‘Make the Supreme Court an Election Issue’

13 Responses to ‘Make the Supreme Court an Election Issue’

1. Darin says:

   March 25, 2016 at 12:18

   You forgot “operating under authority NOT granted to them by the Constitution”

   And therein lies the rub,the SCOTUS was only ever to rule in disputes between individual states and between foreign powers and the Republic.They have no constitutional mandate to decide issues of constitutionality period,full stop.
   • KG says:

     March 25, 2016 at 13:58

     Damn right they haven’t – it’s a power they’ve granted to themselves.
2. Alan says:

   March 25, 2016 at 13:42

   Supreme Court appointments have long been radically politicized to the detriment of the justice system in the U.S. Off subject, I see Obama’s job approval is at 52% against 45% who disapprove.
   • KG says:

     March 25, 2016 at 13:57

     Unbelievable numbers, Alan.
     Not that I think they’re necessarily cooked – perhaps there really are that many morons out there…..
     • The Gantt Guy says:

       March 25, 2016 at 17:43

       Maybe … if the survey was taken at a DNC convention. Those number simply cannot be right – since Barry assumed office, the Dems (the party of which he is leader) have lost over 1,000 elected offices … all as a direct result of his policies.

       Maybe it’s 52% who approve of his performance … at the tango in Argentina?
       • KG says:

         March 25, 2016 at 20:55

         
3. Bo Chandler says:

   March 25, 2016 at 14:37

   It beggars belief that any judge in any office could be described as progressive or conservative, much less the highest court in the land.

   It furthermore beggars belief that when interpreting plain letter law these judges routinely rule a near even split, indicating without doubt that their position is politically rather than academically motivated.

   Imagine if you fronted the supreme court and said, “as the judges are well known throughout the land to be alternately conservative leaning or progressive leaning I demand the charges be thrown out due to a clear and obvious lack of impartiality.”

   Although they would arrogantly dismiss your argument, what counter argument of their own could they possibly mount?
   • KG says:

     March 25, 2016 at 16:45

     They couldn’t. Therefore they’d ignore it.
4. Michael in Nelson says:

   March 25, 2016 at 20:45

   It doesn’t help improve trust int eh SCOTUS when one of their number turns advocate for one of the respondents in a case

   http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/24/is-sonia-sotomayor-hearing-cases-or-arguing-them-herself/

   
   • KG says:

     March 25, 2016 at 20:54

     Bloody hell!!
   • Bo Chandler says:

     March 25, 2016 at 21:17

     Un-frigging-believable.
     • KG says:

       March 25, 2016 at 21:18

       Isn’t she Obama’s “wise latina”? Or was that another political appointee?
       • Darin says:

         March 26, 2016 at 01:42

         Yup,that’s his “wise” latina alright.