Sinn Fein

***Official Supreme Court nomination thread

21,859 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, Misfit said:

What outcomes has the left "not accepted"?

Asked and answered repeatedly, but always returns to make the same false claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Misfit said:

What outcomes has the left "not accepted"?

There is a large segment which never viewed Bush as legitimate or that don't view Trump as legitimate or that consider the last two SC nominations as legitimate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

There is a large segment which never viewed Bush as legitimate or that don't view Trump as legitimate or that consider the last two SC nominations as legitimate.  

We understand the point you're making.  I just dont understand why it matters.  GWB was pres for 8 years.  Trump IS the President.   The SC has it's full complement of judges.  Who cares?  You point out the hypocrisy which is fine, but understand that "the left" is not uniformly making the claims of illegitimacy.   It's a minority of the left.  Like a minority of Trump supporters are Nazis.  "The right" are not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

IMHO, the Supreme Court has become too powerful and is undeniably partisan.   Getting Kavanaugh on the court was far more important than what goes on in the upcoming midterms.  It is a shame our system of checks and balances is out of whack and we now have unelected lifetime appointed judges who are more powerful than our elected representatives.  Our system is broke.  

What system is broke?  In what way are S.Ct. justices more powerful than legislators or the executive?  Can you give specific examples of this?  Its a topic I'm interested in, so really just asking for some background on this claim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

What system is broke?  In what way are S.Ct. justices more powerful than legislators or the executive?  Can you give specific examples of this?  Its a topic I'm interested in, so really just asking for some background on this claim.

 

The most obvious and discussed example is the Supreme Court can decide exactly which abortions are allowed if any.  They can decide which if any guns can be banned and what type of regulation is allowed.   They are the ultimate rule makers on environmental and immigration policy.  They are the only branch which can effectively make rules and there is not a darn thing the other two branches can do except wait for them to die and replace them.  They can even decide what gets taught in the classrooms.  Laws are easy to overturn and of politicans get too aggressive, people can vote them out of office next election.   The judicial branch was never intended to have the power they do today and so the appropriate checks and balances to keep them in line are not there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The most obvious and discussed example is the Supreme Court can decide exactly which abortions are allowed if any.  They can decide which if any guns can be banned and what type of regulation is allowed.   They are the ultimate rule makers on environmental and immigration policy.  They are the only branch which can effectively make rules and there is not a darn thing the other two branches can do except wait for them to die and replace them.  They can even decide what gets taught in the classrooms.  Laws are easy to overturn and of politicans get too aggressive, people can vote them out of office next election.   The judicial branch was never intended to have the power they do today and so the appropriate checks and balances to keep them in line are not there.  

I'd argue that the Supreme Court is the last check of sanity in our country. The SC does not decide anything, rather they interpret the law. If a law is poorly written, the SC has to interpret what is written against all other case law/precedent. A law such as Obamacare is substantial and well written (most of it), so to challenge it is tough. A law, if written today, such as the 2nd Amendment would easily be challenged but with case law of 240+ years behind it, is tough to challenge.

I don't see "activist judges". I see laws written that any English scholar would laugh at, but leaves too much interpretation to be desired. If Congress wants to lessen the power of the Supreme Court... write better, more clear, more concise laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The most obvious and discussed example is the Supreme Court can decide exactly which abortions are allowed if any.  They can decide which if any guns can be banned and what type of regulation is allowed.   They are the ultimate rule makers on environmental and immigration policy.  They are the only branch which can effectively make rules and there is not a darn thing the other two branches can do except wait for them to die and replace them.  They can even decide what gets taught in the classrooms.  Laws are easy to overturn and of politicans get too aggressive, people can vote them out of office next election.   The judicial branch was never intended to have the power they do today and so the appropriate checks and balances to keep them in line are not there.  

The reason I asked for specific examples is that I see this kind of generalization pretty often, but there’s rarely any substance behind it. I think the court has been mostly benign the past 20 years or so, particularly on the hot button issues like abortion, gun control, immigration, campaign finance and others.  In the one truly meaningful case I can think of, the ACA case from 2012, it was John Roberts, George W’s star appointee, who was the deciding vote and authored the opinion upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  One could make a case for the Epic Systems case earlier this year regarding employment rights, but the legislature could surely overturn that ruling if it wanted to. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The reason I asked for specific examples is that I see this kind of generalization pretty often, but there’s rarely any substance behind it. I think the court has been mostly benign the past 20 years or so, particularly on the hot button issues like abortion, gun control, immigration, campaign finance and others.  In the one truly meaningful case I can think of, the ACA case from 2012, it was John Roberts, George W’s star appointee, who was the deciding vote and authored the opinion upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  One could make a case for the Epic Systems case earlier this year regarding employment rights, but the legislature could surely overturn that ruling if it wanted to. 

Part of the reason it has been benign is there is a right-leaning majority.  A left-leaning court would have been more active.  They could have  taken some global warming case and determine it is our right to have clean air and imposed strict rules on energy producers.  Lots of people may cheer that kind of activism, but that is not how our system of government is supposed to work. 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Part of the reason it has been benign is there is a right-leaning majority.  A left-leaning court would have been more active.  They could have  taken some global warming case and determine it is our right to have clean air and imposed strict rules on energy producers.  Lots of people may cheer that kind of activism, but that is not how our system of government is supposed to work. 

Your description above is not how the court works... at all.

Edited by Mario Kart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Part of the reason it has been benign is there is a right-leaning majority.  A left-leaning court would have been more active.  They could have  taken some global warming case and determine it is our right to have clean air and imposed strict rules on energy producers.  Lots of people may cheer that kind of activism, but that is not how our system of government is supposed to work. 

My crystal ball isn’t as good as yours regarding what might have happened under a hypothetical left-leaning court. But I think my question still stands. You’ve said the court is more powerful than elected representatives and the system is broken, and I’m just asking for a specific example illustrating that point.  I don’t think I agree with that statement. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Part of the reason it has been benign is there is a right-leaning majority.  A left-leaning court would have been more active.  They could have  taken some global warming case and determine it is our right to have clean air and imposed strict rules on energy producers.  Lots of people may cheer that kind of activism, but that is not how our system of government is supposed to work. 

So you’re upset about something that isn’t actually happening?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

So you’re upset about something that isn’t actually happening?

Why not, I'm upset about a lot of stuff that isn't happening, perhaps even more so than by what is happening.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

So you’re upset about something that isn’t actually happening?

Like my sex life. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

My crystal ball isn’t as good as yours regarding what might have happened under a hypothetical left-leaning court. But I think my question still stands. You’ve said the court is more powerful than elected representatives and the system is broken, and I’m just asking for a specific example illustrating that point.  I don’t think I agree with that statement. 

I agree with jon_mx here.  I'm gonna choose an example that jon_mx would never choose because I know his views on this particular issue.

What about campaign finance laws?  In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed a comprehensive law (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amounts that could be contributed to campaigns and spent by campaigns and set a lot of additional rules and requirements designed to diminish fraud and its appearance in our electoral system, and arguably to help "level the playing field" such that the voices of the wealthy would not drown out the voices of the less wealthy. 

The Supreme Court immediately struck down parts of the law as soon as it was challenged.  Over the following almost thirty years, the Supreme Court issued numerous additional opinions that chipped away at the law, which had the result of opening up huge loopholes that subverted the purpose of the original law. 

So then in 2002, Congress passed a new law (McCain-Feingold) that attempted to close some of those most egregious loopholes.  That law was challenged immediately, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4.  But then the next year Justice O'Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Alito.  And the law was challenged again.  And this time a big part of the law was struck down.  And in the years since then, a 5-4 majority of the Court has continued to dismantle both the Federal Election Campaign Act and McCain-Feingold such that we now have wealthy donors making contributions of millions of dollars to SuperPACs and there's dark money flowing into the system.

Passing McCain-Feingold was a herculean task.  There were months of legislative debate, they needed majorities in both houses of Congress to support it, and they needed a President to sign it.  All of this was done under the spotlight of public view, where politicians sometimes knew they could lose their jobs for supporting an unpopular position.  Undermining McCain-Feingold took a lot less.  The replacement of a single justice on the Supreme Court with another justice..  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I agree with jon_mx here.  I'm gonna choose an example that jon_mx would never choose because I know his views on this particular issue.

What about campaign finance laws?  In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed a comprehensive law (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amounts that could be contributed to campaigns and spent by campaigns and set a lot of additional rules and requirements designed to diminish fraud and its appearance in our electoral system, and arguably to help "level the playing field" such that the voices of the wealthy would not drown out the voices of the less wealthy. 

The Supreme Court immediately struck down parts of the law as soon as it was challenged.  Over the following almost thirty years, the Supreme Court issued numerous additional opinions that chipped away at the law, which had the result of opening up huge loopholes that subverted the purpose of the original law. 

So then in 2002, Congress passed a new law (McCain-Feingold) that attempted to close some of those most egregious loopholes.  That law was challenged immediately, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4.  But then the next year Justice O'Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Alito.  And the law was challenged again.  And this time a big part of the law was struck down.  And in the years since then, a 5-4 majority of the Court has continued to dismantle both the Federal Election Campaign Act and McCain-Feingold such that we now have wealthy donors making contributions of millions of dollars to SuperPACs and there's dark money flowing into the system.

Passing McCain-Feingold was a herculean task.  There were months of legislative debate, they needed majorities in both houses of Congress to support it, and they needed a President to sign it.  All of this was done under the spotlight of public view, where politicians sometimes knew they could lose their jobs for supporting an unpopular position.  Undermining McCain-Feingold took a lot less.  The replacement of a single justice on the Supreme Court with another justice..  

:goodposting:  Was the first thing that came to my mind when I read Cletius' question.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I agree with jon_mx here.  I'm gonna choose an example that jon_mx would never choose because I know his views on this particular issue.

What about campaign finance laws?  In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed a comprehensive law (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amounts that could be contributed to campaigns and spent by campaigns and set a lot of additional rules and requirements designed to diminish fraud and its appearance in our electoral system, and arguably to help "level the playing field" such that the voices of the wealthy would not drown out the voices of the less wealthy. 

The Supreme Court immediately struck down parts of the law as soon as it was challenged.  Over the following almost thirty years, the Supreme Court issued numerous additional opinions that chipped away at the law, which had the result of opening up huge loopholes that subverted the purpose of the original law. 

So then in 2002, Congress passed a new law (McCain-Feingold) that attempted to close some of those most egregious loopholes.  That law was challenged immediately, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4.  But then the next year Justice O'Connor retired and was replaced by Justice Alito.  And the law was challenged again.  And this time a big part of the law was struck down.  And in the years since then, a 5-4 majority of the Court has continued to dismantle both the Federal Election Campaign Act and McCain-Feingold such that we now have wealthy donors making contributions of millions of dollars to SuperPACs and there's dark money flowing into the system.

Passing McCain-Feingold was a herculean task.  There were months of legislative debate, they needed majorities in both houses of Congress to support it, and they needed a President to sign it.  All of this was done under the spotlight of public view, where politicians sometimes knew they could lose their jobs for supporting an unpopular position.  Undermining McCain-Feingold took a lot less.  The replacement of a single justice on the Supreme Court with another justice..  

I think there's a huge amount of hype around Citizens United and the campaign finance laws.  For me, this issue is the left's Roe v Wade.  Its used to generate hype and support, but I've yet to really understand what difference it all makes.  I don't think any of this has changed our lives in any meaningful way.  Money has massive influence in politics, leadership, legislation, and justice.  That's been true as far as I know in every society under every political system since the beginning of time.  Court decisions lead to new laws, new loopholes are found, new lawsuits are filed and new laws are introduced.  The one enduring truth is that money will always find a way.

I don't personally believe that corporate entities should have the same first amendment rights as natural persons, nor do I think political contributions by legal entities = speech, but I don't think it matters much either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I think there's a huge amount of hype around Citizens United and the campaign finance laws.  For me, this issue is the left's Roe v Wade.  Its used to generate hype and support, but I've yet to really understand what difference it all makes.  I don't think any of this has changed our lives in any meaningful way.  Money has massive influence in politics, leadership, legislation, and justice.  That's been true as far as I know in every society under every political system since the beginning of time.  Court decisions lead to new laws, new loopholes are found, new lawsuits are filed and new laws are introduced.  The one enduring truth is that money will always find a way.

I don't personally believe that corporate entities should have the same first amendment rights as natural persons, nor do I think political contributions by legal entities = speech, but I don't think it matters much either.

 

Well, you might have idiosyncratic views on this.  But LOTS of other folks thinks it makes a huge difference.  And the two big attempts by Congress to change things have both been whittled away by Supreme Court decisions.  That was the point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Well, you might have idiosyncratic views on this.  But LOTS of other folks thinks it makes a huge difference.  And the two big attempts by Congress to change things have both been whittled away by Supreme Court decisions.  That was the point.  

I'm the first to admit I enjoy being a contrarian on this issue, and perhaps it affects my views somewhat.  People are freaking out about Kavanaugh; depressed, ranting and raging, and it makes me sad to see that. Let's remember that GOP presidents appointed 8 justices after Roe (not including Trump's 2 appointments) and that decision has stood for 42 years. Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were all GOP appointments - all of them ended up being moderate. Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the ACA.  There is so much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing over these appointments, but I think the real effect is massively overrated.  I think its a beast created largely by the media and campaign marketing folks. 90% of what the Court does is boring - important to some to be sure - but mostly boring, non-political stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I'm the first to admit I enjoy being a contrarian on this issue, and perhaps it affects my views somewhat.  People are freaking out about Kavanaugh; depressed, ranting and raging, and it makes me sad to see that. Let's remember that GOP presidents appointed 8 justices after Roe (not including Trump's 2 appointments) and that decision has stood for 42 years. Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were all GOP appointments - all of them ended up being moderate. Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the ACA.  There is so much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing over these appointments, but I think the real effect is massively overrated.  I think its a beast created largely by the media and campaign marketing folks. 90% of what the Court does is boring - important to some to be sure - but mostly boring, non-political stuff.

 

It's that other 10% that I worry about.  People like Kavanaugh and I think Gorsuch too will "interpret" laws to favor the right.  Kavanaugh especially, since he showed the whole country in his stupid angry right wing voice what hes all about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.