The Supreme Court's Power May Shift To Conservatives This Summer

[KellyinAvon]

Anthony Kennedy is 81, Ruth Buzzi-Ginsburg is 84 (doesn't look a day over 150), Stephan Breyer is 79. Justice Scalia was 79 when he passed away.

Clarence Thomas is 69, Sam Alito is 67, Sonia "white men can't judge" Sotomayer is 63, Chief Justice Roberts is 63, Elena "I can't even spell recusal" Kagen is 57, Neil Gorsuch is 50.

Elections have consequences. If the outcome of the November 2016 election had been different? Not only would we have some loon like Cass Sunstein (animals have rights in court, married to Obama UN Ambassador and serial unmasker Samantha Power). Buzzi-Ginsburg would've been replaced (she'd have stepped down if Hillary got elected) by someone even further left. We'd have lost the 2nd Amendment.

This "balanced court" crap was a media narrative made up when Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down. The confirmations gave gone full **** show ever since Robert Bork.

All of the age info is from Wikipedia, so if it's wrong, oops.

 

[HenryWallace]

Ok so the term Supreme Court exists

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and insuch inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. TheJudges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during goodBehavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation whichshall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

in the text but does it explain it as a body of people that are appointed for life?

 

[Woobie]

Ok so the term Supreme Court exists in the text but does it explain it as a body of people that are appointed for life?

They have it as long as they have good behavior, which is life unless they screw it up.

 

[KLB]

Why is the topic a choice between a conservative and a liberal ? Isn’t the Constitution pretty straightforward ?

One would think it was. The years have shown that justices on both sides are not capable of reading it though.

 

[HenryWallace]

Lawyers. For life. My nightmares have nothing on that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ok so the term Supreme Court exists in the text but does it explain it as a body of people that are appointed for life?

Nope, but it doesn't prohibit it either.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ok so the term Supreme Court exists in the text but does it explain it as a body of people that are appointed for life?

What would you prefer over the current system? A set term? Can be fired for any/no reason? What?

 

[hoosierdoc]

the court was supposed to be apolitical. Since it is anything but apolitical i think term limits are perfectly fine

 

[churchmouse]

the court was supposed to be apolitical. Since it is anything but apolitical i think term limits are perfectly fine

Limits but in this whoever has the big chair in the oval office and enough backing can and will stack the court in that party's favor.
But the current system is not the best either.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Lawyers. For life. My nightmares have nothing on that. View attachment 64760

Please provide 72 hours notice before posting pictures of Ruth Buzzi-Ginsberg. She looks almost life-like in this pic, must be Photo-shopped.

 

[BugI02]

the court was supposed to be apolitical. Since it is anything but apolitical i think term limits are perfectly fine

Judges, at any level, were supposed to be apolitical (perhaps non-partisan would be a better term). That doesn't seem to be going well, so perhaps ideologically near balanced is the best we can hope for. If you dream of a SCOTUS that can run roughshod over the will of half the people, be careful what you wish for, we almost had that but for Trump

It might be fun to be able to make someone like Ginsburg sit out deliberations for any case she's shown partisan feeling for, but who would you get to be that "lawgiver". You would just create a new and perhaps smaller target for partisan takeover. From what I can see, impeachment is the best compromise in this as it is so difficult to take over control of both chambers and exert that control sufficiently to target one single individual. It is meant to be rare and not easily accomplished

 

[SirLiftsALatte]

Judges, at any level, were supposed to be apolitical (perhaps non-partisan would be a better term). That doesn't seem to be going well, so perhaps ideologically near balanced is the best we can hope for. If you dream of a SCOTUS that can run roughshod over the will of half the people, be careful what you wish for, we almost had that but for Trump

It might be fun to be able to make someone like Ginsburg sit out deliberations for any case she's shown partisan feeling for, but who would you get to be that "lawgiver". You would just create a new and perhaps smaller target for partisan takeover. From what I can see, impeachment is the best compromise in this as it is so difficult to take over control of both chambers and exert that control sufficiently to target one single individual. It is meant to be rare and not easily accomplished

I dream of a SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended to be interpreted. Reading laws as "living documents" where words and legal definitions mean nothing if they don't suit the desired outcome is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in the courtroom.

If the will of 50% or heck, even 90% of the people results in laws that violate the Constitution, than SCOTUS should be obligated to rule accordingly. For those reasons, I don't really care if the Court is "ideologically balanced" liberal and conservative Justices, I just Justices who are capable and willing of making unbiased rulings.

If that results in a conservative Court, then so be it.

 

[KLB]

I dream of a SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended to be interpreted. Reading laws as "living documents" where words and legal definitions mean nothing if they don't suit the desired outcome is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in the courtroom.

If the will of 50% or heck, even 90% of the people results in laws that violate the Constitution, than SCOTUS should be obligated to rule accordingly. For those reasons, I don't really care if the Court is "ideologically balanced" liberal and conservative Justices, I just Justices who are capable and willing of making unbiased rulings.

If that results in a conservative Court, then so be it.

They just choose other parts of the constitution to ignore.

 

[luger fan]

We can only hope. If someone can wake up Ruth 'Buzzie' and ask her to leave, wherever she thinks she is at.

 

[KellyinAvon]

We can only hope. If someone can wake up Ruth 'Buzzie' and ask her to leave, wherever she thinks she is at.

Ruth Buzzi on the Supreme Court would be preferable to Ruth Buzzi-Ginsburg. For those you remember Laugh In, you know what I mean.
[video=youtube;9UQfCjhY2FU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UQfCjhY2FU[/video]

 

[Vigilant]

Please provide 72 hours notice before posting pictures of Ruth Buzzi-Ginsberg. She looks almost life-like in this pic, must be Photo-shopped.

She looks like Achmed the Dead Terrorist from Jeff Dunham's comedy skits. And some of her ideals

 

[Vigilant]

I dream of a SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended to be interpreted. Reading laws as "living documents" where words and legal definitions mean nothing if they don't suit the desired outcome is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in the courtroom.

If the will of 50% or heck, even 90% of the people results in laws that violate the Constitution, than SCOTUS should be obligated to rule accordingly. For those reasons, I don't really care if the Court is "ideologically balanced" liberal and conservative Justices, I just Justices who are capable and willing of making unbiased rulings.

If that results in a conservative Court, then so be it.

I prefer a SC that doesn't interpret, but READS and UNDERSTANDS what was written. There's not a lot of ambiguity in the Bill of Rights?

 

[LARRY1]

I don't know if any of you are religious or not but just in case your interested, there is a man named Mark Taylor who prophesied that Trump would be president in 2011 he has since said that the Supreme Court would be shaken 2 will be taken (die). you can read all his prophecy's at sordrescue.com he is a retired firefighter. he has other works that give a lot of hope for Merica!! God Bless.

 

[jamil]

I prefer a SC that doesn't interpret, but READS and UNDERSTANDS what was written. There's not a lot of ambiguity in the Bill of Rights?

Then there's another rationale for deciding cases. You decide who's oppressed according to your virtue, and then you decide to give them a better outcome, regardless of the merits of their case. Self-defined virtue > merit. Ask the wise latina justice.

 

[Twangbanger]

...You decide who's oppressed according to your virtue, and then you decide to give them a better outcome...

Modern Civil Rights in a nutshell.