Your Ideal Supreme Court Makeup (Liberal/Conservative axis)

[MikeMcMann]

I'm not sure what you're talking about Mike.

Did you ever have the position prior complaining about Judicial Activism and how 'Liberal Judges' should not be creating law?

And understand we all know your posting history before you lie.

 

[MikeMcMann]

GTFO with your smug, holier than thou bullshit. What you're suggesting is as preposterous as people not wanting a left or right leaning President in office. If you're being honest, you want the party that favors your shit to be in power. That's just a fact. If not, what are you even doing trying to push for your values to be the norm, if you don't actually want them to be?

Sorry but you are using your own short sighted narrow mind as the basis for assuming for others.

i would never want an activist judiciary to be swinging with the partisan crowd because I absolutely understand that I will not always be on the 'winning' side. I would 10)% prefer an independent judiciary that can act as a check and balance to both the left and right.

You are arguing here that we would all be in favour of no checks and balances anywhere in the system and let partisan politics rule the day in every regard until the party loses power then have it swing to the extreme the other way.

Sorry but I see chaos in that. I see chaos in the way the US system is not teetering with the Senate and House almost entirely giving up their role as check and balance in favour of partisan politics at all costs. That will IMO lead to horrible ramifications in the future if it goes unchecked and only the citizens can force the politicians to check those worst aspects of their nature.

Do not, DO NOT, assume because you are an empty partisan shell at this point who cannot see anything but the game that everyone else is also.

 

[HereticBD]

Do not, DO NOT, assume because you are an empty partisan shell at this point who cannot see anything but the game that everyone else is also.

I'm not, I'M NOT, assuming anything. I KNOW you're being dishonest. You would not say word one in protest if the courts had justices favoring the policies you support. Give it a fucking rest. You trying to play this "neutral" game, is about convincing as Don Lemon claiming to be non-partisan news anchor.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Sorry but the crux of his argument was how the Court reached its conclusion - by applying a legal argument that they had previously disregarded. And that by disregarding the reasoning they had used to uphold Roe and Casey to overturn Bowers, they had created the means by which to invalidate almost all sex related laws in the future.









Over and over again, Scalia points out that the reasoning applied to overturn Bowers is contrary to the reasoning applied to uphold Roe.

Below, Scalia points out that the Court in overturning Bowers, never goes so far as actually assigning homosexual sodomy the status of a fundamental right, rather they hide it within the "right to privacy".



This is the section on morals based laws:




Over and over, Scalia hammers home that the Court has departed from precedent to advance its personal goals. That the reasoning used to uphold Roe and abortion is now being used to overturn Bowers. One of his frequent points is that the Court says something about society and that the claim is not supportable as fact. But he does not say that the Court should not look at such things. He supports the relevance of looking at such things here:



As society evolves, the judiciary must be aware of changes determine if these changes in society align with fundamental interests protected by the law. That dictates what level of legal protection they are entitled to.

Sorry, but Scalia's point is not that the Court is taking place of the legislature but that the Court is contradicting itself to achieve it's personal ends. And that if the Court was consistent then would have upheld Bowers and allowed Texas to continue criminalizing sodomy. You have to ignore the first 4 sections of the dissent to limit his dissent to the idea about the Court overtaking the legislature.

When I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong.

I was wrong.

You did a better job than my con law professor.

We focused on the legislative argument.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm not, I'M NOT, assuming anything. I KNOW you're being dishonest. You would not say word one in protest if the courts had justices favoring the policies you support. Give it a fucking rest. You trying to play this "neutral" game, is about convincing as Don Lemon claiming to be non-partisan news anchor.

You are like the cheating man who assumes and is paranoid his wife is cheating. In other words you are projecting.

You can see lots of posters upthread who can recognize the danger of no checks and balances and a partisan court. I know, I KNOW, in your world each and every one of them is lying and each and every one would want a supreme court that swung as partisan as each election rolled.

I won't convince you otherwise as you simply cannot comprehend that everyone is not like you and sees this as a partisan blood sport but I can absolutely say I would see it as very dangerous and something I would HATE and it find it very worrying. I would not want to see the entire bedrock of society being open to partisan sway and then all reversed the next election with no zero checks and balances as you suggest because I can recognize that things will not always go my way. To you, you don't care. You win when your side is in power and you lose when they are not and that is what it is all about to you.

Not to me. Sorry. I think it would be far more costly and dangerous if things were allowed to swing to political whims with no checks and balances.

 

[xcvbn]

Like most people I'm more center right.

So I'm conservative on some issues and more center left on others.

To support the issues I want protected I end up voting for more conservative on all issues then i would like at times.

Just like this poll.

???????????????????

 

[xcvbn]

They existed for the people who had to suffer under them for any length of time.

You can tell yourself it never legally existed, but that doesn't change anything.

Did you get your farmer welfare from daddy yet? I want to know how you spend my money

 

[oldshadow]

???????????????????

I would say most people in the US are center right, the majority anyway.

 

[xcvbn]

I would say most people in the US are center right, the majority anyway.

???????????????????????

 

[The Diplomat]

I suppose if I could choose, I'd like everyone of them to be a middle of the road centrist. But if I had to choose otherwise, 4 cons and 4 libs with a centrist as the deciding factor.

 

[xcvbn]

The Supreme Court should contain only the most qualified, impartial judges. It's that simple.

Politicizing the one branch of government with arguably the most power is a recipe for disaster.

 

[oldshadow]

The Supreme Court should contain only the most qualified, impartial judges. It's that simple.

Politicizing the one branch of government with arguably the most power is a recipe for disaster.

That doesn't exist every person brings some of their personal beliefs to their job.

The best you can hope for is they know this and try and take it into account.

 

[My Spot]

Sorry but you are using your own short sighted narrow mind as the basis for assuming for others.

i would never want an activist judiciary to be swinging with the partisan crowd because I absolutely understand that I will not always be on the 'winning' side. I would 10)% prefer an independent judiciary that can act as a check and balance to both the left and right.

You are arguing here that we would all be in favour of no checks and balances anywhere in the system and let partisan politics rule the day in every regard until the party loses power then have it swing to the extreme the other way.

Sorry but I see chaos in that. I see chaos in the way the US system is not teetering with the Senate and House almost entirely giving up their role as check and balance in favour of partisan politics at all costs. That will IMO lead to horrible ramifications in the future if it goes unchecked and only the citizens can force the politicians to check those worst aspects of their nature.

Do not, DO NOT, assume because you are an empty partisan shell at this point who cannot see anything but the game that everyone else is also.

lol
Still playing the "I'm not American and supposedly don't care about politics but I'm completely unbiased" gimmick? That's not best for business.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

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

Can you cite specific laws passed during the Obama terms that:
1) gave deference to LBGTQ over non LBGQT persons

2) violated the basic tenets of an individual's rights to practice religion of his/her choosing

3) restricted an otherwise qualified individual's rights to possess a gun?

Also as you've been pointed to in various other threads, illegal immigration has been trending down for years

 

[Ripskater]

Can you cite specific laws passed during the Obama terms that:
1) gave deference to LBGTQ over non LBGQT persons

2) violated the basic tenets of an individual's rights to practice religion of his/her choosing

3) restricted an otherwise qualified individual's rights to possess a gun?

Obama pushed the gay agenda, threatened the state of North Carolina with education funding for not putting men in the girls school restrooms.

Not to mention his appointed judges that would rule against Jack Phillips and Christian freedom.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

If a conservative court had actual contingencies to deal with issues like global warming and the incoming Robotics/AI fields, where rampant growth needs to be curtailed and structured, sure. But the conservative courts are more concerned with eliminating Roe v Wade. I'm more concerned about the military building killer drone swarms.

Given conservative court leanings I'm inclined to believe they would ok mass drone swarms

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Obama pushed the gay agenda, threatened the state of North Carolina with education funding for not putting men in the girls school restrooms.

Not to mention his appointed judges that would rule against Jack Phillips and Christian freedom.

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

 

[BAM]

I want originalists. I don't care about their politics. No more of this "living breathing document" BS

 

[MikeMcMann]

lol
Still playing the "I'm not American and supposedly don't care about politics but I'm completely unbiased" gimmick? That's not best for business.

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.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The Supreme Court should contain only the most qualified, impartial judges. It's that simple.

Politicizing the one branch of government with arguably the most power is a recipe for disaster.

That doesn't exist every person brings some of their personal beliefs to their job.

The best you can hope for is they know this and try and take it into account.

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.