The Decline of SCOTUS into a Partisan Political Body

[NationalTitles18]

“They think they are very clever. They think they can get away with it because no one is paying attention. But we are paying attention,” says Chris Hayes on the conservative majority of the Supreme Court.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

It’s infuriating there is no way to hold the SC to any standards. Or even to get them to explain obviously bad faith decisions and postponing those decisions when they will
influence an election.

You might say the SC has been weaponized.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

It’s infuriating there is no way to hold the SC to any standards. Or even to get them to explain obviously bad faith decisions and postponing those decisions when they will
influence an election.

You might say the SC has been weaponized.

Hmmmm, the very thing the GOP claimed Obama was trying to do. Funny how, once again, it is always projection with the GOP, not objection.

 

[AWRTR]

Here is the fun part. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was a 6-3 liberal court the very people screaming now would be cheering whatever decisions that court made. The conservatives would be mad instead. It all depends on your point of view and political leanings.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Here is the fun part. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was a 6-3 liberal court the very people screaming now would be cheering whatever decisions that court made. The conservatives would be mad instead. It all depends on your point of view and political leanings.

That is true only if it's also true that no one wants justice - only their side to win.

But the truth is, I think what you said is true because republicans do only care about if their wide wins now, and not at all about justice.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

If the SC was dominated by liberals they would more often reach decisions for the public good rather than the crap we are seeing now.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

That is true only if it's also true that no one wants justice - only their side to win.

But the truth is, I think what you said is true because republicans do only care about if their wide wins now, and not at all about justice.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

I was making the same point while you were typing up your post.
One side wants justice, the other side chases power.

 

[jthomas666]

Here is the fun part. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was a 6-3 liberal court the very people screaming now would be cheering whatever decisions that court made. The conservatives would be mad instead. It all depends on your point of view and political leanings.

If by "fun part", you mean "a nonsensical response".

The GOP has repeatedly elevated people more devoted to political ideology than the law to the highest court in the land.

The GOP has repeatedly elevated people with a marginal grasp of ethics to the highest court in the land.

The GOP has for decades targeted the courts as a means of subjecting the rest of the nation to the GOP's Christofascist agenda.

When the Democrats start nominating patently unfit people to the bench, then your most recent notional both sides spiel might hold water.

 

[AWRTR]

I think that most people only want their side to win. They don't want "justice". I have a very low view of humanity on the whole. I understand that there are good honest people among us, but they are exceptions, not the rule. Humanity is a broken tribe of people who are naturally selfish and self-serving. That isn't contained to the Republicans. I know they are the enemy, but to not be able to step back and see the natural proclivity of people to pursue their interests above all things is lacking in understanding human nature. I would say most of the people yelling about SCOTUS fit this description of wanting to "win" above all else.

 

[AWRTR]

If by "fun part", you mean "a nonsensical response".

The GOP has repeatedly elevated people more devoted to political ideology than the law to the highest court in the land.

The GOP has repeatedly elevated people with a marginal grasp of ethics to the highest court in the land.

The GOP has for decades targeted the courts as a means of subjecting the rest of the nation to the GOP's Christofascist agenda.

When the Democrats start nominating patently unfit people to the bench, then your most recent notional both sides spiel might hold water.

The Democrats haven't targeted SCOTUS and other courts to get their ideology in place? The Democrats don't put forth people that Republicans say are unfit? Why are the Democrats always right about who is fit and unfit and the Republicans are wrong? I know this will just run in circles because everyone not on the "right side" is unfit. I get how this works it's why this board has become almost boring. I can predict almost perfectly each poster's responses because I know a little bit about their ideology. It's no fun to have a discussion when 90% of the time I already know the responses. That's not always true, but it's true way more than it's not.

 

[jthomas666]

The Democrats haven't targeted SCOTUS and other courts to get their ideology in place? The Democrats don't put forth people that Republicans say are unfit? Why are the Democrats always right about who is fit and unfit and the Republicans are wrong? I know this will just run in circles because everyone not on the "right side" is unfit. I get how this works it's why this board has become almost boring. I can predict almost perfectly each poster's responses because I know a little bit about their ideology. It's no fun to have a discussion when 90% of the time I already know the responses. That's not always true, but it's true way more than it's not.

"But both sides"

Stop being disingenuous.

The far right had a decades long assault on the courts spearheaded by the Heritage Society, which cultivated right-wing jurists from the ground up.

"But the Democrats nominate people the GOP says are unfit."

Another broad "both sides" brush that ignores the reality of just how far to the right the GOP has dragged the court. I don't think anyone ever said that Merrick Garland was unfit; the GOP still refused him a vote because they wanted to pack the court. Hell, the GOP nominated someone for a federal court WHO HAD NEVER PRACTICED LAW.

"But both sides"

Then we have Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who is doing everything she can to delay and obstruct the classified documents case against Trump. The only real question at this point is whether she's actively trying to help Trump or is just incompetent (though both is certainly not out of the question).

"But both sides"

Then we have Matthew Kacsmaryk, another Trump appointee. Right-wing zealots file cases in his district just to get him as the judge--aka "judge shopping". He often rules far beyond the scope of the actual case, most recently in the Mifepristone case.

"But both sides"

That tendency, along with the right-wing packed 5th Circuit of Appeals, results in a near-direct channel to the Supreme Court--where justices such as Sam Alito, who has on multiple occasions misrepresented the facts of a case (AKA, "just make up some BS") in order to arrive at his desired result, eagerly await their next opportunity to reshape the nation into their idea of paradise.

"But both sides"

A new policy, to try and prevent judge shopping, recommended that any case seeking nationwide relief against a federal or state government action should use a randomization process to assign judges.

The chief judge of Kacsmaryk's district has refused to adopt the new policy.

"But both sides"

Sure thing, Jan.

 

[AWRTR]

"But both sides"

Stop being disingenuous.

The far right had a decades long assault on the courts spearheaded by the Heritage Society, which cultivated right-wing jurists from the ground up.

"But the Democrats nominate people the GOP says are unfit."

Another broad "both sides" brush that ignores the reality of just how far to the right the GOP has dragged the court. I don't think anyone ever said that Merrick Garland was unfit; the GOP still refused him a vote because they wanted to pack the court. Hell, the GOP nominated someone for a federal court WHO HAD NEVER PRACTICED LAW.

"But both sides"

Then we have Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who is doing everything she can to delay and obstruct the classified documents case against Trump. The only real question at this point is whether she's actively trying to help Trump or is just incompetent (though both is certainly not out of the question).

"But both sides"

Then we have Matthew Kacsmaryk, another Trump appointee. Right-wing zealots file cases in his district just to get him as the judge--aka "judge shopping". He often rules far beyond the scope of the actual case, most recently in the Mifepristone case.

"But both sides"

That tendency, along with the right-wing packed 5th Circuit of Appeals, results in a near-direct channel to the Supreme Court--where justices such as Sam Alito, who has on multiple occasions misrepresented the facts of a case (AKA, "just make up some BS") in order to arrive at his desired result, eagerly await their next opportunity to reshape the nation into their idea of paradise.

"But both sides"

A new policy, to try and prevent judge shopping, recommended that any case seeking nationwide relief against a federal or state government action should use a randomization process to assign judges.

The chief judge of Kacsmaryk's district has refused to adopt the new policy.

"But both sides"

Sure thing, Jan.

Thanks for proving my point. I could have written your post for you. BOTH SIDES!!

The left judge shops all the time to find a judge to rule like they want and then it's appealed and moves up the ladder.

You think Dems wouldn't slow walk anything they could to protect Biden, Obama, or whoever the next Dem president is. What do you expect them to do?

I didn't like the way the Garland situation was handled either. I also didn't like it when Reid nuked the 60 votes for SCOTUS nominees. That has pushed all presidents to nominate people farther from the center. The sixty votes made it more likely to get some middle of the road judges. It's come back to bite them now just like ole turtle head Mitch said it would. Break the system and then expect the consequences.

Also, what does "sure thing, Jan." mean? I'd like some clarification on that comment.

 

[92tide]

"But both sides"

Stop being disingenuous.

The far right had a decades long assault on the courts spearheaded by the Heritage Society, which cultivated right-wing jurists from the ground up.

"But the Democrats nominate people the GOP says are unfit."

Another broad "both sides" brush that ignores the reality of just how far to the right the GOP has dragged the court. I don't think anyone ever said that Merrick Garland was unfit; the GOP still refused him a vote because they wanted to pack the court. Hell, the GOP nominated someone for a federal court WHO HAD NEVER PRACTICED LAW.

"But both sides"

Then we have Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who is doing everything she can to delay and obstruct the classified documents case against Trump. The only real question at this point is whether she's actively trying to help Trump or is just incompetent (though both is certainly not out of the question).

"But both sides"

Then we have Matthew Kacsmaryk, another Trump appointee. Right-wing zealots file cases in his district just to get him as the judge--aka "judge shopping". He often rules far beyond the scope of the actual case, most recently in the Mifepristone case.

"But both sides"

That tendency, along with the right-wing packed 5th Circuit of Appeals, results in a near-direct channel to the Supreme Court--where justices such as Sam Alito, who has on multiple occasions misrepresented the facts of a case (AKA, "just make up some BS") in order to arrive at his desired result, eagerly await their next opportunity to reshape the nation into their idea of paradise.

"But both sides"

A new policy, to try and prevent judge shopping, recommended that any case seeking nationwide relief against a federal or state government action should use a randomization process to assign judges.

The chief judge of Kacsmaryk's district has refused to adopt the new policy.

"But both sides"

Sure thing, Jan.

obviously, it's a hell of a drug

 

[NationalTitles18]

I think that most people only want their side to win. They don't want "justice". I have a very low view of humanity on the whole. I understand that there are good honest people among us, but they are exceptions, not the rule. Humanity is a broken tribe of people who are naturally selfish and self-serving. That isn't contained to the Republicans. I know they are the enemy, but to not be able to step back and see the natural proclivity of people to pursue their interests above all things is lacking in understanding human nature. I would say most of the people yelling about SCOTUS fit this description of wanting to "win" above all else.

Republicans have and continue to work to roll back rights and to create an unjust world for those they consider not equal to themselves. From women to gays to trans - they are ok infringing on their rights. This is inherently unjust. Black voting rights is also another area they have violated rights and SCOTUS is a ok with it.

On the surface in some times past we at least pretended to want equal justice for all and equal rights for all, which are virtually indiscernible and inseparable from each other. It’s sad to even lose the superficial part of it.

And to be clear: by republican I mean the party that is now completely maga and anyone who supports it in its current form.

 

[jthomas666]

Thanks for proving my point. I could have written your post for you. BOTH SIDES!!

You can use specifics? Astonishing. Because you seem to just spout variations on "but both sides", using generalities for the democrats.

Interesting that you suggest that the GOP blocked Garland's nomination "to protect the next president" [emphasis added]. So you think the GOP blocked Garland so they could install a justice who would protect Trump? That's a novel take on checks and balances, to be sure.

Also, what does "sure thing, Jan." mean? I'd like some clarification on that comment.

see also,

 

[TexasBama]

obviously, it's a hell of a drug

Jesus and Hitler both had mustaches so they’re the same

 

[AWRTR]

I once again give up. It's all just tiresome. No matter what myself or anyone else says it will never make a dent. So I'll bow out for now. It's not worth my time.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I once again give up. It's all just tiresome. No matter what myself or anyone else says it will never make a dent. So I'll bow out for now. It's not worth my time.

Ok.

I’ve been disappointed with Garland as AG, he’s been weak and indecisive…too timid.

And even he wasn’t acceptable to the GOP For the SC. Anybody who thinks the Dems would go that low is wrong.

 

[Bamaro]

FWIW, whether a person likes or dislikes Garland, he should at least been given a hearing with senators resulting in an up or down vote.

 

[twofbyc]

If by "fun part", you mean "a nonsensical response".

The GOP has repeatedly elevated people more devoted to political ideology than the law to the highest court in the land.

The GOP has repeatedly elevated people with a marginal grasp of ethics to the highest court in the land.

The GOP has for decades targeted the courts as a means of subjecting the rest of the nation to the GOP's Christofascist agenda.

When the Democrats start nominating patently unfit people to the bench, then your most recent notional both sides spiel might hold water.

Two words - Aileen Cannon.
There are many more - incompetent, unqualified political hacks who have no business being on the bench because it’s party first for them, always, and justice be damned.
And if you count em up, let me know how many identify as Democrats. And how many were appointed between 2016-2020.