The Republicans Made SCOTUS Politicized

[ll74]

How can you refute that when McConnell literally blocked Garland, streamlined Barrett and then openly said he'd block any nomination if he had.majority?

 

[pecksniff]

Well, conservatives have been complaining about a politicized SCOTUS ever since the Warren Court of the 1950s.

They were strangely quiet about that when the SCOTUS was striking down New Deal legislation. Or, earlier, about Plessy v. Ferguson. Or, earlier, about the Dred Scott decision.

It's all a matter of gored ox.

 

[pecksniff]

Let us please never, ever again hear the word "originalism."

 

[Cubantripod]

How can you refute that when McConnell literally blocked Garland, streamlined Barrett and then openly said he'd block any nomination if he had.majority?

When you're going to troll, at least do it intelligently.

 

[ll74]

When you're going to troll, at least do it intelligently.

That's not actually an argument.

 

[OldJourno]

Decades before Garland there was Bork.

 

[Cubantripod]

That's not actually an argument.

It's calling you out on a poorly thought out trolling attempt. You purposely forget Harry Reid.

 

[KeithD]

Decades before Garland there was Bork.

False equivalence (and I'm sure you know it). Bork got a debate and a vote.

 

[ll74]

It's calling you out on a poorly thought out trolling attempt. You purposely forget Harry Reid.

So because Reid gave them the ability to be douches...them being douches are his fault?


Have you seen the court because of McConnell? He literally disregarded a justice nomination and then confirmed one using the same bullshit

 

[pecksniff]

It's calling you out on a poorly thought out trolling attempt. You purposely forget Harry Reid.

What did he do in this field?

 

[YDB95]

What did he do in this field?

He's probably referring to Reid invoking the nuclear option in 2013. And oh yeah, he's wrong:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

 

[ll74]

He's probably referring to Reid invoking the nuclear option in 2013. And oh yeah, he's wrong:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

Well, if you're talking specifically avout SCOTUS, that was McConne, but Reid did open the door by breaching the subject.

To me, it doesn't matter. McConnell has been the one at every pain point pushing his agenda. The federal courts are stacked with judges that aren't qualified....and those are the ones that will be promoted up once the time comes for another.

There's absolutely no reason Garland shouldn't be there.

 

[CornusKousa]

How can you refute that when McConnell literally blocked Garland, streamlined Barrett and then openly said he'd block any nomination if he had.majority?

Because activist (D) judges have been openly legislating from the bench directly in the FACE of the Constitution for years because they lacked the juice to get anything done legislatively.

This started especially back in 1973.

It is not the Republicans who made SCOTUS politicized.

It is the Republicans who went all at it though, too bad they didn't put more blatant activist in there.

 

[ll74]

Because activist (D) judges have been openly legislating from the bench directly in the FACE of the Constitution for years because they lacked the juice to get anything done legislatively.

This started especially back in 1973.

It is not the Republicans who made SCOTUS politicized.

It is the Republicans who went all at it though, too bad they didn't put more blatant activist in there.

Incorrect.

 

[CornusKousa]

Incorrect.

Lie to yourself all you want bubba, no skin off my dick.

Enjoy all those FINE and highly qualified justices.

 

[ll74]

Lie to yourself all you want bubba, no skin off my dick.

Enjoy all those FINE and highly qualified justices.

I get that you don't like a woman having an abortion.

That's why Republicans only have one question to qualify judges.

 

[CornusKousa]

I get that you don't like a woman having an abortion.

That's why Republicans only have one question to qualify judges.

Two posts flat you're on to making shit up and lying because you couldn't be honest about politicizing the courts.....so tribal, very conformist, good comrade for being part of the collective!!!

Dude I don't give a flying fuck about abortion or anything else consenting adults do with their doctors or each other.

As far as I'm concerned, drugs, abortion, voluntary/assisted suicide, prostitution....all of it is absolutely ZERO business of the federal government.

You're grasping for straws that ain't there.

 

[SyLent]

How can you refute that when McConnell literally blocked Garland, streamlined Barrett and then openly said he'd block any nomination if he had.majority?

so?

 

[WillJ8787]

Two posts flat you're on to making shit up and lying because you couldn't be honest about politicizing the courts.....so tribal, very conformist, good comrade for being part of the collective!!!

Dude I don't give a flying fuck about abortion or anything else consenting adults do with their doctors or each other.

As far as I'm concerned, drugs, abortion, voluntary/assisted suicide, prostitution....all of it is absolutely ZERO business of the federal government.

You're grasping for straws that ain't there.

Two incoherent posts Already....good little facist puppet

 

[ll74]

Two posts flat you're on to making shit up and lying because you couldn't be honest about politicizing the courts.....so tribal, very conformist, good comrade for being part of the collective!!!

Dude I don't give a flying fuck about abortion or anything else consenting adults do with their doctors or each other.

As far as I'm concerned, drugs, abortion, voluntary/assisted suicide, prostitution....all of it is absolutely ZERO business of the federal government.

You're grasping for straws that ain't there.

1973.….I'm sure you were talking about something else then.

Originalism and activism are both methods of judicial discretion

 

[CornusKousa]

1973.….I'm sure you were talking about something else then.

No, I was talking about R v Wade.

But I wasn't giving my personal opinion on the subject matter of that case. Which is where you went with it, all out with the lies and ascription.

The point of bringing that up is that it was arguably the biggest "SHOTS FIRED!!" moment of judicial activism in the last century.

It's been 48 years and the fight over that is STILL as beefy as a rare Christmas prime rib.

Originalism and activism are both methods of judicial prudence

Yes, now stop with the "the (D)'eez have just been perfect little altruistic angles never once stepping on ANYONES toes!!" partisan hackery for just one second and you might understand that their activism is in fact political and thus has played a key role politicizing the court in the modern era.

To try and lay it all at the feet of the Republicans is 100% USDA certified pure partisan hack Buu shit and anyone who made it through HS history and/or isn't a total (D)ick riding partisan knows it.

 

[CornusKousa]

Two incoherent posts Already....good little facist puppet

Your inability to read isn't incoherence on my part.

 

[ll74]

No, I was talking about R v Wade.

But I wasn't giving my personal opinion on the subject matter of that case. Which is where you went with it, all out with the lies and ascription.

The point of bringing that up is that it was arguably the biggest "SHOTS FIRED!!" moment of judicial activism in the last century.

It's been 48 years and it's STILL beefy as a rare Christmas prime rib.



Yes, now stop with the "the (D)'eez have just been perfect little altruistic angles never once stepping on ANYONES toes!!" partisan hackery for just one second and you might understand that their activism is in fact political and thus has played a key role politicizing the court in the modern era.

To try and lay it all at the feet of the Republicans is 100% USDA certified pure partisan hack Buu shit and anyone who made it through HS history and isn't a total (D)ick riding partisan knows it.

You're missing my point, obviously. You're arguing judicial discretion, which is the choice of a judge who has been appointed.

I'm talking about picking judges who actively support positions of the party and nothing else.

Garland, was, arguably, a completely moderate selection for a justice. He may have leaned left on a few minor issues, but he was more of an originalist in his decisions. The only reason to block him was a political one ...and then Barrett was shoved down our throats with no delay because she aligned with party ideals.

The Federal courts have been packed with one issue judges for lifetime appointments because the Trump party decided that their political positions matter more than anything else.

Nominations used to need the backing of recommendations from experienced law professionals.

Roe v Wade was a decision that had less to do with abortion and more to do with patient rights. Now states are literally creating shit laws to throw at the SCOTUS fan to see what sticks....Republicans, the party of originalism, are actively pursuing activist SCOTUS decisions.

It's a joke....and Democrats are the only ones looking for sincere nominations

 

[CornusKousa]

I'm talking about picking judges who actively support positions of the party and nothing else.

So am I. OBVIOUSLY.....pshhh...*huff*

Garland, was, arguably, a completely moderate selection for a justice. He may have leaned left on a few minor issues, but he was more of an originalist in his decisions. The only reason to block him was a political one ...and then Barrett was shoved down our throats with no delay because she aligned with party ideals.

BAAHAHAHAH!!!!
https://www.law.com/image/EM/sonia-sotomayor-laughs-Article-201411171355.jpg

CRY MORE!! THE TEARS ARE DELICIOUS!!!

The Federal courts have been packed with one issue judges for lifetime appointments because the Trump party decided that their political positions matter more than anything else.

OMG YES!!!! IT'S FANTASTIC!!!
https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/2o3P6Ki5hkprCQWhDqDvisoFvvo=/415x311/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/B7V3KA5SAMRH4NDGYZLJQFUIOY.jpg

Nominations used to need the backing of recommendations from experienced law professionals.

Yea and Democrats used to be pro-free speech and largely liberal.

Lot's of shit has changed.

Roe v Wade was a decision that had less to do with abortion and more to do with patient rights. Now states are literally creating shit laws to throw at the SCOTUS fan to see what sticks....Republicans, the party of originalism, are actively pursuing activist SCOTUS decisions.

Yes, again I'm not talking about the content of the case.

i'm talking about that being the first major shot fired in the "lets make the courts partisan" battle.

They are just way behind the rest of the government because life time appointments put the breaks on the partisan activist appointments.

But 1973 was the year the modern polarization and politicizing of the SCOTUS began.

It's a joke....and Democrats are the only ones looking for sincere nominations

LOL....oh yes their all just perfect little angles at all times, CAN DO NO WRONG!!

spare me.

 

[ll74]

Yes, again I'm not talking about the content of the case.

i'm talking about that being the first major shot fired in the "lets make the courts partisan" battle.

They are just way behind the rest of the government because life time appointments put the breaks on the partisan activist appointments.

But 1973 was the year the modern polarization and politicizing of the SCOTUS began.



LOL....oh yes their all just perfect little angles at all times, CAN DO NO WRONG!!

spare me.

You're talking about decisions of justices, which, while appointed and approved during contentious proceedings, were picked for more than just "will you overturn roe v Wade"

Republicans have been the ones completely driving bullshit appointments.

Have fun with your "pwn" narrative