• 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!

No need for Dems to pack SCOTUS -it already is.

Acadia said:
Ah, if stare decisis didn't exist, which is what it seems the leftist Justices used in their most recent dissent in Trump's victory to have immigrants apply for asylum in the first country they enter.
Click to expand...

So when Scalia said he believes in some gun control....is that a right wing position?
 
Bullseye said:
And all you have to rebut my is a biased comment? Not sure what YOU require to prove bias but all the data is in the OP.
Click to expand...

All you have a right wingers biased opinion.
 
Bullseye said:
There are actual numbers in the OP - you got ANYTHING to counter them?
Click to expand...

And here you are pulling the same shady **** that Conservative did. The numbers are correct but the reason behind the numbers and the reason why the numbers are there is pure partisan opinion on your part.
 
Praxas said:
And here you are pulling the same shady **** that Conservative did. The numbers are correct but the reason behind the numbers and the reason why the numbers are there is pure partisan opinion on your part.
Click to expand...
Or on yours. It's not hard to correlate which justices voted for which case.
 
Bullseye said:
I think the point of the original article was that those justices labeled "conservative" more often do that.
Click to expand...

Well yes as the constitutionalist approach to the courts is one part of the definition of what modern American conservatism is. But it isn't ideologically left or right any more than the Constitution itself is left or right.
 
Bullseye said:
Or on yours. It's not hard to correlate which justices voted for which case.
Click to expand...

And you make the assumption it is due to bias. That is purely a partisan opinion devoid of any facts.
 
Praxas said:
And you make the assumption it is due to bias. That is purely a partisan opinion devoid of any facts.
Click to expand...
So you think it's just coincidence that the RBG group votes alike so frequently? And the issues happen to have a liberal slant?
 
Bullseye said:
So you think it's just coincidence that the RBG group votes alike so frequently? And the issues happen to have a liberal slant?
Click to expand...

Prove otherwise, give examples specific of the ruling and why you think it is biased.

So far your only evidence is "Dem lib SCOT dur bias, DURRRR".
 
Praxas said:
Prove otherwise, give examples specific of the ruling and why you think it is biased.
Click to expand...
I really could not care less whether you accept it or not.
Praxas said:
So far your only evidence is "Dem lib SCOT dur bias, DURRRR".
Click to expand...
What language is this written him?
 
Bullseye said:
I really could not care less whether you accept it or not.
What language is this written him?
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, thought you were fluent in Trump language you being a trump supporter and all.

So thank you for your admission you have no evidence of their rulings being biased. That saved a lot of time, having you admit you lied.
 
Praxas said:
Oh sorry, thought you were fluent in Trump language you being a trump supporter and all.

So thank you for your admission you have no evidence of their rulings being biased. That saved a lot of time, having you admit you lied.
Click to expand...
LOL, sure, tell yourself whatever you need to fuel your fantasies.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL, sure, tell yourself whatever you need to fuel your fantasies.
Click to expand...

It's not me telling myself anything. You not being able to prove your claim is what tells us all you are lying.
 
Bullseye said:
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.
Click to expand...

This is a function of constitutional law being murky. I am quite conservative, but get along quite well with bleeding-heart liberal public defenders when it comes to the rights of the accused.

For example, Justices Ginsberg and Gorsuch dissented in a dual-sovereignty doctrine case advocating for the repeal of that doctrine. Alito wrote the majority opinion. I agree with Ginsberg and Gorsuch.

Constitutional law makes for strange bedfellows.
 
Praxas said:
LOL an opinion piece from a right-winger. Go figure.
Click to expand...

its true though

Bush v Gore. Souter and Stevens-GOP appointees, supported the Democrat
Affordable Health care. The Democrats all voted for Obama's position. Roberts rejected Obama's position but still supported it
Heller-all of the Democrats voted against Gun rights as did Republicans Stevens and Souter. Not a single Democrat supported gun rights

McDonald v Chicago-all the Dems voted against gun rights. Stevens, a GOP appointee, voted against gun rights

so on the most contentious political cases, Democrats all supported their party's position. Republicans did not
 
Bullseye said:
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.
Click to expand...


When Leftist cant win they want to change the rules. It usually backfires.

During the Obama years when Dems could not get their policies or Judges through the Senate. Harry Reid the Senate Majority leader got rid of the Filibuster. Now as a result the Republican majority is pushing through every Judge they want.

Today the Dems want to get rid of the Electoral College because they think it will help them. President Trump once said that the object of the 2016 election was to win the Electoral College, that if the objective were the Popular Vote he would have structured his campaign different and won that election too. He has been right about everything so far. If the Election College were eliminated before 2020 Trump will campaign for the popular vote and win anyhow.

