SCOTUS, Why Do Justices Move Left, But Never To The Right?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've become convinced that congressional elected office needs to be one and done, without the attempt to rationalize the length of term between Senator and Congressman. All Representatives seem to do is campaign for re-election anyway

It will put an end to careerism right out of the box and, for better or worse, make the framework provided by the party more useful and important across many different seat holders and encourage them to get something meaningful done during their time there if they hope to hold any other office

I get that rationale. And there’s a part of me that is sympathetic to it. But has term limits really fixed the problem with the presidency? How many since FDR do we really think would have won more than 2 elections? It wasn’t an issue before him. Even when a whacko-liberal finally quits and retires, more times than not, the district elects one pretty much just like the one s/he replaced. The trade off would be we’d get rid of the Nancy Pelosi’s but we’d also lose the Rand Pauls and Mike Lee’s under such a scheme.

 

[Tombs]

I've become convinced that congressional elected office needs to be one and done, without the attempt to rationalize the length of term between Senator and Congressman. All Representatives seem to do is campaign for re-election anyway

It will put an end to careerism right out of the box and, for better or worse, make the framework provided by the party more useful and important across many different seat holders and encourage them to get something meaningful done during their time there if they hope to hold any other office

While I like term limits and one term ideals in principle... I don't think our economy would like them very much.

Businesses want stability so they can plan for their future. If they don't know what the political landscape looks like in the next couple years, and is always subject to change, what decisions do you think businesses would make? Expand or sit on their hands?

 

[Ingomike]

I've become convinced that congressional elected office needs to be one and done, without the attempt to rationalize the length of term between Senator and Congressman. All Representatives seem to do is campaign for re-election anyway

It will put an end to careerism right out of the box and, for better or worse, make the framework provided by the party more useful and important across many different seat holders and encourage them to get something meaningful done during their time there if they hope to hold any other office

Very good sentiment but poorly executed. If this plan were enacted permanent DC would gain even more power. As it stands we elect a new rep, former state senator, the rep and two trusted advisers go to DC where their party gives them 17 staffers. The elected rep and confidants make up a paltry 15% of the team. Then lobbyists with rears experience run things even more...

 

[2A_Tom]

I get that rationale. And there’s a part of me that is sympathetic to it. But has term limits really fixed the problem with the presidency? How many since FDR do we really think would have won more than 2 elections? It wasn’t an issue before him. Even when a whacko-liberal finally quits and retires, more times than not, the district elects one pretty much just like the one s/he replaced. The trade off would be we’d get rid of the Nancy Pelosi’s but we’d also lose the Rand Pauls and Mike Lee’s under such a scheme.

Obama would be currently running for his fourth term.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Judges want to be accepted in the DC elite social circles and with all of the right people. It moves them left. No matter how many Federalist Society meetings we hold, they still drift left. Except for one- Clarence Thomas.

Clarence gives zero ****s about the DC elites and that is one reason he is the model SCOTUS Justice.

 

[Leadeye]

Judges want to be accepted in the DC elite social circles and with all of the right people. It moves them left. No matter how many Federalist Society meetings we hold, they still drift left. Except for one- Clarence Thomas.

Clarence gives zero ****s about the DC elites and that is one reason he is the model SCOTUS Justice.

Those folks put him through a meat grinder of confirmation hearings, he has a long memory.

 

[2A_Tom]

I listened to that every day on the radio.

 

[jamil]

All my life left appointed judges have largely ruled as the supporters of the President that nominated them. Not so on the right. Of the right appointed judges there always seems to be two or three that the left can get to join them, one at the time, to get left rulings. This takes the pressure off one guy to just fully flip. But why will there never be a lefty judge that will "grow" to support the 2/A? Why does it always go the other way?

And just a point for our legal professionals, don't pizz on my back and tell me it's raining, a lot of this crap they rule on they make up, it's not in the text or even background writings.

Recently ruled a Trump EO could not be done that simply changed an Obama EO. WTF?


I have read article after article on this topic and never really finish satisfied with the answers. I have read all the hypothesis of influence of liberal press, education establishment, and now social media. Even that they mellow and become more liberal with age. Just what is in the water they serve in SCOTUS chambers?

Roberts. Yeah, that was a retarded ruling. The decision on the LGBT case from Gorsuch was surprising. That one fabricated a new law that was never passed by a legislature. The Oklahoma ruling, I'm gonna give him a pass on. He said during his confirmation something to the effect that justices have to rule in ways they hate because that's what the law is. He probably ruled correctly on that no matter how ****ed up it seems.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Roberts was appointed by CIA Creature Bush 2. Nuff said.

 

[two70]

Roberts was appointed by CIA Creature Bush 2. Nuff said.

So was Alito, who has been every bit as solid as Thomas is and Scalia was previously.

 

[Leadeye]

Dc and the culture that goes with it is what needs to be dismantled. Scatter the agencies all over the country and confine elected representatives to the area they are supposed to serve for most all of their time.

 

[Twangbanger]

All my life left appointed judges have largely ruled as the supporters of the President that nominated them. Not so on the right. Of the right appointed judges there always seems to be two or three that the left can get to join them, one at the time, to get left rulings. This takes the pressure off one guy to just fully flip. But why will there never be a lefty judge that will "grow" to support the 2/A? Why does it always go the other way?

And just a point for our legal professionals, don't pizz on my back and tell me it's raining, a lot of this crap they rule on they make up, it's not in the text or even background writings.

Recently ruled a Trump EO could not be done that simply changed an Obama EO. WTF?


I have read article after article on this topic and never really finish satisfied with the answers. I have read all the hypothesis of influence of liberal press, education establishment, and now social media. Even that they mellow and become more liberal with age. Just what is in the water they serve in SCOTUS chambers?

Well, Conservatives are supposed to be for the "rule of law." To pick an example, Roe v. Wade is about to turn 50.

Surely you're not suggesting conservative justices should break with a half-century of legal tradition, simply because we're the ones "holding the stick" now and don't like the law as it stands?

 

[2A_Tom]

RvW is not law. It is judicial over reach. That issue should be left to the States.

 

[abnk]

Could be a reflection of the societal shift, but I think a lot of it has to do with lack of a strong foundation in natural law. They tend to be enlightenment/masonic/humanistic/protestant minded as opposed to the Catholic/Aristo-Thomist tradition.

 

[Thor]

Cocktail parties and hanging out with the cool kids. Swamp creature induction ceremonies.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Roe v. Wade was not a legal decision, it had no basis in the Constitution.

 

[NKBJ]

The judge on the Epstein / Deutsche Bank money laundering case sure got a heads up on why judges make ruling the way they do.
Wanna bet her replacement rules just right?

 

[Twangbanger]

RvW is not law. It is judicial over reach. That issue should be left to the States.

Roe v. Wade was not a legal decision, it had no basis in the Constitution.

I appreciate the sentiment about the decision, but it has been the law of the land for almost 50 years now. I suspect much of what judges decide has no basis in the Constitution.

 

[2A_Tom]

Please, Sir. Cite the law.

 

[wtburnette]

I appreciate the sentiment about the decision, but it has been the law of the land for almost 50 years now. I suspect much of what judges decide has no basis in the Constitution.

Much to the detriment of our society.