• 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!

High Court Swing Vote Fraud

F

Flanders

Member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
173
Reaction score
17
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
"Please don't go," the editorial states. "Replacing you with a hard-line conservative, in contrast, would have enormous consequences for the nation's law and the Constitution." Quite right: Replacing Kennedy, the swing vote on a politicized court, with the likes of Neil Gorsuch would have enormous consequences – consequences all for the better.​

April 30, 2018
New York Times in a panic over prospect of Justice Kennedy retiring
By Peter Skurkiss

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...er_prospect_of_justice_kennedy_retiring_.html​

“Swing Vote” is a media con job invented for Sandra Day O’Connor. Note that the swing vote swung for upholding Roe v. Wade.

Kennedy and O’Connor were on the Court at the same; so how come Kennedy became the swing vote after O’Connor retired in 2006? In all fairness they should have shared the prize.

Justice Anthony Kennedy teaches non-existent international law in Salzburg, Austria when the High Court is not in session. Kennedy’s vote in cases involving the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) is the primary reason the New World Order crowd are begging him to hang in there.

Incidentally, Anthony Kennedy got the seat that should have gone to Robert Bork:

International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy. Robert Bork

NOTE: Ginsberg often joined Kennedy in Salzburg. Baby Ruth is no great lover of the U.S. Constitution either:


QUESTION: Why in hell was the Supreme Court ever called conservative? Daniel Horowitz answered my question when Obama was president. John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch did not change anything:

“We are now in a scenario where our country is controlled by one person, and that’s not Barack Obama, it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy,” Horowitz said.​

Conservatives face liberal 'firewall' on Supreme Court
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 06/25/2016 @ 5:59 pm

Conservatives face liberal ‘firewall’ on Supreme Court​

Finally, Chief Justice Roberts tortured the Constitution into a tax for socialized medicine. And let us not forget Earl Warren, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter who were touted as top shelf conservatives. Gorsuch’s track record is yet to be written. My point. The Supreme Court is a crap shoot at best. In the case of Kennedy and Ginsburg they are playing with loaded dice.
 
UPDATE​

“Preserve the Court’s Balance” is a Democrat Party con job —— but not when they can pack the court with six or more Libs. You can bet that Democrats will scream “balance” regardless of which associate justice leaves town while Trump is president.

It takes 7 votes to stop Democrats in their tracks. That is why they fear the loss of this rule more than they fear anything else:

Rule of four​

The rule of four is a Supreme Court of the United States practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is done specifically to prevent a majority of the Court from controlling the Court's docket.

The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.

The "Rule of Four" has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years. For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: "The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed."

Although the Rule of Four in general has remained constant for some time -- i.e., that it takes at least four affirmative votes to grant a petition for certiorari -- the ancillary aspects of it have changed throughout the years and Justices have not always agreed about these aspects.

A good example is found in dueling opinions (for themselves alone, i.e., not opinions of the Court), in Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., Justice Frankfurter and Justice John Marshall Harlan II discussed their understandings of the conventions surrounding the Rule of Four. In particular, the Justices disagreed as to whether, once certiorari having been properly granted by the vote of four Justices, this then required all Justices to rule on the merits of the Petition (rather than vote to dismiss it). Justice Frankfurter did not agree that Justices were required to reach the merits of a petition, even if properly granted, but Justice Harlan disagreed. Justice Harlan felt that even if he disagreed with a grant of certiorari, the Rule of Four "requires that once certiorari has been granted a case should be disposed of on the premise that it is properly heard, in the absence of considerations appearing which were not manifest or fully apprehended at the time certiorari was granted."
​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

Media mouths are betting big on “swing vote” which is another way of pushing for a four-and-a-half to four-and-a-half split. Now they are hedging their bet with a wager on legacy:

Politically, the stakes couldn’t be higher. For several years, Kennedy has been one of the court’s most powerful justices thanks to his role as a pivotal swing vote, delivering victories to both the left and right in contentious cases. If Kennedy retires this year, President Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly replace him with a right-wing justice who is likely to secure a conservative majority on the court for years to come. But if Kennedy stays on the bench and Democrats assume control of the Senate in January, the promise of a solidly conservative successor for Kennedy seems more uncertain.​

If Justice Kennedy Retires, His Replacement Could Undermine His Legacy
By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
Published Apr. 16, 2018

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...s-his-replacement-could-undermine-his-legacy/
​

The best true conservatives can expect from a trustworthy replacement is a solid five to four split instead of the four-and-half split. Only a six to three split can wipe out the court’s liberal bent.
 
The more conservative Americans become, the more they distance themselves from reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom