pragmatism, and the latter is generally based in tradition and retention of existing power.
 
@Fawlty no offense, and I think you're a super neat guy, but this thread topic suuuuucks

Might as well ask a group of kids at the McDonald's ball pit whether they prefer defined contribution or defined benefit pension plan policy.

Anyways, if we were to list the landmark decisions by conservative majority courts (Dred Scott, Lochner, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore) versus the landmark decisions by liberal courts (Brown v. Board, NY Times v. Sullivan, Miranda v. Arizona, Tinker v. Des Moines), it's not even close. History looks favorably on liberal courts' decisions and shits on conservative courts' decisions, since the former is based in principle and pragmatism, and the latter is generally based in tradition and retention of existing power.
It's being panned (see what I did there) by legal pros, and I'm not surprised, but I'm not worried about that. Notice the end of my OP, I anticipated that legal minds would have different opinions on what would make up their ideal SC.

Regular people think of the SC in terms of liberal and conservative, no matter how annoying that is.
 
merlin_126564587_61cbce47-8b20-4676-b08e-8b0f2287f63a-articleLarge.jpg


And many others like him have been sued.
So that is your example of assault on religious freedom. FYI the baker won.

I actually agreed with the baker. He agreed to make a cake just not the specific one they wanted.
 
@Fawlty no offense, and I think you're a super neat guy, but this thread topic suuuuucks

Might as well ask a group of kids at the McDonald's ball pit whether they prefer defined contribution or defined benefit pension plan policy.

Anyways, if we were to list the landmark decisions by conservative majority courts (Dred Scott, Lochner, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore) versus the landmark decisions by liberal courts (Brown v. Board, NY Times v. Sullivan, Miranda v. Arizona, Tinker v. Des Moines), it's not even close. History looks favorably on liberal courts' decisions and shits on conservative courts' decisions, since the former is based in principle and pragmatism, and the latter is generally based in tradition and retention of existing power.
@Fawlty and I never agree, but this is a good thread. It gets people talking
 
With the recent development of a strongly conservative court, I'm interested in what flavor of court people would choose if they could, and why.

Anyone still running with the idea that the court is more conservative than it was is too brainwashed by the media to ever understand reality or SHAME.

When even Ruth Bader Ginsburg is calling you shameful for your actions, you got nothing left. Democrats have lost all morality with their minds...does not matter how many times you guys lie to yourselves and claim you are in the right, your professional victimization has done you in.
 
It's being panned (see what I did there) by legal pros, and I'm not surprised, but I'm not worried about that. Notice the end of my OP, I anticipated that legal minds would have different opinions on what would make up their ideal SC.

Regular people think of the SC in terms of liberal and conservative, no matter how annoying that is.

Well, even given the shitty perspective here, I don't see a whole lot of use in split courts in general anymore, since the days of principled swing votes from the right are pretty well extinct. The only two justices of the past decade who ever engage in principled swing votes are the liberals and Roberts. Kennedy's supposed swing votes were arbitrary and full of shit.
 
Well, even given the shitty perspective here, I don't see a whole lot of use in split courts in general anymore, since the days of principled swing votes from the right are pretty well extinct. The only two justices of the past decade who ever engage in principled swing votes are the liberals and Roberts. Kennedy's supposed swing votes were arbitrary and full of shit.
Would it really be too bold to suggest that there is a significant (though not determinant) effect whereby SC Justices work backwards from a partisan political bias? If you polled Americans on that you'd hit high 70s affirmative, I'd bet.
 
Anyone still running with the idea that the court is more conservative than it was is too brainwashed by the media to ever understand reality or SHAME.

You're a moron, and you should stick to subjects on which you aren't hopelessly uninformed. At the very least, you shouldn't embarrassingly say that others are brainwashed away from reality.

