If the President nominates a reasonable juror to the Supreme Court, the nomination should go through. The political gamesmanship with both the Garland and Gorsuch nominations is petty, pointless, and should under no circumstances be tolerated by the American public in any circumstance.
One thing we can all I agree on....I think
- Thread starter Original Mountaineer1
- Start date
What's more "reasonable" OM1 than a Justice who impartially decides the Law as it is written, and applies it's enforcement according to the Constitution?
Isn't that what Gorsuch does?
I agree, I'll make sure I vote for the opposing candidate in the next Senate race for my state.
The politicization of SCOTUS picks started with Bork. It has not been the same since getting slowly but progressively worse. Reid nuked the filibuster for Circuit Courts. Now it appears McConnell will return the favor for SCOTUS. From now on, all SCOTUS picks will be political.
Will legislation be next? I would not bet against it.
What difference does it make what color they are Keyser76? Does the Law seprate out who has to obey it based on the color of their skin?
I know that's how the Left tries to argue it's enforced, but you don't find color commentary statutorily in most of the U.S. code except for racial discrimination which is against the Law BTW.
The Law at least thankfully is colorblind, as long as the Left isn't trying to manipulate it.
Last edited:
You really, really need to read more or be more astute. First of all, the oldest on the court is a Dem, Ginsburg who has had cancer. She is a robust 84. Kennedy, who is a swing judge is 80 and most likely to retire this summer. Breyer, a liberal, is 78. Thomas (a black conservative) is 68. Alito is 67. Sotomayor is 62. Roberts is 62. Kagan is 57. I believe Gorsuch is 48.
So, the next likely after Kennedy is Ginsburg followed by Breyer, both very liberal. If they are all replaced, the courts shifts strongly to the right and with young justices appointed, likely to stay that way for a long time.
So the oldest members of the court are old white liberals.
You just rocked his Leftist world PAX....30 years of young White Conservatives?
Wonder how Sweeden looks to him now?
Kennedy likely in the summer. Ginsburg is already showing real aging signs at 84 and has had cancer. Breyer over 80 as well. Hard to say what happens but if Trump wins reelection, both are gone for sure.
I figured the folks on the right would be all for politicizing the confirmation of supreme court nominees.
I have no issue with Garland, Gorsuch, or any other reasonable juror. We are to the point now where this process is unreasonable. We cannot and should not expect the nominee to be held to a reasonable political standard, left or right. By all accounts, Gorsuch is a good man and a sound juror and just because he doesn't vote the way I might, shouldn't disqualify him.
You seriously can't be this stupid. He is so early in his Presidency that it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss reelection chances. Tell me what the economy has done over his 4 years and I will give you a better perspective on his chances.
Judging by how his first 100 days are going, I'm going to say tiny hands doesn't make it through his first term.
I hope they pass a continuing resolution to keep the Dems and the Left in permament fillibuster proof minority status:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
When they die in their sleep I am sure plenty of morins led by you will be screaming conspiracy.
I have stopped picking on him for that; it happens so frequently. He needs to lighten up on the liquor a little.
So you have a litmus test. Make sure you remember that when someone on the other side of the aisle does the same. Your room to gripe gets pretty thin.
I dont really have a litmus test but I do think it is important for scotus justices to be strong on our constitution. Even the parts they dont love.
I agree with Dave, the one litmus test must be to fully understand the Constitution and be governed by it. The role of SCOTUS is NOT to create new law. That is left to Congress by our Founders. Our Founders were terribly concerned about a run away judiciary that would usurp the powers of Congress and the Executive branch. Making law by 9 unelected justices eviscerates our Constitutional Republic in that the people are taken completely out of the process. They can't vote these justices out of office if they create a law with which the people disagree.
A "living Constitution" as justices like Ginsburg espouse does just that. It creates new law based on current social circumstances not based on the reading of the Constitution. The Founders gave us ways to make the Constitutional "living." Amend it or pass laws in Congress. But don't create it out of whole cloth.
#2A is very important, but my bottom line litmus test is originalism. The Constitution can be amended, but I take offense at the notion we should just lope into the future interpreting the Constitution, as we go, just to bend to unreal visions of a one size fits all world. Nope, America must remain a society of individuals who enjoy freedom.
No you want them to think like you do as related to the constitution. Look at Gorsuch, some would say his interpretation of the Constitution is draconian. Holy cow, he just had a decision overturned by the US Supreme Court 8-0 which tells me he swung and missed pretty badly. But, he seems like an honorable man and I would not oppose him even if his views differ from mine. We need a diverse court. It is healthy.
Again, you want somebody who thinks ONLY like you. I actually think diversity of opinion makes for a strong court. And you know that I have said many times, I don't like the court making law. However, I respect the process that gives the POTUS the right to choose. Hell even Ginsburg garnered 90 plus votes in her confirmation.
How did you get that out of my post? I don't want someone that thinks like me, I want someone to follow the Constitution. I want someone that will not make law when the Constitution as written stands in contrast to that "law." I want the people empowered to vote out Congressmen that make laws they oppose. You can't do that with SCOTUS. I want the there branches to act as controls on each other, but "stay in their own lane" of Constitutional responsibility.
So you were against the Brown vs Board of Education ruling.... Some states weren't going to change their laws. Hell Prince Edward County in Va shut down their public schools after this ruling.