• 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!

The Supreme Court has become just another arm of the GOP

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d36642-d0e2-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Republicans and their big donors now see the court as part of their team. They can achieve political gains there that they cannot win in Congress. The supposedly apolitical nature of the court partly protects these political gains from critique. And after 73 partisan victories, they’ve had a hell of a run. That explains why our brief provoked such an outcry from their side.

But Americans can smell a rat. The pattern is too distinct to ignore. We warned the court of*polls showing*that the public’s faith in the court’s independence is eroding. Americans becoming wise to their game is surely concerning to the anonymous funders. Corporate, polluter and partisan donor interests want the eyes of the nation turned elsewhere, while their “projects” play out in captured courts.
Click to expand...
 
OscarLevant said:
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.
Click to expand...

When hasn't the supreme court been political? Just a matter of who is the president when someone dies off. RBG is holding on hoping a democrat gets elected in 2020. Is there anyone out there that naive enough to believe otherwise?
 
washunut said:
When hasn't the supreme court been political? Just a matter of who is the president when someone dies off. RBG is holding on hoping a democrat gets elected in 2020. Is there anyone out there that naive enough to believe otherwise?
Click to expand...

...And if the current crop of Democrats have their way, they might just "pack the court" by expanding the number of Justices and then appointing a permanent Democratic majority.

Then (according to them) this won't be "another arm of the Democratic Party," it will be a righteous, moral, and perfect court...doing exactly what the Democrats want.

THAT will truly be the day this nation dies as a union when it turns into a one-party system IMHO.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.
Click to expand...
Quit whining. How many total rules are involved and how many went 5-4 or greater to the "left"? Oh, and how many is "recent years"? |
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And if the current crop of Democrats have their way, they might just "pack the court" by expanding the number of Justices and then appointing a permanent Democratic majority.

Then (according to them) this won't be "another arm of the Democratic Party," it will be a righteous, moral, and perfect court...doing exactly what the Democrats want.

THAT will truly be the day this nation dies as a union IMHO.
Click to expand...

My sense is that day has already come.
 
I believe this is from the most recent session.

Statistics - SCOTUSblog

Voting-alignment-7.29.19.png
 
P.S. The Scotus Blog is an excellent resource.
 
OscarLevant said:
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.
Click to expand...

73 times the Democrats on the Supreme Court voted as a bloc against the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights.
 
OscarLevant said:
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.
Click to expand...

Guess you probably don't have any good words for the electoral college either! :doh :peace
Just can't make this stuff up!! ;)
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And if the current crop of Democrats have their way, they might just "pack the court" by expanding the number of Justices and then appointing a permanent Democratic majority.

Then (according to them) this won't be "another arm of the Democratic Party," it will be a righteous, moral, and perfect court...doing exactly what the Democrats want.

THAT will truly be the day this nation dies as a union when it turns into a one-party system IMHO.
Click to expand...

Eveerything you have claimed for the Dems is already being done by the GOP and you KNOW IT. The SCOTUS which most people used to consider the one thing we can depend on is now exactly what the OP said, just another branch of the GOP and you KNOW IT. Instead of conservative justices, Trump has put on people that re just GOP judges and they will rule anyway the GOP wishes. I would not be surprised if they said Trump could have a third term or if beaten say the election was rigged and order him to be president. And the people who desire a one party system is not the Dems, but the GOP. That is why they have used their political power in the states to insure that the districts are drawn up in a way to keep them in power even when they do not get a majority of votes. That is why they have suppressed the right to vote for those who they think will vote for the Dems. that is why they have scoured the voting roles of those who might not vote for the GOP. They have even made ID laws so tight that people who have voted for years can no longer vote. So do not give us this righteous lies about the Dems wanting a one party system when it is the GOP and you KNOW IT>
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And if the current crop of Democrats have their way, they might just "pack the court" by expanding the number of Justices and then appointing a permanent Democratic majority.

Then (according to them) this won't be "another arm of the Democratic Party," it will be a righteous, moral, and perfect court...doing exactly what the Democrats want.

THAT will truly be the day this nation dies as a union when it turns into a one-party system IMHO.
Click to expand...


For me, it's not about what the democrats want, nor the right wants. IN my view, the right wants a court whose rulings are unjust, and tend to favor big corporations.


For democrats, if being a judge is not about justice, then what the **** is it about?

Justice is the law, and if it isn't, the law is bad and must be changed.
 
OscarLevant said:
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.
Click to expand...

It's not clear why those 4 votes in dissent is not a sign of lack of independence.
 
OscarLevant said:
For me, it's not about what the democrats want, nor the right wants. IN my view, the right wants a court whose rulings are unjust, and tend to favor big corporations.


For democrats, if being a judge is not about justice, then what the **** is it about?

Justice is the law, and if it isn't, the law is bad and must be changed.
Click to expand...

So maybe the law is generally on the side of the Right.
 
Captain Adverse said:
...And if the current crop of Democrats have their way, they might just "pack the court" by expanding the number of Justices and then appointing a permanent Democratic majority. .
Click to expand...

Let us pray this happens.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Guess you probably don't have any good words for the electoral college either! :doh :peace
Just can't make this stuff up!! ;)
Click to expand...

The EC's original design has been compromised. Either we should return it to it's original design and purpose, or we abandon it, or handicap it so that it's fair. Right now, it's biased towards rural. The weight should be even, but handicapping it would be very difficult to achieve, legislatively.
 
Athanasius68 said:
So maybe the law is generally on the side of the Right.
Click to expand...

Laws are often ambiguous, which is why we have a court, to decide their meaning. An ambiguous law just means if there are more right leaning justices, the ruling will favor the right.

What it means is that many laws are ambiguous and ambiguity is settled by the right, since they are the majority. If they weren't ambiguous, then the left wouldn't disagree.

What I would favor is a redesign of the court, make it two tier, 20 justices, 10 right plus 10 left, to vote, and of those, 5 right and 5 left to be the ones who ask questions to petitioners (because 20 would be too many) but 20 with even number on right and left would increase the odds of bi-partisanship ).

With only 9 justices, in this current era of partisanship and divisive politics, it's too easy to pack the court, and that is what the court is, currently, i.e., a packed court. An equal number of right vs left ( never allowing that balance to be changed, Ie., if a left side justice position needs to be filled, no matter who is president, a left leaning just must be appointed. ) this would put an end to court packing.


Thing is, where judges can sit on the court for 40 years, packing the court one way or the other is just wrong.

And I'm a staunch lefty.
 
noonereal said:
Let us pray this happens.
Click to expand...

Bad idea. The outcome will be full-blown escalation with no mechanism to end it. It would not be hyperbole to suggest that if court packing becomes commonplace, we could be looking at thousands of supreme court justices down the road all collecting salaries for life with absolutely zero benefit to the country. It will always be one too few justices for one side or the other.
 
OscarLevant said:
Laws are often ambiguous, which is why we have a court, to decide their meaning. An ambiguous law just means if there are more right leaning justices, the ruling will favor the right.

What it means is that many laws are ambiguous and ambiguity is settled by the right, since they are the majority. If they weren't ambiguous, then the left wouldn't disagree.

What I would favor is a redesign of the court, make it two tier, 20 justices, 10 right plus 10 left, to vote, and of those, 5 right and 5 left to be the ones who ask questions to petitioners (because 20 would be too many) but 20 with even number on right and left would increase the odds of bi-partisanship ).

With only 9 justices, in this current era of partisanship and divisive politics, it's too easy to pack the court, and that is what the court is, currently, i.e., a packed court. An equal number of right vs left ( never allowing that balance to be changed, Ie., if a left side justice position needs to be filled, no matter who is president, a left leaning just must be appointed. ) this would put an end to court packing.


Thing is, where judges can sit on the court for 40 years, packing the court one way or the other is just wrong.

And I'm a staunch lefty.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this just tend to lead to stalemates? If the vote is 10 to 10, what happens?
 
lwf said:
Wouldn't this just tend to lead to stalemates? If the vote is 10 to 10, what happens?
Click to expand...

Then we nominate an independent Justice 2 settle it

Someone like Merrick Garland
 
SCOTUS was never going to be truly independent. If it was our two parties wouldn’t caterwaul so much over the next nominee to the court. Both sides of the spectrum want their politics represented on the bench. To say otherwise is farcical.
 
I don’t really care what party the SCOTUS justices swear allegiance to. I just want them to follow the Constitution.
 
nitroexpress said:
Living Constitution vs Originalism
Click to expand...

It's hilarious how easily you lot are fooled by a little semantic sleight of hand.

"Originalism" is something that exists in name only, and exists solely to fool you. In practice, a self-claimed "originalist" judge has to do the same thing a so-called "living constitutionalist" or "hated evil liberal" judge: look to original intent and try to work out how it would apply to a modern situation the founders could not possibly of dreamed of and therefore had no original intent about.

You just grasp "originalism" because you think it makes your political views more credible. It doesn't, at least not to people who actually play a part in law.
 
nitroexpress said:
Living Constitution vs Originalism
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the GOP believes in originalism, Nope. That is an untruth the GOP tells you. They believe that the SCOTUS should rule as they want and that they call originalism. Just one look can tell you that is not true. Do you really think that the people who wrote the Constitution believed that the First Amendment gave businesses, i.e.. Corporations the same rights as people. Citizens United was certainly a decision that came about from the idea of a living constitution rather than originalism. It was a decision that made money the winner in our elections, rather than the people. I could go on, but the idea that the GOP believes on originalism is actually laughable.
 
OscarLevant said:
In recent years there have been 73 rulings of 5-4 conservative victories, so much for the "Independent" Court.
Click to expand...

Let's turn this around. Let's say the court had 5 Democratic appointed judges. Many of the rulings would most likely by 5-4 for the "Liberal" Court.

I have had the opinion for many years that the courts, including the SC, no longer rule based on the law. They rule based on their political lean. If justice was blind and only looked at the law, one would believe we would not have the split in the courts as we see today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom