[talaniman]

Like the dufus tax returns and health care plan, Biden doesn't owe anyone a sneak peak at his intentions, but has said he isn't really in favor of it. After the repub SCOTUS hypocrisy though, if dems take power they should do as they see fit, like repubs did. Let conservatives whine all they want.

[jlisenbe]

Biden doesn't owe anyone a sneak peak at his intentions,

But he does. He said he would announce his intentions if ACB was confirmed. She has been confirmed, so it's time to pony up.

[Athos]

Overall, a majority of Trump's judicial nominees have received "Well Qualified" ratings from the ABA—80 percent of Circuit Court nominees and 62 percent of District Court nominees..

Judicial qualifications are not the problem with Trump's selections. The problem is their judicial TEMPERAMENT. What you right-wingers fail to understand is that a Justice takes an oath to apply the law without prejudice, and never with an ideology. Trump always seeks those who will support right-wing issues. He's clueless about the law.

Obama, you will remember, selected Garland, a choice considered moderate whose seat was stolen by McConnell and his Republican stooges. With Barrett, the Repubs have now stolen three SC seats. The price for that bit of larceny will be paid on November 3.

[jlisenbe]

What you right-wingers fail to understand is that a Justice takes an oath to apply the law without prejudice, and never with an ideology.

Yeah, like the guys who decided Roe/Wade, or the gay marriage case. They just cooked it up out of thin air. One thing libs will never get a conservative's attention with is complaining about Supreme Court appointments.

[paraclete]

ah the rhetoric, "the worst day in 231 years" so not even the election of Trump was the worst day for the liberals?

[talaniman]

Yeah, like the guys who decided Roe/Wade, or the gay marriage case. They just cooked it up out of thin air. One thing libs will never get a conservative's attention with is complaining about Supreme Court appointments.

Both cases you cited weren't decided out of thin air as states had been moving for years in the direction favoring both. Not the first time that conservatives had to be dragged by the ankles into the right side of history (pun intended) and the will of the people, and won't be the last, even with a conservative packed SC. You won't get liberal attention with discriminatory social issue positions either, quite the opposite is my prediction.

[paraclete]

[jlisenbe]

Both cases you cited weren't decided out of thin air as states had been moving for years in the direction favoring both.

Except that that's not how you kind of, sort of decide federal law. SCOTUS is bound by fed law, and not by what states are doing. There is nothing in the Constitution that establishes a woman's right to have her baby killed, nor anything that gives two men the right to get married. You obviously don't have a clue as to how the process works.

[talaniman]

Show me the federal law that prohibits either of those issues. The same law that give YOU freedom to practice YOUR religion, is the same law that protect ME from YOUR religion. Seems you need a history lesson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r..._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti..._United_States

[jlisenbe]

Show me the federal law that prohibits either of those issues

The tenth amendment expressly leaves those issues up to the states. Seems like you need a legal lesson. Might add that I have not mentioned religion. That's always the excuse that libs love to fall back on. "Oh, you're just trying to impose your religion on me!" Well, you're the one who brought the issue up, and not me. This is actually about five (or more) SC justices trying to impose their moral will on the rest of us.

I am always amused at your links. You think you are going to make some sort of point, so you link to Wiki articles that are many, many pages long so you can pretend you have done some research. Why don't you try quoting the relevant passages in those articles? It would be a very simple issue of copy and paste. Do you really think I'm going to waste my team reading dozens of pages from your "links to nowhere"? And frequently they end up contradicting the point you're trying to make.

[talaniman]

The tenth amendment expressly leaves those issues up to the states. Seems like you need a legal lesson. Might add that I have not mentioned religion. That's always the excuse that libs love to fall back on. "Oh, you're just trying to impose your religion on me!" Well, you're the one who brought the issue up, and not me. This is actually about five (or more) SC justices trying to impose their moral will on the rest of us.

