• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Political Bias on the U.S. Supreme Court

Trippy Trekker

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
12,180
Reaction score
5,710
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Senate put their Partisan Divide on full display this week with a DEM Filibuster over Gorsuch and the GOP implementing their Nuclear Option to advance the nomination.

Congratulations Gorsuch on filling the empty seat!

No case in the past twenty years highlighted Political Bias on the Supreme Court more than Bush v. Gore.

During the 2000 Election, GW had some advantages in Florida. GW's brother Jeb served as Florida's Governor at the time.... and Katherine Harris served as Secretary of State, which made her the State's Chief Election Officer in charge of certifying the Florida results. She also simultaneously served as Chair for GW's Florida Campaign.

Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, lost his 9 home state EVs to GW.

The Conservative-biased USSC ultimately awarded Florida's 25 EVs to GW. GW won 271 - 266. One faithless Elector from DC chose not to vote. Who cares right? That one vote sure didn't matter to me.

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The Senate put their Partisan Divide on full display this week with a DEM Filibuster over Gorsuch and the GOP implementing their Nuclear Option to advance the nomination.

Congratulations Gorsuch on filling the empty seat!

No case in the past twenty years highlighted Political Bias on the Supreme Court more than Bush v. Gore.

During the 2000 Election, GW had some advantages in Florida. GW's brother Jeb served as Florida's Governor at the time.... and Katherine Harris served as Secretary of State, which made her the State's Chief Election Officer in charge of certifying the Florida results. She also simultaneously served as Chair for GW's Florida Campaign.

Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, lost his 9 home state EVs to GW.

The Conservative-biased USSC ultimately awarded Florida's 25 EVs to GW. GW won 271 - 266. One faithless Elector from DC chose not to vote. Who cares right? That one vote sure didn't matter to me.

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...

The Supreme court has been wrecked with inferior minds and politics.

The only fix is a culture change in the nation, we have to start caring more about the law and freedom then we do partisan politics, which will require a willingness to work together.

We are no where nears.....we are still in steep decline.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The Supreme court has been wrecked with inferior minds and politics.

The only fix is a culture change in the nation, we have to start caring more about the law and freedom then we do partisan politics, which will require a willingness to work together.

We are no where nears.....we are still in steep decline.
Click to expand...

My Personal Justice IQ Rating still has Thomas as the lowest. Have you rated the Justices on IQ?
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The Senate put their Partisan Divide on full display this week with a DEM Filibuster over Gorsuch and the GOP implementing their Nuclear Option to advance the nomination.

Congratulations Gorsuch on filling the empty seat!

No case in the past twenty years highlighted Political Bias on the Supreme Court more than Bush v. Gore.

During the 2000 Election, GW had some advantages in Florida. GW's brother Jeb served as Florida's Governor at the time.... and Katherine Harris served as Secretary of State, which made her the State's Chief Election Officer in charge of certifying the Florida results. She also simultaneously served as Chair for GW's Florida Campaign.

Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, lost his 9 home state EVs to GW.

The Conservative-biased USSC ultimately awarded Florida's 25 EVs to GW. GW won 271 - 266. One faithless Elector from DC chose not to vote. Who cares right? That one vote sure didn't matter to me.

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...

Well, if the Democrats won't even accept a highly qualified moderate. ....
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The Senate put their Partisan Divide on full display this week with a DEM Filibuster over Gorsuch and the GOP implementing their Nuclear Option to advance the nomination.

Congratulations Gorsuch on filling the empty seat!

No case in the past twenty years highlighted Political Bias on the Supreme Court more than Bush v. Gore.

During the 2000 Election, GW had some advantages in Florida. GW's brother Jeb served as Florida's Governor at the time.... and Katherine Harris served as Secretary of State, which made her the State's Chief Election Officer in charge of certifying the Florida results. She also simultaneously served as Chair for GW's Florida Campaign.

Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, lost his 9 home state EVs to GW.

The Conservative-biased USSC ultimately awarded Florida's 25 EVs to GW. GW won 271 - 266. One faithless Elector from DC chose not to vote. Who cares right? That one vote sure didn't matter to me.

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...

What in the world does Gorsuch and what happened with him have to do with Bush/Gore election?

And can you prove that the USSC awarded Florida's EV's to Bush just because of political ideology? If so please provide that proof.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?
Click to expand...

