The Illegitimacy of the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

How can we get Kamala on the Court????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why you would ever risk being Democrat. Republicans have the passion, the money, the tactics and the guns. Democrats have people if they decide to postpone their latte that morning to go vote.

Republicans are the head quarterback, Democrats wrote for the literary journal

Haha. Republicans are meth addled racist yokels being jerked around by charlatan preachers and billionaires who look down on their minions.

Ooh, now tell us about crack-addled urbanites being jerked around by charlatan BLM scam artists who pretend to have their best interests at heart but are really just using their rubes while they laugh their way to the bank. We’ll wait, while you spin up some faux outrage and call me a “racist” but studiously ignore your gross statement.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This one struck a nerve. Republicans know that the only power the Supreme Court has comes from public perception of its legitimacy. That power is being squandered & diminished by court packing, hacks on the bench, venal corrupt judges, and transparently partisan decisions.

Oh, you poor dear. It really triggers you (still) that these justices you detest were legitimately confirmed to SCOTUS, just like all the other justices before them. It’s both pathetic and disgusting how partisan LWNJs are. You will only be happy if the court is made up of nine liberal justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

They did not ignore anything about regulation and militia. The ruling was in line with hundreds of years of rulings on the 2nd amendment, as can be seen by looking closely at the Miller case, instead of accepting leftist dogma that claims that case limited gun ownership to the National Guard.

As for Citizens United, during arguments the losing side claimed the government has the power to ban books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when McConnell said appointments during presidential elections were bad and blocked an Obama appointment and the changed his mind and seated a Trump appointee 4 years later? Why are people surprised that people no longer see the court as legitimate when one part so bluntly packed it?

He was being consistent. The Senate under opposition party control in an election year wouldn't approve a nominee.
Biden endorsed that standard in the past. Chuck Schumer endorsed it. Do you really thing Senator Barack Obama would have supported giving a vote to a George @ Bush nominee in 2008?
We already know the answer because Obama filibustered judges as Senator. He voted to deny Alito a vote on the Senate floor, alongside more than 30 other Democrats.
Yet somehow McConnell and Republicans are at fault for not providing a vote for someone who had even less support than Alito, who was confirmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Remember.... you are responding to people who believe the Constitution is malleable and fluid and can be interpreted as they see fit.
Likewise, they believe SCOTUS should rule based on what is popular today and not based on law.

It’s a constitution, not a code of laws. Of course it isn’t calcified.

Changes to the Constitution are made through Amendments. It has been done many times.
And, yes, the Constitution is law. And, it is the basis on which more specific laws in a county, state, or country are made.

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United,frame%20and%20constraints%20of%20government.

The 2nd Amendment was radically reinterpreted by Scalia in Heller. Of course it’s “malleable” - we watched Scalia do it himself.

It was not radically reinterpreted. It is Democrat appointees who seek to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Remember.... you are responding to people who believe the Constitution is malleable and fluid and can be interpreted as they see fit.
Likewise, they believe SCOTUS should rule based on what is popular today and not based on law.

It’s a constitution, not a code of laws. Of course it isn’t calcified.

Changes to the Constitution are made through Amendments. It has been done many times.
And, yes, the Constitution is law. And, it is the basis on which more specific laws in a county, state, or country are made.

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United,frame%20and%20constraints%20of%20government.

The 2nd Amendment was radically reinterpreted by Scalia in Heller. Of course it’s “malleable” - we watched Scalia do it himself.

It was not radically reinterpreted. It is Democrat appointees who seek to radically reinterpret the 2nd amendment.

There was no federal right to bear arms until Heller. It was a made up “right.”

From 1995:

But the judges who interpret the nation's laws say the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. In fact, no federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun.

In few areas of law is there such a vast gulf between what people think the Constitution protects and what the nation's judges say it protects. The difference between belief and reality infects the country's perennial gun control debates and exacerbates tensions after incidents like the 1993 shootout near Waco, Tex., and the Oklahoma City bombing last month, which put new attention on citizen paramilitary groups.

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This one struck a nerve. Republicans know that the only power the Supreme Court has comes from public perception of its legitimacy. That power is being squandered & diminished by court packing, hacks on the bench, venal corrupt judges, and transparently partisan decisions.

Oh, you poor dear. It really triggers you (still) that these justices you detest were legitimately confirmed to SCOTUS, just like all the other justices before them. It’s both pathetic and disgusting how partisan LWNJs are. You will only be happy if the court is made up of nine liberal justices.

DP... I'd say you are the one who is a poor dear. Yes, they were confirmed to SCOTUS, but they have since fallen from grace and their corruption is on full display. Thus, their prior confirmation is now tarnished. That's just how it works, it has nothing to do with left or right. If one of the justices were caught red-handed engaging in pedophile sex would you still say "no, that child rape does not matter, because they were legitimately confirmed!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when McConnell said appointments during presidential elections were bad and blocked an Obama appointment and the changed his mind and seated a Trump appointee 4 years later? Why are people surprised that people no longer see the court as legitimate when one part so bluntly packed it?

He was being consistent. The Senate under opposition party control in an election year wouldn't approve a nominee.
Biden endorsed that standard in the past. Chuck Schumer endorsed it. Do you really thing Senator Barack Obama would have supported giving a vote to a George @ Bush nominee in 2008?
We already know the answer because Obama filibustered judges as Senator. He voted to deny Alito a vote on the Senate floor, alongside more than 30 other Democrats.
Yet somehow McConnell and Republicans are at fault for not providing a vote for someone who had even less support than Alito, who was confirmed.

That's complete nonsense. The number of judges McConnell held up, and the length of time that he held them up, was completely unprecedented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

Pretty easy. All of the justices on the right were vetted and groomed by the Federalist Society, with funding by right wing and extreme right wing billionaires to change laws to their wishes. Add to it the machinations within the Senate that altered the balance of the court by two seats (Gorsuch and Comey-Barrett)

Run be Leonard Leo, who is one of the most dangerous people in America. Thanks dark money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why you would ever risk being Democrat. Republicans have the passion, the money, the tactics and the guns. Democrats have people if they decide to postpone their latte that morning to go vote.

Republicans are the head quarterback, Democrats wrote for the literary journal

Haha. Republicans are meth addled racist yokels being jerked around by charlatan preachers and billionaires who look down on their minions.

Ooh, now tell us about crack-addled urbanites being jerked around by charlatan BLM scam artists who pretend to have their best interests at heart but are really just using their rubes while they laugh their way to the bank. We’ll wait, while you spin up some faux outrage and call me a “racist” but studiously ignore your gross statement.
DP

crack isn't a thing anymore, that was the 1990's
BLM isn't a thing the way you cast that it is

Yes, there are problems in cities, but guess what....per capital drug use and per capita murders are generally far greater in red rural areas than in cities. So stop casting aspersions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This one struck a nerve. Republicans know that the only power the Supreme Court has comes from public perception of its legitimacy. That power is being squandered & diminished by court packing, hacks on the bench, venal corrupt judges, and transparently partisan decisions.

Oh, you poor dear. It really triggers you (still) that these justices you detest were legitimately confirmed to SCOTUS, just like all the other justices before them. It’s both pathetic and disgusting how partisan LWNJs are. You will only be happy if the court is made up of nine liberal justices.

Sure, if you think nominations based purely on a private cabal litmus test and hundreds of millions of dark money paying off senators for the confirmations conform to "how it used to be" and if you believe Mitch McConnell was a level player in holding one seat open for months while slamming through another nomination in weeks is legitimate, then of course. But you have your head in the sand about the money and are simply hypocritical about the Senate process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when McConnell said appointments during presidential elections were bad and blocked an Obama appointment and the changed his mind and seated a Trump appointee 4 years later? Why are people surprised that people no longer see the court as legitimate when one part so bluntly packed it?

He was being consistent. The Senate under opposition party control in an election year wouldn't approve a nominee.
Biden endorsed that standard in the past. Chuck Schumer endorsed it. Do you really thing Senator Barack Obama would have supported giving a vote to a George @ Bush nominee in 2008?
We already know the answer because Obama filibustered judges as Senator. He voted to deny Alito a vote on the Senate floor, alongside more than 30 other Democrats.
Yet somehow McConnell and Republicans are at fault for not providing a vote for someone who had even less support than Alito, who was confirmed.

He wouldn't even have hearings or a vote - that was unprecedented. The right bleats on constantly about Robert Bork's nomination being torpedoed. Guess what, he had hearings and a vote. Nope, sorry this was a new doctrine created for just that situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are very close to Supreme Court dictates being ignored. The court has no power to enforce its rulings.
The conservatives justices have proven beyond a doubt that they are only there to push a political agenda. An agenda that has little support and is not inline with mainstream modern thinking. Add in the open corruption and the court has no moral or legal standing.

Their role is NOT to decide if their decisions are in line with "mainstream modern thinking." Their role is to decide cases BASED ON LAW.
If the law needs to be changed, it is up to our legislators to do that. NOT SCOTUS!
You want them to do the role of Congress. They are not Congress. And, they are not politicians.

Well stated. Sadly the undereducated masses simply can’t grasp this fact. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a how a law is being applied to a particular case. Congress can pass amendments to alter the constitution which must then be approved by 38 states. Like it or not, understand it or not, that is how the process works.

+1

[Anonymous]

The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.