Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Conservatives don't want to get rid of the SC, or the electoral college.
The dems seem very unhappy with the SC....and the electoral college.
It doesn't take rocket science...it just takes common sense to understand.
Maybe you're the one not getting it straight.
We all know that Democrat nominations don't follow the law.
That's just a fact of life.
The law means nothing to Democrats/Communists.
But as long as they can be outvoted....the court is still legit.
The fact is a Democrat President will never nominate an A-political judge.
Nonsense. The United States Supreme Court remains legitimate and worthy of respect.The democrats, the Left, and now their propaganda arm, the MSM, are mounting a campaign to hurt the USSC's "legitimacy".
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.
The Current US Supreme Court Is Not Constitutionally Legitimate
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
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 questionwww.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 whytime.com
I see the rules of nominating a SCOTUS have changed and have become very political. Nominees lie to get on the Court. I'd like to see some rule changes.The democrats, the Left, and now their propaganda arm, the MSM, are mounting a campaign to hurt the USSC's "legitimacy".
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.The Current US Supreme Court Is Not Constitutionally Legitimate
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.
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 questionIt’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
1. Yes you are whining, about a very correct and Constitutional USSC decision. If you were correct the Congress and Senate would have already passed a new LAW allowing abortions on demand. So why haven't they? Those are the people who make LAWs, not the USSC.I'm whining? How about the Millions of American Women marching peacefully in the streets and in the voting booths. I'm pissed off as are millions of men and women who see McConnell's hypocrisy and trump's self-serving putting him before our nation.
1. How are Republicans putting politics above the Constitution? Explain your statement. Otherwise I have no clue WTF you're typing.The Supreme Court is a illegitimate institution because Republican Nazis have found Nazis who are putting politics above the Constitution. There should be a high bar for overturning a precedent. These so-called justices have lied to senators when they were confirmed with 2 saying that Roe vs Wade was settled law. They ignore the Constitution even when it is explicit. They have abused the shadow docket. They clearly are Republicans rather than judges and they are assisting Republicans in their attacks on this country.
Your reading comprehension sucks. I support the Roberts court.Nonsense. The United States Supreme Court remains legitimate and worthy of respect.
You whining LigProgs who don't like some of its recent decisions are every bit as guilty of divisive behaviors as the Rumpians.
#1. The RBG rule is to NEVER answer any questions about legal cases that might happen in the future. The only "rule": is the nominee qualified?I see the rules of nominating a SCOTUS have changed and have become very political. Nominees lie to get on the Court. I'd like to see some rule changes.
It's not a popularity contest, it's about interpreting the Constitution.The Supreme Court's approval ratings are at a all-time low. Democrats and independents disapprove of the court and are questioning the legitimacy of the court.
As I recall, both Kavanaugh and Barret said R v W was established law protected by stare decisis. Nope.#1. The RBG rule is to NEVER answer any questions about legal cases that might happen in the future. The only "rule": is the nominee qualified?
As liberal as RBG was, she got 96 Senate votes. Now the democrats want to have political litmus tests of the nominee's politics. Wrong party? No votes.
Options that might take the politics out of the court:What "rules" would you like to see changed?
1. Neither said how they would vote on RvW. They spoke in generic terms, as RBG established for hearings.As I recall, both Kavanaugh and Barret said R v W was established law protected by stare decisis. Nope.
Options that might take the politics out of the court:
- Every President gets one SCOTUS pick every term. If there are no deaths/retirements at the end of his term, the most senior justice gets the boot.
- Every President gets to add one SCOTUS pick to the court every term. The number of justices will vary and is not fixed.
- The justices serve for a fixed number of years, no lifetime appointments
sounded pretty specific to me:1. Neither said how they would vote on RvW. They spoke in generic terms, as RBG established for hearings.
I think the USSC is already a political mosh pit. First McConnell says Obama doesn't get to pick a SCOTUS because it is too close to the end of his term. Then he pushes through a Trump pick a week before an election. Seems pretty political to me.2. To get your new "rules" approved would take a Constitutional Amendment. Never gonna happen. You'd turn the USSC into a political mosh pit with only the most extreme and "ideologically pure" appointees getting in, and only if the opposition party doesn't control the senate. As I said previously, RBG got 96 votes as an extreme liberal, the dems now want to make the USSC political instead of judicial.
You’re right . The leftist that use the court for social change and rule with feelings instead of the law must be removed.Hell no!
We have literal activist judges ramming their radical political ideology down the American people's throat's.
Better yet, how about adding a Bill of No Rights to all women. We already have an example in Iran.
Is the US Supreme Court still Legitimate?
It is Republican nopminewes who ignore the Constitution even when it is explicit. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. Yet the Supreme Court has ignored this and gutted the voting rights act.
1. The USSC should be all about what the Constitution says, not what you'd like it to say.sounded pretty specific to me:
I think the USSC is already a political mosh pit. First McConnell says Obama doesn't get to pick a SCOTUS because it is too close to the end of his term. Then he pushes through a Trump pick a week before an election. Seems pretty political to me.
