Status
Not open for further replies.
Well yes, SCOTUS picks are partisan.

I feel like I'm not really understanding what you're getting at

No - they clearly should not be partisan. The court should be an independent non political institution. The Dems commit to this and nominate judges on the basis of their standing and also independence from politics. The GOP just see it as a partisan mechanism to push conservative policy.
 
See this is part of the lie.

Going back to the Nixon administration, 17 of the 21 supreme court justices were voted in with supermajorities. Many of them had 90%+ votes in favour.

That's because normal practice is to appoint reasonable, well qualified, universally respected judges.


What Trump and Mitch McConnel have done, removing the supermajority requirement and forcing through 3 Supreme Court nominees that not even all the republicans could back is not normal.

It's the ultimate both-sides fallacy. Merrick Garland was not a democratic version of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. He was a moderate, because that's what you did.

Can you provide examples of a Republican controlled senate appointing a liberal judge and a Democrat controlled senate appointing a conservative judge?

Was RBG a moderate? Was Scalia? What about Thomas?

I think the idea that the Supreme Court was always full of moderates before Trump and that Coney Barratt and Kavanaugh are some extreme cases is, politely, absolutely bonkers.
 
"Four more years? Get 50/1 on Donald Trump to win the US Presidential Election 2020 with promo code EPUS2020" William Hill
 
Well yes, SCOTUS picks are partisan.

I feel like I'm not really understanding what you're getting at
Should the law be partisan?
I would suggest any system that allows it to be is flawed to start with.
Abusing that system in order to further bias the court and influence the law is heading in completely the wrong direction.
 
The Dems commit to this and nominate judges on the basis of their standing and also independence from politics

Is it a massive coincidence that the Democrats have never nominated a Justice not affiliated to the Democratic Party then?

This idea that the Supreme Court has never been a battleground of the right nominating conservative leaning judges and the left nominating liberal leaning judges is an argument that I've literally never had because nobody has ever proposed something so strange.
 
Should the law be partisan?

We're not talking what should be here, we're talking what it is, as unfortunate as it may be.

And I'd argue that the law is ALWAYS partisan but that's a different and non-political argument not particularly relevant to the thread
 

We're not talking what should be here, we're talking what it is, as unfortunate as it may be.

And I'd argue that the law is ALWAYS partisan but that's a different and non-political argument not particularly relevant to the thread
I edited after you had replied obviously;

I would suggest any system that allows it to be (partisan) is flawed to start with.
Abusing that system in order to further bias the court and influence the law is heading in completely the wrong direction.
There clearly was an abuse of the GOPs majority in the senate to bypass normal tradition.

Look at it anyway you like, it's just plain wrong having the legal reading of constitutional matters, so biasedly wrapped up in the court's political and religious leanings.
 
See this is part of the lie.

Going back to the Nixon administration, 17 of the 21 supreme court justices were voted in with massive supermajorities. Many of them had 90%+ votes in favour. They were voted for by both parties.

That's because normal practice is to appoint reasonable, well qualified, universally respected judges.


What Trump and Mitch McConnel have done, removing the supermajority requirement and forcing through 3 Supreme Court nominees that not even all the republicans could back is not normal.

It's the ultimate both-sides fallacy. Merrick Garland was not a democratic version of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. He was a moderate, because that's what you did.

The two parties are not the same.
You beat me to it.

The Judicial branch of the US government is supposed to be non partisan, and independent from the executive and legislative branches of government.
 
Is the US in a civil war now?

Is Islam a banned religion?

I must have missed that piece of news.

The US far right has been powerful and present for as long as the US has existed. It wasn't that long ago that they were hanging black people from trees and demanding that their children not be in the same school as black people. Let's not pretend that a country where nationalism seems to be seen as a positive trait and every politician stands behind a flag shouting God Bless America has not had a long history of far right ideologies within their political system. In fact the Power of Nightmares documentary pointed out 20 years ago that US culture demands an enemy (Nazis, Soviets, Communists, Islam, etc) in order to function and that was decades before Trump was anywhere.
Are gun-toting militia roaming the streets and government buildings threatening, or actually shooting, people that disagree with them with the tacit approval of trump?
Antifa v blm?
mask v non-mask?

Did trump not call for a ' Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US'?

I'm well aware of Americas need for 'an enemy' and its history. TRump has managed to undo any good work on race relations from the last 50 years in his desire to produce that much needed 'enemy'

let's not pretend trump hasn't made the US a royally fucked up place at the moment.
 
I edited after you had replied obviously;

I would suggest any system that allows it to be (partisan) is flawed to start with.
Abusing that system in order to further bias the court and influence the law is heading in completely the wrong direction.
There clearly was an abuse of the GOPs majority in the senate to bypass normal tradition.

Look at it anyway you like, it's just plain wrong having the legal reading of constitutional matters, so biasedly wrapped up in the court's political and religious leanings.

Yes I agree that it's totally wrong. I just don't think it's new. In fact I don't even think it's purely a Supreme Court problem or an American problem. Any time a politician has the ability to influence law making appointments then generally they will attempt to provide candidates that see the world as they do. There are similar issues here with the House of Lords.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.