Indeed! The patron saint of Godless liberalism. But what would you expect of a former ACLU lawyer? Hard to think of any other group who has done more to undermine our traditional Judeo-Christian values.
At the same time, there is nothing but blatant hypocrisy among both parties when it comes to a Supreme Court vacancy. Republicans note that Biden years ago said that such nominations should not be considered in a presidential election year, which justifies McConnell's 2016 nixing of an Obama court nominee. Then McConnell says oh, we should not consider a nominee in such a year only when the president and Senate are of different parties. Funny, in 1968, the Senate was controlled by Democrats and LBJ put forward a replacement for Earl Warren, but Republicans then were saying a nomination should not be considered in a presidential election year. Should McConnell admit that Republicans back in 1968 were "wrong" to make that claim?
And when it comes to ideology, Democrats now complain the Republicans want to "stack' the court with right-wing ideologues. Odd, though, I never hear Democrats being worried about a court stacked with left-wing ideologues.
What neither party these days wants is a court nominee who is truly independent, who does not prejudge cases, who sometimes rules more with the liberals, and sometimes with the conservatives. Like John Roberts, who has sided with the liberals on some issues (abortion and Obamacare) and sometimes with the conservatives (Voting Rights Act, gay marriage). NO, each party wants a nominee who is reliably liberal or conservative---as predictable as the hot muggy weather Richmond Hill gets in the summer months.
No clean hands in the process, but lots of cynicism and hypocrisy...or "gaming the system."
Well since the Republicans are not abortion advocates, I am fine with President Trump nominating someone and the senate acting. FYI, Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself said there was no bar to nominating a supreme court justice in an election year. I think her "dying wish" is a made up story to motivate the leftwing mob.
She graduated first in her class at Columbia Law School after leaving Harvard Law when the dean of that school said to the nine women in the class, "Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?" She was the first woman to serve on the law reviews of both Harvard and Columbia.
Romulus Augustus here, Please let it be Justice Barbara Logoa, Roman Catholic and Cubana who's family understands what Communism is and what it does first hand, and with her or Amy Coney Barrett would make it SEVEN Roman Catholics on the High Court. As Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano said, this is the most election in HISTORY, Vigano has stated that Trump will win because it is God's will that this imperfect man will save the United States. With Melania Trump's guiding she is a Roman Catholic by the way, Trump is on his way to conversion to the True Faith Deo Gratias!!!!!!
Notorious Fan at September 21, 2020 at 4:26 PM said, "She graduated first in her class at Columbia Law School after leaving Harvard Law when the dean of that school said to the nine women in the class, "Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?" She was the first woman to serve on the law reviews of both Harvard and Columbia."
....which only serves to show that high intelligence without a solid moral compass is devastatingly destructive.
"What neither party these days wants is a court nominee who is truly independent, who does not prejudge cases..."
I guess you haven't t noticed that it is the Democrat appointed justices that are reliably liberal. It is some of the Republican justices that evidence independence of judicial opinion.
Oh, I have noticed that the Democratic-appointed justices are reliably liberal. But that does not mean either party wants truly independent justices. Conservatives want justices who are guaranteed or likely to overturn Roe; liberals want a litmus test in support of Roe. Basically each party wants the court to be a super-legislature, legislators in black robes.
The chief justice, John Roberts, has displeased both conservatives and liberals at one time or another. Conservatives detest his vote to uphold Obamacare and to strike down Louisiana abortion clinic restrictions, while liberals dislike his decision to overturn the handgun ban in DC and his decision to strike down a preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. Anthony Kennedy was seen as a moderate but he voted more often than not with conservative William Rehnquist. Kennedy was liberal on the social issues but more conservative on economic ones, like voting to ditch Obamacare.
What we need is term limits for justices. Give them a 12 to 15 year term, non-renewable. No serving on the bench at age 85+---have to call it quits by 75 or 80. Maybe even bring back the 60-vote requirement so that a nominee has some bipartisan support. The chance of any of this being adopted? OF course, zero!
10 comments:
Bee here:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt. 7:13
God bless.
Bee
Indeed! The patron saint of Godless liberalism. But what would you expect of a former ACLU lawyer? Hard to think of any other group who has done more to undermine our traditional Judeo-Christian values.
At the same time, there is nothing but blatant hypocrisy among both parties when it comes to a Supreme Court vacancy. Republicans note that Biden years ago said that such nominations should not be considered in a presidential election year, which justifies McConnell's 2016 nixing of an Obama court nominee. Then McConnell says oh, we should not consider a nominee in such a year only when the president and Senate are of different parties. Funny, in 1968, the Senate was controlled by Democrats and LBJ put forward a replacement for Earl Warren, but Republicans then were saying a nomination should not be considered in a presidential election year. Should McConnell admit that Republicans back in 1968 were "wrong" to make that claim?
And when it comes to ideology, Democrats now complain the Republicans want to "stack' the court with right-wing ideologues. Odd, though, I never hear Democrats being worried about a court stacked with left-wing ideologues.
What neither party these days wants is a court nominee who is truly independent, who does not prejudge cases, who sometimes rules more with the liberals, and sometimes with the conservatives. Like John Roberts, who has sided with the liberals on some issues (abortion and Obamacare) and sometimes with the conservatives (Voting Rights Act, gay marriage). NO, each party wants a nominee who is reliably liberal or conservative---as predictable as the hot muggy weather Richmond Hill gets in the summer months.
No clean hands in the process, but lots of cynicism and hypocrisy...or "gaming the system."
Well since the Republicans are not abortion advocates, I am fine with President Trump nominating someone and the senate acting. FYI, Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself said there was no bar to nominating a supreme court justice in an election year. I think her "dying wish" is a made up story to motivate the leftwing mob.
Should have been a bobblehead.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Bobblehead
https://www.bobbleheads.com/1215/ruth-bader-ginsburg-bobblehead
She graduated first in her class at Columbia Law School after leaving Harvard Law when the dean of that school said to the nine women in the class, "Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?" She was the first woman to serve on the law reviews of both Harvard and Columbia.
Romulus Augustus here, Please let it be Justice Barbara Logoa, Roman Catholic and Cubana who's family understands what Communism is and what it does first hand, and with her or Amy Coney Barrett would make it SEVEN Roman Catholics on the High Court. As Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano said, this is the most election in HISTORY, Vigano has stated that Trump will win because it is God's will that this imperfect man will save the United States. With Melania Trump's guiding she is a Roman Catholic by the way, Trump is on his way to conversion to the True Faith Deo Gratias!!!!!!
So this is the most important election in history? Yeah, I supposed we will hear that also in 2024, 2028, 2032...you get the idea!
Trump will save the United States? Save it from what? Is he some sort of Messianic figure?
Seven Roman Catholics on the court? Oh, we must have some religious test, eh?
Bee here:
Notorious Fan at September 21, 2020 at 4:26 PM said, "She graduated first in her class at Columbia Law School after leaving Harvard Law when the dean of that school said to the nine women in the class, "Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?" She was the first woman to serve on the law reviews of both Harvard and Columbia."
....which only serves to show that high intelligence without a solid moral compass is devastatingly destructive.
God bless.
Bee
"What neither party these days wants is a court nominee who is truly independent, who does not prejudge cases..."
I guess you haven't t noticed that it is the Democrat appointed justices that are reliably liberal. It is some of the Republican justices that evidence independence of judicial opinion.
Oh, I have noticed that the Democratic-appointed justices are reliably liberal. But that does not mean either party wants truly independent justices. Conservatives want justices who are guaranteed or likely to overturn Roe; liberals want a litmus test in support of Roe. Basically each party wants the court to be a super-legislature, legislators in black robes.
The chief justice, John Roberts, has displeased both conservatives and liberals at one time or another. Conservatives detest his vote to uphold Obamacare and to strike down Louisiana abortion clinic restrictions, while liberals dislike his decision to overturn the handgun ban in DC and his decision to strike down a preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. Anthony Kennedy was seen as a moderate but he voted more often than not with conservative William Rehnquist. Kennedy was liberal on the social issues but more conservative on economic ones, like voting to ditch Obamacare.
What we need is term limits for justices. Give them a 12 to 15 year term, non-renewable. No serving on the bench at age 85+---have to call it quits by 75 or 80. Maybe even bring back the 60-vote requirement so that a nominee has some bipartisan support. The chance of any of this being adopted? OF course, zero!
Post a Comment