Is the US Supreme Court still Legitimate? (Poll)

[Lesh]

The cons did what the libs would have done if given the chance.
By the way, it's not stacking the court.

The Electoral College is a key component to the Constitution as it gives every state representation.
I know you're all for mob rule, but it ain't going to happen.

McConnell stealing the Gorsuch seat and then slamming through the Barrett appointment is absolutely stacking the court

 

[Meister]

McConnell stealing the Gorsuch seat and then slamming through the Barrett appointment is absolutely stacking the court

Says you.
Adding more Justices would have been stacking the deck.

Your camp would have done the exact same thing as the cons.
It's just sour grapes.

 

[Independentthinker]

Never happen. Its only going to get worse.

It may get worse but at some point we will hit rock bottom and then things will turn around. How much, I don't know.

 

[Independentthinker]

Never happen. Its only going to get worse.

It may get worse but at some point we will hit rock bottom and then things will turn around. How much, I don't know. But, we have no future if the game plan is to beat the extremism of the other side with our own extremism.

 

[alang1216]

1. The theory and process are valid, its just some of the decisions that you think are flawed. Was Robert's not killing Obamacare, as he should have, flawed?

I have no problem with conservative justices making conservative rulings. I take exception to the lies they tell to get them there.

2. All USSC nominees follow the RBG rule of never answering a question that may involve future litigation. The real question is "are they qualified or not", period.

An excellent question and, in the case of Kavanaugh, certainly there were differing opinions.

3. How did McConnell violate his own policy? He followed the Biden rule and you know it.

He followed the Biden rule for Kavanaugh and then violated it for Barret.

 

[alang1216]

I don't see it that way. The USSC is a fresh breath of sanity. Putting the states in charge of their own people's mores supports Constitutional wisdom in every way.

You're happy because you like the way the court ruled. In the future, the Dems may change the rules and change the make up of the court. Remember, what goes around comes around.

 

[alang1216]

Every District gets a justice. The President has no say. The longest serving Justice is replaced by another Justice from his/her district. if there are an even number of district, the Justice that should have left stays for an additional year.

Nominees are randomly picked from serving Federal and State courts with a minimum number of years on the bench.

I'm open to anything that takes political machinations out of it and gives us a court that represents the country. When people are dissatisfied they be inclined to burn everything down.

 

[dblack]

I'm open to anything that takes political machinations out of it and gives us a court that represents the country. When people are dissatisfied they be inclined to burn everything down.

I want a Court that represents the Constitution.

 

[alang1216]

I want a Court that represents the Constitution.

What doesn't evolve goes extinct. That applies to the Constitution too.

 

[kyzr]

I have no problem with conservative justices making conservative rulings. I take exception to the lies they tell to get them there.
An excellent question and, in the case of Kavanaugh, certainly there were differing opinions.
He followed the Biden rule for Kavanaugh and then violated it for Barret.

1. Roberts not killing Obamacare was a democrat vote against the legal issues highlighted by Scalia's dissenting opinion.
“The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court favors some laws over others and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites .”

2. Kavanaugh is undoubtedly qualified to be on the USSC.

3. LOL!! The Biden rule only applies to nominees of the opposition party. If you control the Senate you always get your parties' nominee in before the election, duh.

 

[kyzr]

What doesn't evolve goes extinct. That applies to the Constitution too.

If you have the votes to approve an amendment, and the 38 state legislatures' needed for approval, then the Constitution can evolve.
The Constitution does NOT get whipsawed by "popular opinion" of the day.

 

[dblack]

What doesn't evolve goes extinct. That applies to the Constitution too.

No. Just no. Fuck no. You don't get to change the Constitution willy nilly and claim it's "evolving".

The irony here is that I'm pretty sure you're a big fan of democracy. And strict, dependable limits on government power are what make democracy viable. Without them, who would consent to majority rule? If the majority can vote do whatever they want, why would the minority ever agree to go along with it? And if the Constitutional limits can be "evolved" whenever the majority is in the mood, how are they limits at all?

 

[BackAgain]

The democrats, the Left, and now their propaganda arm, the MSM, are mounting a campaign to hurt the USSC's "legitimacy".

The Current US Supreme Court Is Not Constitutionally Legitimate | Common Dreams

Dobbs is a watershed attack that will come to be known as an infamous consolidation of an unrelenting extremist assault on this country's gains for equality and justice.

www.commondreams.org

On Friday, June 24, an extremist majority of the U.S. Supreme Court overruled more than 50 years of legal precedent, taking away a previously recognized fundamental right for the first time in the court's history. In doing so, it unleashed the full force of a regressive, coordinated state-by-state attack on the already perilously eroded right to access an abortion, on women's rights, the human right to bodily autonomy, privacy, and control over our own lives and dignity, and to life-saving healthcare and freedoms.

Itâs time to say it: the US supreme court has become an illegitimate institution | Jill Filipovic

With its decision on Roe v Wade, the court has signaled its illegitimacy – and thrown the American project into question

www.theguardian.com

It’s time to say it: the US supreme court has become an illegitimate institution​

You can read all of the Leftist tripe about "precedent" or "women's rights", but you won't read anything about how the Dobbs decision was technically wrong as to the USSC's "mis"interpretation of the US Constitution. Even RBG said that Roe was poorly decided.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wishes This Case Had Legalized Abortion Instead of 'Roe v. Wade'

When Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, she explained why

time.com

More now than ever.

 

[AntonToo]

Says you.
Adding more Justices would have been stacking the deck.

Your camp would have done the exact same thing as the cons.
It's just sour grapes.

That's just a baseless assertion.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats generally have just a little bit of shame still.

They had the votes to stack the court already in response to Republican stack, but they didn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

McConnell stealing the Gorsuch seat...

Another lie...

and then slamming through the Barrett appointment is absolutely stacking the court

Another lie.

"Stacking the court" = expanding it so as to add justices friendly to your agenda.

You know, like -you- keep insisting the Democrats need to do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What doesn't evolve goes extinct. That applies to the Constitution too.

See: Article V

 

[Lesh]

Idiot above can say anything he wants but McConnell and Trump packed this Court with radical right wing nuts

 

[M14 Shooter]

Idiot above can say anything he wants but McConnell and Trump packed this Court with radical right wing nuts

Another lie.

"Packing the court" = expanding it so as to add justices friendly to your agenda.

You know, like -you- keep insisting the Democrats need to do.

 

[jasonnfree]

The cons did what the libs would have done if given the chance.
By the way, it's not stacking the court.

The Electoral College is a key component to the Constitution as it gives every state representation.
I know you're all for mob rule, but it ain't going to happen.

The electoral vote's an antique system that needs getting rid of. Today, a state the size of Wyoming with about a half million people are equal to a state like California with about 40 million people when it comes to Senators.

 

[beautress]

I'm lost; I don't even know what we are talking about anymore.

It's okay, Billo. do you like music? There is an entire board on music of any kind you like, and if you have a hobby you haven't noticed, the Garage is a good place to discuss anything that isn't listed anywhere else. If it's the arts, we have an entire board dedicated to hobbies, one for military, and so forth. Everyone suffers a little burnout, and that's a good time to discover the other places to go. Hope you enjoy the boards more because these days, it seems that anything goes with politics. sometimes taking a break just for a half hour talking about something you're good at or like is a great way to let off steam and get a pat on the back where you least expect it. Only good wishes to ya.

The Supreme Court is not to be messed with by politicians, yet someone with knowledge and experience gave away the addresses of a couple of Supreme Court Justices who were blamed for destroying abortion, which is not the truth. It merely ruled on a state's right that was misplaced to be governed by the feds, when it was a state determination, not a fed determination. They expected states would jump on it with how their majorities wished, with the usual result of some did and others didn't. That's not the Supreme Court's territory, and what they did was give Congress its task of taking the item back to their own states and letting the states deal with laws on abortion per state. Which should have been done at the time of Roe v. Wade, and a number of people in the judicial branch noted that the Constitution was ignored with the original USSC ruling, as I recollect. Memories aren't perfect though, but making a wrong judgment right wasn't easy to do. The new newest Supreme Court Justices were blamed, threatened, harrassed, and at least one of them had to remove their children from one school and place them elsewhere due to the misinformation that their parent had done something wrong, when actually, they righted an old wrong.
Does that put the discussion back on track? I kind of lost interest in this unfortunate experience the USSC justices recieved undo criticism and harrassment for was just wrong and inflicted by some pretty misinformed people who wanted to express their rage.