The Uselessness/Deception of the Term "Reagan/Bush/Trump Judge"

[Oddball]

One of the latest statist jabbering points, to try and run cover for the legitimacy for an out-of-control judicial oligarchy, is the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" trope...This is deceptive, at the very least.

NO PRESIDENT appoints any judge to any position without the recommendation and/or input, and subsequent confirmation, from Senators...All of them have far too much on their plates, to sift through all the cases and other criteria that could make them a decent candidate for the bench...Therefore, enter the Senators and their staffs.

Now, when you have a Democrat Party that is in near monolithic unanimity as to seating judges whose politics are progressive/Marxisitc, the result is predictable: political activists who are going to make up the law as circumstances dictate.

OTOH, the GOP is filled to the brim with controlled opposition wind socks, corporate shills, and poorly disguised plain old leftists...Therefore, you're going to get recommendations for a mixed bag of decent judges along with some outright clowns.

Can anyone really to be so stupid to believe that a judge recommended by hacks like McConnell or Murkowski is going to rule as consistently and as principled as someone recommended by Lee or Cruz?...Of course not!...Only a total buffoon could buy that notion.

At the top, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts - who've all turned out to be total embarrassments- were brought in by REPUBLICAN presidents....Meanwhile, democrat appointees nearly never stray from the political line.

Ergo, the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" artifice is entirely meaningless, and devoid of any sort of measure of objectivity.

That's my opinion, no link is required.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Now, when you have a Democrat Party that is in near monolithic unanimity as to seating judges whose politics are progressive/Marxisitc, the result is predictable: political activists who are going to make up the law as circumstances dictate.

If judges claim a political affiliation and are elected--then their political party probably is a good indicator of how they will rule.
As far as appointed positions..who appointed them really does not matter. The president recommends someone..and his party, usually rallies behind them.
IMO..the best Federal judges are those that are recommended by a President of one party and confirmed by a majority in the Senate composed of the opposite party.
Compromise often brings the best person to the job.
Partisan rubber stamping can result in biased judges. the SCOTUS is a different animal though---once a guy gets a job for life..all bets are off.

Looks to me that both political parties act like, well, political parties.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24279/what-percentage-of-us-congress-senate-votes-are-cast-according-to-party-lines

While US congressmen are usually members of the Democratic or Republican party, they are theoretically under no obligation to vote according to the majority opinion of their party. But just how often do members of Congress or Senate vote against their own party?

According to the Brookings Institution, the answer for 2014 was

94% of House Democrats
95% of House Republicans
99% of Senate Democrats
90% of Senate Republicans

This is the percentage of members who voted with the majority of their party on average. Note that for any particular vote, this means that at least 50% have to vote with their party. Because whatever side more than 50% chooses is the one that counts.

If you want the against numbers, I guess subtract from 100%. But this is the form in which Brookings had them.

This data is from Table 4 in Chapter 8.

FiveThirtyEight has a more recent table for agreement with Donald Trump. However, they don't have an alternative way to measure how often Democrats agree with Democrats. And of course there may be some issues on which Congressional Republicans disagree with Trump while agreeing with each other. Also, this measure is on an individual basis rather than for the parties as a whole. I mention it because, well, at least it's current.

 

[Oddball]

If judges claim a political affiliation and are elected--then their political party probably is a good indicator of how they will rule.
As far as appointed positions..who appointed them really does not matter. The president recommends someone..and his party, usually rallies behind them.
IMO..the best Federal judges are those that are recommended by a President of on party and confirmed by a majority in the Senate composed of the opposite party.
Compromise often brings the best person to the job.
Partisan rubber stamping can result in biased judges. the SCOTUS is a different animal though---once a guy gets a job for life..all bets are off.

Looks to me that both political parties act like, well, political parties.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/24279/what-percentage-of-us-congress-senate-votes-are-cast-according-to-party-lines

While US congressmen are usually members of the Democratic or Republican party, they are theoretically under no obligation to vote according to the majority opinion of their party. But just how often do members of Congress or Senate vote against their own party?

According to the Brookings Institution, the answer for 2014 was

94% of House Democrats
95% of House Republicans
99% of Senate Democrats
90% of Senate Republicans

This is the percentage of members who voted with the majority of their party on average. Note that for any particular vote, this means that at least 50% have to vote with their party. Because whatever side more than 50% chooses is the one that counts.

If you want the against numbers, I guess subtract from 100%. But this is the form in which Brookings had them.

This data is from Table 4 in Chapter 8.

FiveThirtyEight has a more recent table for agreement with Donald Trump. However, they don't have an alternative way to measure how often Democrats agree with Democrats. And of course there may be some issues on which Congressional Republicans disagree with Trump while agreeing with each other. Also, this measure is on an individual basis rather than for the parties as a whole. I mention it because, well, at least it's current.

Doesn't address or change a single point made in the OP.

FiveThirtyEight hasn't been right about anything since the Bathhouse Barry regime.

You may now buzz off.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

One of the latest statist jabbering points, to try and run cover for the legitimacy for an out-of-control judicial oligarchy, is the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" trope...This is deceptive, at the very least.

NO PRESIDENT appoints any judge to any position without the recommendation and/or input, and subsequent confirmation, from Senators...All of them have far too much on their plates, to sift through all the cases and other criteria that could make them a decent candidate for the bench...Therefore, enter the Senators and their staffs.

Now, when you have a Democrat Party that is in near monolithic unanimity as to seating judges whose politics are progressive/Marxisitc, the result is predictable: political activists who are going to make up the law as circumstances dictate.

OTOH, the GOP is filled to the brim with controlled opposition wind socks, corporate shills, and poorly disguised plain old leftists...Therefore, you're going to get recommendations for a mixed bag of decent judges along with some outright clowns.

Can anyone really to be so stupid to believe that a judge recommended by hacks like McConnell or Murkowski is going to rule as consistently and as principled as someone recommended by Lee or Cruz?...Of course not!...Only a total buffoon could buy that notion.

At the top, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts - who've all turned out to be total embarrassments- were brought in by REPUBLICAN presidents....Meanwhile, democrat appointees nearly never stray from the political line.

Ergo, the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" artifice is entirely meaningless, and devoid of any sort of measure of objectivity.

That's my opinion, no link is required.

Exactly, look no further than roberts. The only one who stood solidly by constitution was scalia and they found a pillow over his head. Probably smells of Rs in conjunction with libs who did that.

 

[pknopp]

9-0. 7-2.

 

[Mashmont]

One of the latest statist jabbering points, to try and run cover for the legitimacy for an out-of-control judicial oligarchy, is the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" trope...This is deceptive, at the very least.

NO PRESIDENT appoints any judge to any position without the recommendation and/or input, and subsequent confirmation, from Senators...All of them have far too much on their plates, to sift through all the cases and other criteria that could make them a decent candidate for the bench...Therefore, enter the Senators and their staffs.

Now, when you have a Democrat Party that is in near monolithic unanimity as to seating judges whose politics are progressive/Marxisitc, the result is predictable: political activists who are going to make up the law as circumstances dictate.

OTOH, the GOP is filled to the brim with controlled opposition wind socks, corporate shills, and poorly disguised plain old leftists...Therefore, you're going to get recommendations for a mixed bag of decent judges along with some outright clowns.

Can anyone really to be so stupid to believe that a judge recommended by hacks like McConnell or Murkowski is going to rule as consistently and as principled as someone recommended by Lee or Cruz?...Of course not!...Only a total buffoon could buy that notion.

At the top, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts - who've all turned out to be total embarrassments- were brought in by REPUBLICAN presidents....Meanwhile, democrat appointees nearly never stray from the political line.

Ergo, the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" artifice is entirely meaningless, and devoid of any sort of measure of objectivity.

That's my opinion, no link is required.

Well said. Democrats never make a mistake like that. Marxists remain Marxists. Same goes for lawmakers. I always thought maybe ONE of them would grow a conscience. Almost never happens.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Doesn't address or change a single point made in the OP.

FiveThirtyEight hasn't been right about anything since the Bathhouse Barry regime.

You may now buzz off.

It amazes my just how stupid you've become over the years. It's clear that I addressed every point in the OP...and added some more of my own. In fact, I made your shit look weak and whiny--not all that hard, I admit.
But you've become this knee-jerk puppet, devoid of intellect or cogent rebuttal..thus pejorative is all ya got....and you're not even clever with that~

 

[Rambunctious]

Once a judge is in power it changes them... they become a swamp creature and a slave to the establishment... its really quite embarrassing....

 

[Rambunctious]

It amazes my just how stupid you've become over the years. It's clear that I addressed every point in the OP...and added some more of my own. In fact, I made your shit look weak and whiny--not all that hard, I admit.
But you've become this knee-jerk puppet, devoid of intellect or cogent rebuttal..thus pejorative is all ya got....and you're not even clever with that~

He is right you are always wrong....

 

[Oddball]

One of the latest statist jabbering points, to try and run cover for the legitimacy for an out-of-control judicial oligarchy, is the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" trope...This is deceptive, at the very least.

NO PRESIDENT appoints any judge to any position without the recommendation and/or input, and subsequent confirmation, from Senators...All of them have far too much on their plates, to sift through all the cases and other criteria that could make them a decent candidate for the bench...Therefore, enter the Senators and their staffs.

Now, when you have a Democrat Party that is in near monolithic unanimity as to seating judges whose politics are progressive/Marxisitc, the result is predictable: political activists who are going to make up the law as circumstances dictate.

OTOH, the GOP is filled to the brim with controlled opposition wind socks, corporate shills, and poorly disguised plain old leftists...Therefore, you're going to get recommendations for a mixed bag of decent judges along with some outright clowns.

Can anyone really to be so stupid to believe that a judge recommended by hacks like McConnell or Murkowski is going to rule as consistently and as principled as someone recommended by Lee or Cruz?...Of course not!...Only a total buffoon could buy that notion.

At the top, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts - who've all turned out to be total embarrassments- were brought in by REPUBLICAN presidents....Meanwhile, democrat appointees nearly never stray from the political line.

Ergo, the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" artifice is entirely meaningless, and devoid of any sort of measure of objectivity.

That's my opinion, no link is required.

To further the point...

Republicans still generally play the "elections have consequences" game and a sufficient number of them go along with it to make abominable candidates like KBJ possible, while demoncrats fight mixed bag wind socks like Kavanaugh and ACB tooth and nail.

The late great Harry Browne called this way back on 1996...Putting the change agent at the top (set aside the argument as to whether Trump is really that change agent, it's the perception that counts here), and you're going to find out who the poseurs in the GOP are.

 

[Mashmont]

Once a judge is in power it changes them... they become a swamp creature and a slave to the establishment... its really quite embarrassing....

John Roberts is an example of that.

 

[westwall]

One of the latest statist jabbering points, to try and run cover for the legitimacy for an out-of-control judicial oligarchy, is the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" trope...This is deceptive, at the very least.

NO PRESIDENT appoints any judge to any position without the recommendation and/or input, and subsequent confirmation, from Senators...All of them have far too much on their plates, to sift through all the cases and other criteria that could make them a decent candidate for the bench...Therefore, enter the Senators and their staffs.

Now, when you have a Democrat Party that is in near monolithic unanimity as to seating judges whose politics are progressive/Marxisitc, the result is predictable: political activists who are going to make up the law as circumstances dictate.

OTOH, the GOP is filled to the brim with controlled opposition wind socks, corporate shills, and poorly disguised plain old leftists...Therefore, you're going to get recommendations for a mixed bag of decent judges along with some outright clowns.

Can anyone really to be so stupid to believe that a judge recommended by hacks like McConnell or Murkowski is going to rule as consistently and as principled as someone recommended by Lee or Cruz?...Of course not!...Only a total buffoon could buy that notion.

At the top, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts - who've all turned out to be total embarrassments- were brought in by REPUBLICAN presidents....Meanwhile, democrat appointees nearly never stray from the political line.

Ergo, the "Reagan/Bush/Trump judge" artifice is entirely meaningless, and devoid of any sort of measure of objectivity.

That's my opinion, no link is required.

I have to agree with you. The Marxists have been in control of the government for at least 30 years now, based on evidence.

And just like pedophiles, they help position people where they can be the most useful to their goals.

These are long term operations that started with Stalin. Now we need to destroy that apparatus.

 

[Rambunctious]

Judges are becoming protectors of the establishment when they are suppose to defend and protect the constitution... they get caught up in the system that empowers them and they will say fuck the constitution when it threatens them and their hold on power... those black robes go to their heads... Barrett is showing signs of this and so is Gorsuch....

 

[Oddball]

Once a judge is in power it changes them... they become a swamp creature and a slave to the establishment... its really quite embarrassing....

They wouldn't "change" if they were being truthful in their confirmation...."I came to change Washington and Washington changed me" is a cop-out for the unprincipled and the liar.

You always know what you're getting with a Rhenquist, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, etc...Even when I have disagreed with their rulings, I have agreed with their reasoning when digging deeper into their published opinions.

The same can't be said about a political weather vane like Roberts.

 

[Oddball]

Judges are becoming protectors of the establishment when they are suppose to defend and protect the constitution... they get caught up in the system that empowers them and they will say fuck the constitution when it threatens them and their hold on power... those black robes go to their heads... Barrett is showing signs of this and so is Gorsuch....

Barrett is a moral coward who is in way over her head....She's now just hiding behind Roberts.

This is the product of one-issue voting on the right.

 

[MisterBeale]

It amazes my just how stupid you've become over the years. It's clear that I addressed every point in the OP...and added some more of my own. In fact, I made your shit look weak and whiny--not all that hard, I admit.
But you've become this knee-jerk puppet, devoid of intellect or cogent rebuttal..thus pejorative is all ya got....and you're not even clever with that~

Please, go on.

Tell us moar about how the Council on Foreign Relations operate.

Chief Justice John Roberts caught in invite-only club of judges and lawyers called America Inns of Court

Investigative journalist Bad Kitty Unleashed reported on Thursday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is involved in an invite-only club for elite judges in Washington, DC. The elitist club America Inns of Court also includes the...

www.sott.net

 

[Oddball]

It amazes my just how stupid you've become over the years. It's clear that I addressed every point in the OP...and added some more of my own. In fact, I made your shit look weak and whiny--not all that hard, I admit.
But you've become this knee-jerk puppet, devoid of intellect or cogent rebuttal..thus pejorative is all ya got....and you're not even clever with that~

Yes, the guy who holds himself out as the smartest asshole in the room, no matter which room he's in, is always going to think those with a differing idea on things are stupid...That's how being a smug intellectual snob works.

Now back to the topic...

The overall point of the OP is that the talking point of "republican judge" is meaningless...Digressions on the machinations of how judges get appointed and the tiresome cry of "THEY ALL DO IT!" is diversionary and irrelevant to that point.

Point stands that the left appoints relatively consistently progressive/Marxist ideologues to the bench, whereas you never know what you're going to get with controlled opposition jobber republicans....This is what you get when a significant portion of the "opposition party" are just prop players for the ruling class.

You may now buzz off again.

 

[MisterBeale]

"Originally posted by the World Economic Forum on Twitter on November 18th 2016 and since deleted due to the amount of attention and backlash it received in the wake of current [2021] year events."
(min mark :46 if you want to get to this part of the globalist agenda.)

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Judges are becoming protectors of the establishment when they are suppose to defend and protect the constitution... they get caught up in the system that empowers them and they will say fuck the constitution when it threatens them and their hold on power... those black robes go to their heads... Barrett is showing signs of this and so is Gorsuch....

Nine Nasty Nerds

Everybody assumes that SCROTUS has the right to interpret the Constitution, so this partisan babble is not a productive discussion.

Megalomaniac John Marshall created this judicial dictatorship by interpreting the Constitution as giving the Court the right to interpret the Constitution. That is a logical fallacy and confirmation bias. Freedom-loving Americans should have nothing but contempt for the Court's self-granted privilege of Judicial Review. All we hear is that it's not interpreting the Constitution right, when the only thing that will give us our freedom back is that it has no right to interpret the Constitution. Bury Marbury.

 

[Oddball]

Nine Nasty Nerds

Everybody assumes that SCROTUS has the right to interpret the Constitution, so this partisan babble is not a productive discussion.

Megalomaniac John Marshall created this judicial dictatorship by interpreting the Constitution as giving the Court the right to interpret the Constitution. That is a logical fallacy and confirmation bias. Freedom-loving Americans should have nothing but contempt for the Court's self-granted privilege of Judicial Review. All we hear is that it's not interpreting the Constitution right, when the only thing that will give us our freedom back is that it has no right to interpret the Constitution. Bury Marbury.

USSC overturning of Marbury is on a par with the congress passing term limits on itself...