Since the Court gained a conservative majority (Kennedy was firmly a conservative jurist, even if less so than Thomas, Alito, and Scalia), the Court has reversed decades-old stare decisis toward blatantly political causes. They've held that compulsory public unions dues are somehow a contravention of 1A rights because....government is the adverse party in public collective bargaining: that was a reversal of 70 years of jurisprudence. They've held that campaign finance regulations are a contravention of the First Amendment and that money is speech: a reversal of 40 years of jurisprudence without any basis in previous opinions. They've held that government whistleblowers being punished by the government is not a violation of the First Amendment. They've held that the 2nd Amendment prohibits states from regulating individual firearm ownership, which was a reversal of 70 years of jurisprudence.

The Roberts Court was already considered probably the most conservative Court since the Lochner era. Now that Kavanaugh is on the bench, it is undoubtedly, without question, the most conservative Court since Lochner.

Would it really be too bold to suggest that there is a significant (though not determinant) effect whereby SC Justices work backwards from a partisan political bias? If you polled Americans on that you'd hit high 70s affirmative, I'd bet.

Lol yes, and they'd be right (although I think their suspicions would be pointed in the wrong direction).

I'd say it was less so 1930-1980. But before then (when former politicians were commonly appointed), and especially now, it's pretty glaring. As JVS has (correctly) opined, the ACA cases were a pretty blatant issue of relevance to this phenomenon.

As far as the liberal court currently goes, the Justices (Breyer, Kagan, Soto, and RBG) aren't nearly as liberal as the liberal titans of yesteryear like Douglas, Warren, Brennan, and Marshall. But, to be certain, those justices weren't considered overly partisan by conservative voters of their eras. In fact, Brennan and Warren were appointed by Republicans.
 
You're a moron, and you should stick to subjects on which you aren't hopelessly uninformed. At the very least, you shouldn't embarrassingly say that others are brainwashed away from reality.

Since the Court gained a conservative majority (Kennedy was firmly a conservative jurist, even if less so than Thomas, Alito, and Scalia), the Court has reversed decades-old stare decisis toward blatantly political causes.

Do not even try to come back at me, of all people, the person that has displayed the most political bias on these boards to the point of actually JUSTIFYING a knife attack that may end up taking a persons life.

PAnyways, fuck this guy. Too bad he didn't bleed out. Dude's policies are like a combination of Salman Al-Saud, Fulgencio Batista, and Donald Trump: equal parts wonky religious conservatism, shameless rich bootlicking, and reductive strong man fetishism.

You are nothing more than a radical HACK and your attempt at spin is proof of that. Kavanaugh is taking the place of another conservative and his HISTORY has proven he is not more conservative and THUS THE COURT IS NOT MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BEFORE. Hack. And a pathetic human to boot.
 
@Fawlty and I never agree, but this is a good thread. It gets people talking

It gets people talking about an issue on which they are uninformed and hostile to becoming informed - and only reason backwards from a . This is the single most Dunning-Kruger-esque topic in political discourse. See this post below for good example.

Do not even try to come back at me, of all people, the person that has displayed the most political bias on these boards to the point of actually JUSTIFYING a knife attack that may end up taking a persons life.



You are nothing more than a radical HACK and your attempt at spin is proof of that. Kavanaugh is taking the place of another conservative and his HISTORY has proven he is not more conservative and THUS THE COURT IS NOT MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BEFORE. Hack. And a pathetic human to boot.

Color me shocked (shocked!) that you aren't even capable of trying to argue the merits and thus have to resort to only name calling.

Kavanaugh is taking the place of a relatively moderate conservative. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh himself would be a considerable move to the right of the Kennedy on issues of federal regulation (his philosophy is so extreme here that he has even opined that the judiciary should be able to usurp the legislature in protecting corporations from regulation), administrative law, 4th Amendment and privacy rights (he'll be most noticeably more "conservative" in this area), sovereignty of political questions, and even campaign finance (an area where Kennedy was nowhere near a moderate himself).

Every single expert on Supreme Court history and jurisprudence that I have seen anywhere has stated (the obvious truth that) Kavanaugh will represent a considerable move to the right. Meanwhile, you are denying this reality because....they were both conservative appointees? Lol, I'm sure you think that John Roberts and Clarence Thomas are interchangeable too.

Since you clearly are not at all informed on this subject, I welcome you to visit my thread (located here) on the matter.
 
It gets people talking about an issue on which they are uninformed and hostile to becoming informed.

Yeah, the same tactic your fellow Trotskists, the feminists say when they accuse an innocent person of rape...it gets people talking and thus OK.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night and continue thinking you are remotely close to being decent.

Every single expert on Supreme Court history and jurisprudence that I have seen anywhere has stated (the obvious truth that) Kavanaugh will represent a considerable move to the right.

Lies, lies and more lies. Its all you ever do here.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/13/ruth-bader-ginsburg-blasts-brett-kavanaugh-hearing/

In fact, every single person on the court has called out you radical loonies.

Or how about the MOST DECORATED FEMALE LAYWER TO EVER ADDRESS THE SUPREME COURT THAT IS ALSO LIBERAL?

"I have argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman. I worked in the Solicitor General’s Office for 13 years during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Because I am a liberal Democrat and feminist, I expect my friends on the left will criticize me for speaking up for Kavanaugh. But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...st-heres-why-i-support-judge-kavanaugh-219081


You have nothing, you never have anything...you just post bullshit and hope no one ever addresses what you say DIRECTLY and when they do...you ignore cause you cant defend bullshit.
 
Yeah, the same tactic your fellow Trotskists, the feminists say when they accuse an innocent person of rape...it gets people talking and thus OK.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night and continue thinking you are remotely close to being decent.



Lies, lies and more lies. Its all you ever do here.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/13/ruth-bader-ginsburg-blasts-brett-kavanaugh-hearing/

In fact, every single person on the court has called out you radical loonies.

Or how about the MOST DECORATED FEMALE LAYWER TO EVER ADDRESS THE SUPREME COURT THAT IS ALSO LIBERAL?

"I have argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman. I worked in the Solicitor General’s Office for 13 years during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Because I am a liberal Democrat and feminist, I expect my friends on the left will criticize me for speaking up for Kavanaugh. But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...st-heres-why-i-support-judge-kavanaugh-219081


You have nothing, you never have anything...you just post bullshit and hope no one ever addresses what you say DIRECTLY and when they do...you ignore cause you cant defend bullshit.

That doesn't actually address his point about Kavanaugh being a move to the right. That was Ginsberg speaking on the hearing itself, not the judicial leanings of the nominee.
 
That doesn't actually address his point about Kavanaugh being a move to the right. That was Ginsberg speaking on the hearing itself, not the judicial leanings of the nominee.

Took you long enough to show up and doing what you always do. Only speak to defend Trotsky and do so by ignoring everything. /golfclap to the guy swinging from the Shertards nuts.

Ginsburg addressed the way they were treating Kavanaugh which means what is being said about him dumbass and you also completely ignored the one you cant defend him against, the second one...the liberal female feminist that matched every single example he said had NO ONE saying what she said.

Goodbye, useful idiot.
 
Took you long enough to show up and doing what you always do. Only speak to defend Trotsky and do so by ignoring everything. /golfclap to the guy swinging from the Shertards nuts.

Ginsburg addressed the way they were treating Kavanaugh which means what is being said about him dumbass and you also completely ignored the one you cant defend him against, the second one...the liberal female feminist that matched every single example he said had NO ONE saying what she said.

Goodbye, useful idiot.

You didn't read your own link. She was upset about the partisanship that the hearings have reverted to. She did not say a single word about Kavanaugh's judicial leanings.

@Trotsky's statement was that Kavanaugh has a more right-leaning judicial philosophy than the justice that he is replacing.

I don't know why you're so over-emotional about this. Just read better.
 
Back
Top