That's exactly what I have said and exactly what has happened over the years. SCOTUS doesn't look for cases, they have to be brought and argued before them after going through the lower courts. I might be wrong in assuming your objections to these issues are religiously based, but have repeatedly stated both issues have been steadily moving through the states and courts for decades. Beats me why you would think that the rights and freedoms of others that you enjoy, are such a personal imposition to you, except on religious grounds. Maybe you would feel differently if you were gay, or a woman, and the views of others actually imposed on their freedoms.

I am always amused at your links. You think you are going to make some sort of point, so you link to Wiki articles that are many, many pages long so you can pretend you have done some research. Why don't you try quoting the relevant passages in those articles? It would be a very simple issue of copy and paste. Do you really think I'm going to waste my team reading dozens of pages from your "links to nowhere"? And frequently they end up contradicting the point you're trying to make.

I don't care what you do with your time, nor if you like how I present my opinions or positions. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just two mules butting heads yet again. No big deal to me bud, YOU?

[tomder55]

here ya go ..... a blast from the past

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo

[jlisenbe]

Beats me why you would think that the rights and freedoms of others than you enjoy, are such a personal imposition to you, except on religious grounds. Maybe you would feel differently if you were gay, or a woman, and the views of others actually imposed on their freedoms.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Outside of God, we have no rights or freedoms.

I don't care what you do with your time, nor if you like how I present my opinions or positions. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, just two mules butting heads yet again. No big deal to me bud, YOU?

I wish I could object to being called a mule, but it's probably closer to the truth than I would care to admit.

[tomder55]

as far as court packing goes ;even FDR knew it was a bad idea, and he knew his idea would be rejected if it was viewed as an assault on the court . So he went in with the argument that there were too many geezers on the court

Feb 5 1937 .He shocked the country by asking Congress for the authority to nominate a judge for any that were 70+ (6) .He also wanted to add 44 to the lower courts .

It sparked something akin to a constitutional crisis . Thousands of letters poured into Congressional offices . If FDR got his way ,the idea of an independent judiciary was gone forever . Few judges appointed for life would be able to ignore the popular will .Court packing would go on from one administration to another . If the Dems could do it then so could the Republicans .

It was easy to explain to the American people who saw powerful men taking totalitarian control in Europe. Roosevelt’s foes accused him of mimicking the dictators by seeking to concentrate power in the hands of one man.
Still FDR had the votes if he persisted in the effort .

The court also got spooked and began passing some New Deal initiatives .In fact it never again over ruled a New Deal law.

Suddenly there was no necessity for court packing . With each new ruling supporting FDR initiatives , support for the legislation eroded, and by the end of May Roosevelt no longer had the votes needed to enact the measure.

The defeat of the bill meant that the institutional integrity of SCOTUS had been preserved.....its size had not been manipulated for political or ideological ends. FDR’s scheme, said the Senate Judiciary Committee, was “a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”

And it never has been seriously considered again ,,,,,,,,,, until now

[Wondergirl]

And it never has been seriously considered again ,,,,,,,,,, until now

And now Trump, who probably has no clue who FDR was (probably thinks it's a Subway sandwich) is packing the Court -- and will continue to do so if reelected.

[jlisenbe]

Trump...is packing the Court

No, he is not. Not the same thing. He is appointing conservative judges in the same manner that Obama appointed stupid..er, liberal judges. Court packing is a different issue.

[Wondergirl]

No, he is not. Not the same thing. He is appointing conservative judges in the same manner that Obama appointed stupid..er, liberal judges. Court packing is a different issue.

THREE conservative judges (especially the third one who was shoved in at the last minute) during his term as president -- with the plan of adding more during his hoped-for next term -- is not packing the court?

[jlisenbe]

No, it's not. Packing the court refers to going beyond nine judges. Not you can agree or disagree with putting in justices who actually believe in the Constitution and the rule of law if you want to, but it is not "packing the court" in the sense that we have been discussing Biden's plan. That's the plan the everyone knows he has but he is too cowardly to announce.

[Wondergirl]

No, it's not. Packing the court refers to going beyond nine judges.

Now I KNOW you don't carefully read what I post!

[paraclete]

A great Huha, out of fear, fear that some law will be found unconstitutional, pity the court couldn't examine the constitution and chuck out everything that is redundant