Is the US Supreme Court still Legitimate? (Poll)

[Mr. Friscus]

Conservatives: It stinks when they're used against us, but it's important to uphold the institutions of American Government.
Leftists: If institutions are against us, they are evil adn must be torn down. If they are for us, they are amazing, patriotic, and as pure as the white snow!

 

[Borillar]

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.

If there is no right to privacy for a pregnant woman, why should there be a right to privacy for unelected politicians in robes?

 

[BackAgain]

I voted yes but the deal with Thomas's wife is very troubling.

The deal? A Justice is married. His wife has her own political viewpoints and dares to behave as Americans are allowed to behave. (Free speech, petition government, etc.)

And this means that the Justice must recuse himself? Why? Because he’s not acting sufficiently Democrat to believe he has authority over her use of free speech?
He failed to control her? (Keep dem womenz in dere place!)

Your form of argument is unclear. There is no “there,” there.

 

[Lesh]

The deal? A Justice is married. His wife has her own political viewpoints and dares to behave as Americans are allowed to behave. (Free speech, petition government, etc.)

And this means that the Justice must recuse himself? Why? Because he’s not acting sufficiently Democrat to believe he has authority over her use of free speech?
He failed to control her? (Keep dem womenz in dere place!)

Your form of argument is unclear. There is no “there,” there.

It's more than just viewpoints.

She's taking money for consulting work with organization that come before the court and he refuses to recuse

 

[pknopp]

The deal? A Justice is married. His wife has her own political viewpoints and dares to behave as Americans are allowed to behave. (Free speech, petition government, etc.)

And this means that the Justice must recuse himself? Why? Because he’s not acting sufficiently Democrat to believe he has authority over her use of free speech?
He failed to control her? (Keep dem womenz in dere place!)

Your form of argument is unclear. There is no “there,” there.

I don't want him to act Democrat. Why would you say that?

 

[kyzr]

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.

Never happen, duh. There are way more small states, like RI, than large ones.
You would NEVER get 38 state legislatures to approve an Amendment to replace the EC with a popular vote, duh.

 

[kyzr]

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, harassed, 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 received undo criticism and harassment for was just wrong and inflicted by some pretty misinformed people who wanted to express their rage.

Exactly. The dems saw a political issue that they thought they could take advantage of...abortion.
They blamed the USSC for correcting an unconstitutional decision, including harassment and attempted assassination.

Problem dems have is, most voters have other priorities, inflation, open borders, an idiot president, an out of control FBI, woke school boards, etc.

Abortion settled down already as states address the issue, as they should have all along.

 

[kyzr]

If there is no right to privacy for a pregnant woman, why should there be a right to privacy for unelected politicians in robes?

Because the Law protects justices from intimidation, duh.
Besides, the word "privacy" has nothing to do with "abortions", duh....buy a dictionary.

 

[easyt65]

Let me get this straight....
1. The liberals want to get rid of the Supreme Court
2. The liberals want to get rid of the electoral College
3. ?

It sounds like they want to get rid of our Constitution, and run this country as a mob rule government.

Stupid question based on Democrats not getting their way.

It's not a matter any more of if the USSC is 'legitimate' but rather if the Democrat Party is 'relevant' and should be taken seriously.

The answer is 'no'.

The Democrat Party has proven itself to be both a criminal organization run by criminals and traitors and a threat to the US.

 

[Pete7469]

Let me get this straight....
1. The liberals want to get rid of the Supreme Court
2. The liberals want to get rid of the electoral College
3. ?

It sounds like they want to get rid of our Constitution, and run this country as a mob rule government.

3. Yes. The COTUS itself is largely an obstacle to bed wetters, but they've used freedom to undermine our virtues and morality for decades.

Let's not miss the forest for the trees though. The bed wetters are neo-soviets. They are fundamentally our enemies. The goal is to destroy everything that makes us a nation of free people functioning independently with an open market economy. The neo-soviet bed wetters want a global collectivist government, and a population that can be managed like livestock. Perhaps most vacuous democrook voters believe the DNC's bullshit, but these people are even dumber than AOC, and that takes effort...



.

 

[Pete7469]

Better yet, how about adding a Bill of No Rights to all women. We already have an example in Iran.

Too bad certain "rights" weren't exercized in your case to keep you from stealing our oxygen. A Planned Unparenthood Clinic toilet should have been your final destination.

Imbecile.


.

 

[TheParser]

Oh, yes!

The current Supreme Court is legitimate.

Probably more legitimate than the current House or Senate.

But as the Dems continue taking control of the federal government and packing the Court, it will become as legitimate as the Supreme Court of China or Russia or Iran.

 

[alang1216]

1. Roberts not killing Obamacare was a democrat vote against the legal issues highlighted by Scalia's dissenting opinion.

Of course Roberts was nominated by the GOP

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

Many would agree with your opinion but many would not.

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.

Did Biden say that or are you and McConnell putting your own corollary on it?

 

[alang1216]

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.

I guess you feel the government should not represent "popular opinion". I think that is its job.

 

[alang1216]

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?

I don't disagree but there has to be a middle ground between a Constitution changing every year and one that is frozen in time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The electoral vote's an antique system that needs getting rid of.

Get 38 states to agree with you and you can get rid of it.
Of course, the 13 states most likely to vote no hold about 7% of the US population.
So... looks like you're stuck with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Conservatives: It stinks when they're used against us, but it's important to uphold the institutions of American Government.
Leftists: If institutions are against us, they are evil adn must be torn down. If they are for us, they are amazing, patriotic, and as pure as the white snow!

This is why the left, upon losing, starts whining and crying about changing the rules.
You know - like kindergartners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

She's taking money for consulting work with organization that come before the court and he refuses to recuse

I see you backed away from your original claim after it was exposed as a lie.

Not that your current claim hold any more water, mind you.

 

[Lesh]

I see you backed away from your original claim after it was exposed as a lie.

Not that your current claim hold any more water, mind you.

That WAS my "original claim" and I stand behind it

 

[Lesh]

Problem dems have is, most voters have other priorities, inflation, open borders, an idiot president, an out of control FBI, woke school boards, etc.

Those are primarily the concerns of The Following

The Following...are NOT "most voters" and women are STILL pissed about Roe