If the Dems try to stack the supreme court we will just end up with 20 or so GOP judges on the Supreme Court.
 
TurtleDude said:
its true though

Bush v Gore. Souter and Stevens-GOP appointees, supported the Democrat
Affordable Health care. The Democrats all voted for Obama's position. Roberts rejected Obama's position but still supported it
Heller-all of the Democrats voted against Gun rights as did Republicans Stevens and Souter. Not a single Democrat supported gun rights

McDonald v Chicago-all the Dems voted against gun rights. Stevens, a GOP appointee, voted against gun rights

so on the most contentious political cases, Democrats all supported their party's position. Republicans did not
Click to expand...

It's not the numbers I'm contesting, it is the opinion that the numbers are all due to BIAS. Did you ever think the reason that left picked SCOTUS members side with the Dems more often is because they were the CORRECT rulings? Again the OP is claiming the numbers are due to bias and that is correlation without causation.
 
Praxas said:
It's not the numbers I'm contesting, it is the opinion that the numbers are all due to BIAS. Did you ever think the reason that left picked SCOTUS members side with the Dems more often is because they were the CORRECT rulings? Again the OP is claiming the numbers are due to bias and that is correlation without causation.
Click to expand...

That is so hilariously biased that its one of the better jokes. The dissent in Heller was idiotic (Stevens--"couldn't believe the founders would neglect to give the federal government the power to ban guns, so such a power must exist")
 
Praxas said:
It's not the numbers I'm contesting, it is the opinion that the numbers are all due to BIAS. Did you ever think the reason that left picked SCOTUS members side with the Dems more often is because they were the CORRECT rulings? Again the OP is claiming the numbers are due to bias and that is correlation without causation.
Click to expand...

Do they? Make the case. Else, you're committing the same error.
 
Bullseye said:
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.
Click to expand...

I'm highly in agreement.

Many justices appointed by republican presidents that have initially been considered to be mainstream conservative or center-right have veered leftward. Two Reagan appointeees, Kennedy and O'Connor were 2 examples.

H.W. Bush appointed David Souter who was somewhat conservative at 1st but became increasingly liberal before he retired. One Bush appointee, Clarence Thomas has retained his conservative record quite well over the years.

Nixon appointee Lewis Powell became a reliable swing vote especially later in his tenure.
 
Indie guy said:
I'm highly in agreement.

Many justices appointed by republican presidents that have initially been considered to be mainstream conservative or center-right have veered leftward. Two Reagan appointeees, Kennedy and O'Connor were 2 examples.

H.W. Bush appointed David Souter who was somewhat conservative at 1st but became increasingly liberal before he retired. One Bush appointee, Clarence Thomas has retained his conservative record quite well over the years.

Nixon appointee Lewis Powell became a reliable swing vote especially later in his tenure.
Click to expand...
I think the link shows that the Justices aren't quite the one dimensional lockstep robots some claim. "conservative" justices sometimes join with the RBG faction and sometimes they'll break ranks to side with the righties. If I read the link correctly even most of the 5-4 decisions were not straight party line.
 
Bullseye said:
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we remember that 5 conservatives voted for Citizens United and 4 liberals voted against it. Is that what you're talking about?

It's possible that there are terrible things that only conservatives vote for. Yet some conservatives can't bring themselves to support those issues.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Yeah, we remember that 5 conservatives voted for Citizens United and 4 liberals voted against it. Is that what you're talking about?

It's possible that there are terrible things that only conservatives vote for. Yet some conservatives can't bring themselves to support those issues.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're prattling about. :roll:
 
Bullseye said:
I found this article interesting in light of all the pissing and moaning on the left about how Trump is loading up SCOTUS with "conservative" justices. Turns out "conservative justices wander off the reservation to side with the liberal block far more often than the lefties break ranks to side with the right.
Click to expand...

If it's guaranteed you can make a fortune by mortgaging your house and betting on Trump to win in 2020. Go for it. It's guaranteed.

Something tells me you're not going to do that because you don't believe the BS you're peddling.
 
Bullseye said:
I have no idea what you're prattling about. :roll:
Click to expand...

Citizens United was brought to us by 5 conservative judges. All the liberals voted against the obscene idea that corporations are people too who should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

That vote gets lumped into your examples of how liberal judges vote together.

I think the numbers are explained by the fact that 3 of the conservative judges have extreme views that even the other 2 conservatives can't always go along with.

Remember that Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia thought Texas had the right to arrest someone for sodomy in his own home. That's how they voted. They're extremists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom