Jump to content


Photo

Because Trump 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
6854 replies to this topic

#6841 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 23 September 2018 - 1042 AM

"Judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench".

It isn't like the Dems really need their own nominees to do their dirty work, Harry Blackmun, David Souter, and John Roberts, argue that they don't.


  • 0

#6842 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,911 posts

Posted 23 September 2018 - 1113 AM

 

"Judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench".

It isn't like the Dems really need their own nominees to do their dirty work, Harry Blackmun, David Souter, and John Roberts, argue that they don't.

 

Agreed, has there ever been a justice from the left who became reliably conservative? Nope.


  • 0

#6843 Soren Ras

Soren Ras

    Molehill Mountaineer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:This Theater of the Absurd

Posted 23 September 2018 - 1312 PM

That seems to be a fundamental difference between the parties. A Democratic appointed Justice (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) will *invariably* vote in favor of the progressive mindset. A Republican Justice may well vote against the expectation (Kennedy, Roberts). As if one side appoints with the expectation that its policies will be pursued while the other appoints with the expectation that the Constitution as writren will be followed, even if that may occasionally lead to rulings in opposition to the political views of the side that nominated the Justice. While I defer to few people in my contempt for the Republican party, that does seem to be one of the few salient differences between the two.


Soren
  • 0

#6844 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 23 September 2018 - 1537 PM

That seems to be a fundamental difference between the parties. A Democratic appointed Justice (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) will *invariably* vote in favor of the progressive mindset. A Republican Justice may well vote against the expectation (Kennedy, Roberts). As if one side appoints with the expectation that its policies will be pursued while the other appoints with the expectation that the Constitution as writren will be followed, even if that may occasionally lead to rulings in opposition to the political views of the side that nominated the Justice. While I defer to few people in my contempt for the Republican party, that does seem to be one of the few salient differences between the two.


Soren

Not just Kennedy and Roberts would vote with the progressive side of the court, Scalia was known to side with the progressives from time to time.  Not because he agreed on ideological reasons, but because his strict reading and understanding of the constitution supported a position that put him on the side with the progressives.  Thomas also found himself voting with the progressives now and again for essentially the same reason as Scalia, but not necessarily in agreement with Scalia.  The only time I can recall the progressive four voting with the conservatives is when the court issued a unanimous decision.  But no, you are correct, never has a leftist jurist become known as a swing vote.


  • 0

#6845 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 06:13 AM

Also Melania is not getting the coverage that the fawning magazines gave Her Imperial Highness Michelle, and the other women of Obama's regime.  A former model, and apparently a very nice woman, she gets bupkis from the left wing media.  Sad, really sad,


  • 0

#6846 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted Yesterday, 06:27 AM

The only thing I recall seeing was a claim that she was going to divorce him, for Reasons. But then, Stormy Daniels isn't in the news this week due to Kavanaugh.
  • 0

#6847 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,068 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 06:30 AM

Republicans vote to follow the law, Demon-Rats vote to ignore the law. 

That seems to be a fundamental difference between the parties. A Democratic appointed Justice (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) will *invariably* vote in favor of the progressive mindset. A Republican Justice may well vote against the expectation (Kennedy, Roberts). As if one side appoints with the expectation that its policies will be pursued while the other appoints with the expectation that the Constitution as writren will be followed, even if that may occasionally lead to rulings in opposition to the political views of the side that nominated the Justice. While I defer to few people in my contempt for the Republican party, that does seem to be one of the few salient differences between the two.


Soren


  • 0

#6848 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,159 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted Yesterday, 07:40 AM

Democrats eat babies.
  • 0

#6849 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,268 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:52 AM

"Judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench".

 

Up here we have the "Nothwithstanding Clause" of the constitution where an elected government can tell the court to shove its ruling for a period of 5 years.  It was designed as a check on judicial activism and in the most recent case an Ontario judge tried to impose an outrageous interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the new Ontario government in order to strip the Premier of his right to determine city council sizes.  He responded by invoking the nothwithstanding clause, (cue leftist outrage), but does not need it because a judicial appeal saw the original ruling unanimously overturned with the sarcastic observation that the charter of rights and freedoms does not guarantee Torontonians a 47 seat council instead of a 25 seat council as a free speech issue.

 

Meanwhile, the original judge that issued the clown college ruling continues to sit on the bench without review or discipline, while a judge that wore a "MAGA" hat once nearly lost his job.

 

End rant - America needs a nothwithstanding clause of some sort.


  • 0

#6850 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted Yesterday, 01:26 PM

glenn239, intersting concept. never heard of this clause. It certainly stops short term politicking of judges.

 

 

 

 

https://www.washingt...5aa5_story.html

 

President Trump imposed fresh levies on $200 billion in Chinese imports, prompting Beijing to respond with tariffs on $60 billion in American goods, approaching the point of running out of U.S. products to target.

 

 

:lol:


  • 0

#6851 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted Yesterday, 02:59 PM

And enables disregard of basic rights by government should it wish it. The major use of it so far has been for Quebec to ignore minority language rights. The Ontario government tried to use it, but it turned out that the court system wasn't broken after all.
  • 0

#6852 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted Yesterday, 03:38 PM

And enables disregard of basic rights by government should it wish it. The major use of it so far has been for Quebec to ignore minority language rights. The Ontario government tried to use it, but it turned out that the court system wasn't broken after all.


Yes that is of course the other side of the coin. :mellow:

 

 

Well, how else to stop the courts from being politizized?


  • 0

#6853 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,911 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:44 PM

We need the USSC to reconfirm that some judge shopped idiot in a district court can NOT make a ruling that covers the entire country. It makes every Leftist in a black robe king/queen of the country by fiat.


  • 0

#6854 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted Today, 04:30 PM

We need the USSC to reconfirm that some judge shopped idiot in a district court can NOT make a ruling that covers the entire country. It makes every Leftist in a black robe king/queen of the country by fiat.

 

 Or any rightist. They can make ideologically motivated rulings too.

 

 

 

 

 

in other news google wants to help in data privacy protection...

 

https://thehill.com/...acy-legislation


  • 0

#6855 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,911 posts

Posted Today, 04:55 PM

 

We need the USSC to reconfirm that some judge shopped idiot in a district court can NOT make a ruling that covers the entire country. It makes every Leftist in a black robe king/queen of the country by fiat.

 

 Or any rightist. They can make ideologically motivated rulings too.

 

 

 

 

 

in other news google wants to help in data privacy protection...

 

https://thehill.com/...acy-legislation

 

 

Originalists don't legislate from the bench, Leftists do. Imagine if conservative judges started throwing out taxes by the bushel or making rulings against abortion. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN and the Left knows they'll never have to suffer the same from conservatives so it's a no lose game to them.


  • 0




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)