To answer your question, no, I don't have an answer outside of some constitutional amendments. I cut out the rest of your post because it's rambling and the Florida vote has been recounted a million times and Bush won it every single time, even in the unofficial recounts.
 
I personally think that the Court will become less political when Congress and the country become less politically divided as well. Most judges get nominated with the idea of how can you best serve my side.
 
As I recall, the Florida Supreme Court at the time was at least equally goofy and biased, despite the Republican presence in the state. I remember one of the justices asking what the law in Texas was. She was, apparently, simply trying to point out the irony that what was being done in Florida was contrary to the law in Texas. Bush's home state. Of course laws in Texas are completely irrelevant to laws that the Florida Supreme Court was concerned with. Stupidest question ever at such a high court level.

I would like to ban political parties. The most harmful special interest groups. There is no logical reason to force some binary reasoning in the complex nature of government. There is no logic as to why Democrats take this or that stand and the Republicans as a whole take an opposite stand. EXCEPT to gain political power and merge competing groups. Everyone should run as an independent and there should be no DNC or RNC. Speaker of the House chosen by all house members, not the majority party members.
But don't know how to legally do that banning of parties.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The Senate put their Partisan Divide on full display this week with a DEM Filibuster over Gorsuch and the GOP implementing their Nuclear Option to advance the nomination.

Congratulations Gorsuch on filling the empty seat!

No case in the past twenty years highlighted Political Bias on the Supreme Court more than Bush v. Gore.

During the 2000 Election, GW had some advantages in Florida. GW's brother Jeb served as Florida's Governor at the time.... and Katherine Harris served as Secretary of State, which made her the State's Chief Election Officer in charge of certifying the Florida results. She also simultaneously served as Chair for GW's Florida Campaign.

Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, lost his 9 home state EVs to GW.

The Conservative-biased USSC ultimately awarded Florida's 25 EVs to GW. GW won 271 - 266. One faithless Elector from DC chose not to vote. Who cares right? That one vote sure didn't matter to me.

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...

This post illustrates the problem we have with the courts today.

Gorsuch laid this issue out in plain English for everyone during his confirmation hearings. I don't remember the exact wording of the quote but it was something along the lines of "As a judge you are guaranteed to make one party happy and the other one unhappy. No matter who is unhappy or why they are unhappy, you still need to follow the law."

There is a whole lot of judicial activism going on these days. I've read some amazingly tortured logic in a few decisions where the intent appeared to be for the bench to circumvent an inconvenient law rather than apply the law evenly. If we begin to treat legal determinations based on popular support rather than true jurisprudence the judiciary would become nothing more than a companion to the legislature, rather than a balance to the legislature.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
My Personal Justice IQ Rating still has Thomas as the lowest. Have you rated the Justices on IQ?
Click to expand...

No. I have however noted that when I was born the US Supreme Court was considered a superb court, its opinions were followed with keen interest around the world, but that now its rulings are considered so weak in legal argument and so political that its opinions are largely ignored all around the world.

This is at the end of the day a reflection upon the individuals who sit on the court.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The Senate put their Partisan Divide on full display this week with a DEM Filibuster over Gorsuch and the GOP implementing their Nuclear Option to advance the nomination.

Congratulations Gorsuch on filling the empty seat!

No case in the past twenty years highlighted Political Bias on the Supreme Court more than Bush v. Gore.

During the 2000 Election, GW had some advantages in Florida. GW's brother Jeb served as Florida's Governor at the time.... and Katherine Harris served as Secretary of State, which made her the State's Chief Election Officer in charge of certifying the Florida results. She also simultaneously served as Chair for GW's Florida Campaign.

Gore, a former Senator from Tennessee, lost his 9 home state EVs to GW.

The Conservative-biased USSC ultimately awarded Florida's 25 EVs to GW. GW won 271 - 266. One faithless Elector from DC chose not to vote. Who cares right? That one vote sure didn't matter to me.

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court? Or do you think the Supreme Court operates well enough and would not benefit from any tinkering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. They didn't "award" anybody anything.

They decided, 7-2, that the recount as proceeding at the time in FL violated Equal Protection.

They then decided, 5-4, that the FL legislature's deadline for certification was the correct one.

Everything which happened after that was up to Florida.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What in the world does Gorsuch and what happened with him have to do with Bush/Gore election?

And can you prove that the USSC awarded Florida's EV's to Bush just because of political ideology? If so please provide that proof.
Click to expand...

A Partisan Senate advanced Gorsuch to the empty seat on the USSC.

I have a bit of insight into Florida politics as someone born in Florida over 60 years ago, as a graduate of the University of Florida, as someone who has called Florida home pretty much their whole life and keenly interested in current events.

I cannot prove the USSC awarded Bush the Presidency due to political ideology. I have enough common sense TO KNOW they awarded Bush the Presidency due to political ideology.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
A Partisan Senate advanced Gorsuch to the empty seat on the USSC.

I have a bit of insight into Florida politics as someone born in Florida over 60 years ago, as a graduate of the University of Florida, as someone who has called Florida home pretty much their whole life and keenly interested in current events.

I cannot prove the USSC awarded Bush the Presidency due to political ideology. I have enough common sense TO KNOW they awarded Bush the Presidency due to political ideology.
Click to expand...

So it's just a gut instinct for you. Gotcha. Thanks for admitting that you have no proof. That's rare these days.

Just to note however it wasn't a complete partisan nomination of Gorsuch. 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch also.
 
Harshaw said:
No, they didn't. They didn't "award" anybody anything.

They decided, 7-2, that the recount as proceeding at the time in FL violated Equal Protection.

They then decided, 5-4, that the FL legislature's deadline for certification was the correct one.

Everything which happened after that was up to Florida.
Click to expand...

We don't have a higher court than the USSC. Gore appropriately respected their BIASED decision.

Dred Scott lost 7 - 2 in 1857. Plessy lost 7 - 1 in 1896. Any Bias in those cases?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So it's just a gut instinct for you. Gotcha. Thanks for admitting that you have no proof. That's rare these days.

Just to note however it wasn't a complete partisan nomination of Gorsuch. 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch also.
Click to expand...

Maybe those come from states where they felt they had to.

MY Trump State Senior Senator from Florida Bill Nelson did not support Gorsuch.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
We don't have a higher court than the USSC. Gore appropriately respected their BIASED decision.

Dred Scott lost 7 - 2 in 1857. Plessy lost 7 - 1 in 1896. Any Bias in those cases?
Click to expand...

The decision was 7-2 on a court which was generally considered to be 4 "conservative," 1 "swing," and 4 "liberal." Which means at least 3 of 5 "non-conservatives" were with the majority. How do YOU consider that result "biased"?

(Never mind that they still didn't "award" anything to anybody.)
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Nothing like War to create Bipartisanship.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question. You said a "biased" Senate confirmed Gorsuch. What would it have looked like if it WEREN'T biased?

Don't deflect to "war"; answer the question.
 
Harshaw said:
The decision was 7-2 on a court which was generally considered to be 4 "conservative," 1 "swing," and 4 "liberal." Which means at least 3 of 5 "non-conservatives" were with the majority. How do YOU consider that result "biased"?

(Never mind that they still didn't "award" anything to anybody.)
Click to expand...

So you just simplified a very complex case that resulted in two separate votes on two issues, one vote of 7- 2, another vote of 5 - 4, and lots of detailed opinions into two sentences. Genius! Einstein-like E=MC(squared). I have lost this debate. A lot of smart physicists could never quite understand how Einstein derived his formula.
 
Harshaw said:
That doesn't answer the question. You said a "biased" Senate confirmed Gorsuch. What would it have looked like if it WEREN'T biased?

Don't deflect to "war"; answer the question.
Click to expand...

Obvious answer- UNBIASED
 
For those of you who might wonder why you don't get a reply from me until much later tonight, I have some other commitments to attend to.

Thank all of you who have participated in this thread!
 
Trippy Trekker said:
So you just simplified a very complex case that resulted in two separate votes on two issues, one vote of 7- 2, another vote of 5 - 4, and lots of detailed opinions into two sentences. Genius! Einstein-like E=MC(squared). I have lost this debate. A lot of smart physicists could never quite understand how Einstein derived his formula.
Click to expand...

No, I told you what the votes were.

So tell me -- how do YOU consider the 7-2 vote "biased"?
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Obvious answer- UNBIASED
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't answer a thing.

What made the Senate "biased" when it confirmed Gorsuch?

What would it mean to be "unbiased"? How would it be different from what happened?

Please do explain.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
For those of you who might wonder why you don't get a reply from me until much later tonight, I have some other commitments to attend to.

Thank all of you who have participated in this thread!
Click to expand...

I look forward to your explanations and answers to my questions when you return later tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom