SCOTUS is a "political asset"

[sun rise]

Is anyone surprised at this perversion of our Constitution? Let's put Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Merrick Garland and AOC on SCOTUS.

Mitch McConnell calls Amy Coney Barrett a "political asset" ahead of election

"I think this nominee will be a political asset for our candidates around the country. Not a liability, but an asset," he said.

If SCOTUS selects another President overturning the will of the people then:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

 

[joe1776]

If the democrats can win the presidency and both houses, they will be motivated to restructure the court.

Bipartisanship is a myth. The parties are involved in a competitive game. When one side plays hardball, the other will retaliate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course justices are political assets.
They've long been such, which is why
the parties fight over who installs whom.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The dead giveaway is the fact that Supreme Court Justices are appointed, not elected.

 

[Wandering Monk]

As if Republicans are the only party that has ever benefited by packing the court! FDR anyone?

 

[Nakosis]

Is anyone surprised at this perversion of our Constitution? Let's put Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Merrick Garland and AOC on SCOTUS.

Mitch McConnell calls Amy Coney Barrett a "political asset" ahead of election

"I think this nominee will be a political asset for our candidates around the country. Not a liability, but an asset," he said.

If SCOTUS selects another President overturning the will of the people then:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

Do you feel that you are so oppressed by the current government you need to abolish it?

 

[tytlyf]

The dead giveaway is the fact that Supreme Court Justices are appointed, not elected.

The weird part is I've seen multiple TV ads the past couple weeks promoting her. What's the point of having ads if the electorate isn't voting?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The weird part is I've seen multiple TV ads the past couple weeks promoting her. What's the point of having ads if the electorate isn't voting?

That is touting to their constituency. It is saying "We told you we were pro life, and you can see we have acted according to our words."

 

[tytlyf]

That is touting to their constituency. It is saying "We told you we were pro life, and you can see we have acted according to our words."

IOW, you can expect this candidate to fulfil God's word when making decisions.?

 

[Brickjectivity]

IOW, you can expect this candidate to fulfil God's word when making decisions.?

You sure you want to provoke every ****er who replies to a post? That is your idea of a friendly way of talking to people?

 

[tytlyf]

You sure you want to provoke every ****er who replies to a post? That is your idea of a friendly way of talking to people?

I wasn't asking you directly, I was agreeing with you

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you feel that you are so oppressed by the current government you need to abolish it?

What are you babbling about?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wasn't asking you directly, I was agreeing with you

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for straightening that out.

 

[sun rise]

Of course justices are political assets.
They've long been such, which is why
the parties fight over who installs whom.

Roberts has been doing his best to keep them even handed.

And in spite of your cynicism, there was a time when that was not true. Or certainly much less true than now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Roberts has been doing his best to keep them even handed.

And in spite of your cynicism, there was a time when that was not true. Or certainly much less true than now.

I'm not at all cynical.
This is how things would inevitably work.

 

[pearl]

I think it would be a good idea during confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court that the nominee be questioned not only by the Senators, most of whom are lawyers, but by members of the Barr who are Constitutional lawyers. The nominee has less chance of avoiding questions on constitutional grounds.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not at all cynical.
This is how things would inevitably work.

There has always been a political perspective but when I wrote "certainly less so than now" I was thinking of the power play with total hypocrisy of the Trump party in the Senate. Republicans have appointed members of their own party and visa versa, but now there's an absolute extreme ideological test worthy of the Taliban for who gets nominated. And the bald-faced lie and smirking hypocrisy exhibited is a new low.

 

[sun rise]

I think it would be a good idea during confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court that the nominee be questioned not only by the Senators, most of whom are lawyers, but by members of the Barr who are Constitutional lawyers. The nominee has less chance of avoiding questions on constitutional grounds.

That's a good idea. There are fundamental parts of the Constitution that every SCOTUS member should know by heart. If someone can't pass that test and a few others, they should be rejected.

 

[Revoltingest]

There has always been a political perspective but when I wrote "certainly less so than now" I was thinking of the power play with total hypocrisy of the Trump party in the Senate. Republicans have appointed members of their own party and visa versa, but now there's an absolute extreme ideological test worthy of the Taliban for who gets nominated. And the bald-faced lie and smirking hypocrisy exhibited is a new low.

Hypocrisy.....it's rampant on both sides of the aisle.
Is it greater now than before? I dunno.

 

[pearl]

Bipartisanship is a myth. The parties are involved in a competitive game. When one side plays hardball, the other will retaliate.

That may be true now, but there was a time when it did actually work.