Current Events > The Supreme Court is fucked

(+) Yeah! (+)

The judges are supposed to interpret the law objectively, yet we are constantly arguing over whether or not one party should be allowed to nominate a justice and tip the scales in their favor. We also see the justices regularly vote down party lines. Plus, these jokers are allowed to hold their positions until they die or quit despite no one voting them in. What a joke.
---

Huh?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Huh?

He's saying Scotus has unprecedentedly become partisan garbage recently.

Not that hard to comprehend, amigo.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Huh?

He's saying Scotus has unprecedentedly become partisan garbage recently.

Not that hard to comprehend, amigo.

You have to consider that it's Proudclad you are talking about.
---

So what are you going to do about it?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The judges are supposed to interpret the law objectively, yet we are constantly arguing over whether or not one party should be allowed to nominate a justice and tip the scales in their favor. We also see the justices regularly vote down party lines. Plus, these jokers are allowed to hold their positions until they die or quit despite no one voting them in. What a joke.

Agreed.

Theyre supposed to interpret THE LAW.

If the law says if X, then Y, they should bite their lip and say ok, Y, even if they dont like it. But noooooooo.

They pretty much call whoever the fuck nominated them and ask that person how to vote. Even Dawkins could do the same job SCOTUS nominees do, all he has to do is ask how should I vote, party who nominated me? And do it

ChainedRedone posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Huh?

He's saying Scotus has unprecedentedly become partisan garbage recently.

Not that hard to comprehend, amigo.

Wait aren't you the guy who was recently defending literal terrorism?
---

And dont get me started about the stupid assholes who all themselves textualists or originalists like Kavanaugh.

Why the fuck do you need a law degree and years of judicial experience if all it takes is to read the dictionary word by word?

When you trade legal interpretation and education for a fucking dictionary you might as well have your salary cut by 90%, lets hsve a bunch of English teachers in SCOTUS instead then

The entire premise of judges is that they put aside their biases to make judgements. The fact that said judges are human makes this impossible because humans are inherently biased and will always lean towards what benefits them.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Huh?

He's saying Scotus has unprecedentedly become partisan garbage recently.

Not that hard to comprehend, amigo.

Wait aren't you the guy who was recently defending literal terrorism?

I've never defended terrorism, so no.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Huh?

He's saying Scotus has unprecedentedly become partisan garbage recently.

Not that hard to comprehend, amigo.

Wait aren't you the guy who was recently defending literal terrorism?

Says the guy who thinks that communism is an actual threat to the US.
---

You dont like it? Move out

This is Murica!
---

This is why I'm for a 10 year term limit.
---

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.
---

Seems fair to me
---

RainblowDash posted...

Seems fair to me

If a pony avatar says it's fair, then it must mean it's not.
---

I don't want to pretend like judicial law is just a dichotomy between originalism and living constitution, but I at least understand how people who believe in a living constitution are able to justify some of their more "partisan" positions.

But I don't understand how die hard originalists like Scalia, Gorsuch, etc. can justify some of their decisions under that framework. It seems to be that the "intent of the founders" on very specific modern day issues seems to align very closely to standard conservative political beliefs for some reason.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.
---

Bush v. Gore should have erased all doubt that the court is a partisan institution
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The judges are supposed to interpret the law objectively

imagine believing this
---

The whole reason for the lifetime nominations is so that they can't be threatened with political sanction if they don't follow agendas. Once they're in, they're in, and (barring serious shit that justifies impeachment) they can go completely against the interests of those who got them into the position and there's nothing they can do about it.

Realistically, there's no way you're going to avoid that and avoid partisan nominations at the same time. If you genuinely believe there is, chances are you're confusing "nonpartisan" with "agrees with me".
---

The whole life time tenure never really made sense to me. Just let every president appoint two and rotate them out
---

early on the Court's existence, there were fewer split decisions. but that was when the institution was more fragile, today it's stronger and can withstand 5-4 rulings. I suspect they've always been partisan. it only looks worse now due to the increased polarization we face today

personally, I don't get the upset over the Justices belonging to one political party or the other. of course your world view will affect how you you interpret the constitution
---

DarkTransient posted...

The whole reason for the lifetime nominations is so that they can't be threatened with political sanction if they don't follow agendas. Once they're in, they're in, and (barring serious shit that justifies impeachment) they can go completely against the interests of those who got them into the position and there's nothing they can do about it.

Realistically, there's no way you're going to avoid that and avoid partisan nominations at the same time. If you genuinely believe there is, chances are you're confusing "nonpartisan" with "agrees with me".

You could still avoid "political sanction" with a fixed length term, if you have a 1 term limit.

An e.g. 15 year term which you could only be appointed to once would have no real repercussions for justices going against their nominator.
---

prince_leo posted...

early on the Court's existence, there were fewer split decisions. but that was when the institution was more fragile, today it's stronger and can withstand 5-4 rulings. I suspect they've always been partisan. it only looks worse now due to the increased polarization we face today

personally, I don't get the upset over the Justices belonging to one political party or the other. of course your world view will affect how you you interpret the constitution

Yeah but it doesnt mean you have to be a shameless partisan shill. Gorsuch and kavanaugh would bring back slavery if they had the chance, ditto for Scalia

hortanz posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

The judges are supposed to interpret the law objectively

imagine believing this

They are supposed to do that though. It's just that it really doesn't quite work that way in practice.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.

Bork sends his regards
---

You think the supreme court is fucked? wait til next year when Ruth dies and they get a third pick especially since next year Republicans stand to gain a super majority in the senate and congress if that so called blue wave doesn't happen. So we're effectively looking at a government run completely by people owned by special interest groups whose sole purpose and goals are to use these people to make it easier for them to skirt the law, gain as much profit as possible and use the law to protect themselves from any possible consequences. To some, that seems like business as usual but considering the old corporate motto of "Greed is good" it's about to get a whole hell of a lot worse than it already is.
---

tremain07 posted...

since next year Republicans stand to gain a super majority in the senate and congress

This is almost literally impossible.
---

God, and the Republicans were called the fear-mongerers in 2016.
---

tremain07 posted...

You think the supreme court is fucked? wait til next year when Ruth dies and they get a third pick especially since next year Republicans stand to gain a super majority in the senate and congress if that so called blue wave doesn't happen. So we're effectively looking at a government run completely by people owned by special interest groups whose sole purpose and goals are to use these people to make it easier for them to skirt the law, gain as much profit as possible and use the law to protect themselves from any possible consequences. To some, that seems like business as usual but considering the old corporate motto of "Greed is good" it's about to get a whole hell of a lot worse than it already is.

If they get 2 more scotus judges we will start seeing legit terrifying rulings. Were talking race-based restrictions on citizenship, mass deportation of minorities, rolling back all civil rights for homosexuals, banning contraception, etc etc

We will literally be back to 1950 or maybe worse

Hawaiian_punch posted...

Gorsuch and kavanaugh would bring back slavery if they had the chance, ditto for Scalia

You do yourself absolutely no favors with ridiculous comments like this.
---

CantKeepMeDown posted...

tremain07 posted...

since next year Republicans stand to gain a super majority in the senate and congress

This is almost literally impossible.

Yeah, so was Trump winning, anything is possible when you have the power and loyalty the GOP has, liberals don't have that, they'll never have that because they are free thinkers, divided and everyone of them has a different idea and ideal they won't compromise so they'll either go to an opponent or just fllat out abstain from any actions entirely
---

Magyar15 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.

Bork sends his regards

Really says something when the only example you can come up with is a racist who wanted to abolish civil rights advancements. Not even a partisan vote result. Nice try, though.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Magyar15 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.

Bork sends his regards

Really says something when the only example you can come up with is a racist who wanted to abolish civil rights advancements. Not even a partisan vote result. Nice try, though.

Citation needed. Also, by basically any measure the Democrats have been greater partisan hacks than anything the right has ever done. See the following article

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/
---

Magyar15 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Magyar15 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.

Bork sends his regards

Really says something when the only example you can come up with is a racist who wanted to abolish civil rights advancements. Not even a partisan vote result. Nice try, though.

Citation needed. Also, by basically any measure the Democrats have been greater partisan hacks than anything the right has ever done. See the following article

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html

Bork was a racist.

LOL @ posting a conservative shit site. Are you serious? Holy shit that site is literally defending a known racist against the mean treatment democrats gave him. And of course failed to mention that several Republicans voted against confirmation, which is what ultimately failed to confirm him.

"Bork's character assassination"

Haha, right.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Magyar15 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Magyar15 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.

Bork sends his regards

Really says something when the only example you can come up with is a racist who wanted to abolish civil rights advancements. Not even a partisan vote result. Nice try, though.

Citation needed. Also, by basically any measure the Democrats have been greater partisan hacks than anything the right has ever done. See the following article

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html

Bork was a racist.

LOL @ posting a conservative shit site. Are you serious? Holy shit that site is literally defending a known racist against the mean treatment democrats gave him. And of course failed to mention that several Republicans voted against confirmation, which is what ultimately failed to confirm him.

"Bork's character assassination"

Haha, right.

From your article "He is no racist, nor is he seriously so depicted. Even those who disagree with him on constitutional issues find him witty and agreeable"

Try reading your article, asshole
---

Magyar15 posted...

From your article "He is no racist, nor is he seriously so depicted. Even those who disagree with him on constitutional issues find him witty and agreeable"

Try reading your article, asshole

In 1963 and 1964, as a 36-year-old law professor, Mr. Bork wrote impassioned attacks on legislation to desegregate lunch counters and other public accommodations. He argued that the bill, by invading the liberty of proprietors to turn away blacks, was based on ''a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.''

Right, because someone who passionately supports segregation isn't a racist. You sure are gullible.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

the scotus runs of the risk of no longer being seen as a legitimate government institution but as an arm of a political party.

It's always been seen as that since a little Democrat president started pushing for Judicial reform because the Court kept ruling everything he did as unconstitutional.

To be fair, Congress put an end to that shit and partisan trashing of SCOTUS didn't reemerge until the GOP blocked Obama's nomination. Well, at least it had no significant effect until that point.

*cough*Obama filibustered Bush appontiee*cough*
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

Gorsuch and kavanaugh would bring back slavery if they had the chance, ditto for Scalia

You do yourself absolutely no favors with ridiculous comments like this.

Lets talk in 4 years.

Gorsuch already voted in a case where he said a worker should freeze to death (literally) if it so suits his employer, for example

Magyar15 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Works_and_views

"In The Tempting of America (page 82), Bork explained his support for the Supreme Court's desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education:

By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases . . . The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law."

Try again, asshole

He supported segregation and didn't renounce his views until after he was nominated for SCOTUS. He's a racist. Why do you keep defending someone who was passionate about segregation?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Magyar15 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Works_and_views

"In The Tempting of America (page 82), Bork explained his support for the Supreme Court's desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education:

By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases . . . The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law."

Try again, asshole

He supported segregation and didn't renounce his views until after he was nominated for SCOTUS. He's a racist. Why do you keep defending someone who was passionate about segregation?

He clearly wasn't if he argued against it. Try harder dude
---

PiOverlord posted...

God, and the Republicans were called the fear-mongerers in 2016.

Not fear mongering. This has been going on obviously for a long time. This whole Kavanagh deal is just the current debacle. And even if I am on the left, I still don't agree on SCOTUS judges just being voiceboxes for their benefactors.
---