Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Annoyed]

You miss the point again. Not everyone is hard liberal or hard conservative. You are incapable of seeing that their are people who have a mix of liberal and conservative views. To say nothing of that most of your examples are a a spectrum. Reasons or motives is important in deciding which way to go. Which is a little off topic. To me a judge should be not let their political views be a factor and it should be about what the law says. Something you see to want to ignore if it works in your favor

Ok, let's look at law. The US has laws regarding immigration. The Constitution charges the executive branch with enforcing those laws.

But politically biased courts such as the 9th Circus approve things like sanctuary cities which undercut enforcement efforts because the justices on that and similar courts disagree with enforcing those laws because they are politically biased.

I don't see much criticism from you of the 9th Circus.

[jelgate]

Put those goalposts back

[Annoyed]

Put those goalposts back

They haven't moved. You claim the Constitution and the founding fathers are crying because SCOTUS is about to become 6-3 in favor of conservatives, in effect saying that it's broken.

However, you seem to have no problem with the courts when they are favoring the left, such as the 9th Circuit court and some others are.

The goalposts haven't moved. You apply different standards depending upon which way the courts lean. If a court leans to the left, you and the left in general are fine with it. But if they lean to the right, well, the system must be broken.

Sort of like this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...es_446813.html

As liberal fury over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement continues to escalate, there's a clear mindset behind the Left's opposition tactics: "If we stop winning, we want to immediately change the rules."

[Falcon Horus]

Hey, didn't the saviour Alex Jones predict a democrat revolution a few days ago??

He did. The hashtag on twitter was hilarious.
Laughed so hard the entire day with all the funny tweets.

Keeping a Republican majority? That's *wishful thinking*. . .

It might, though unlike Annoyed, I think it will not be a large majority. If it doesn't it might also not be a large majority on the opposite side.

It all depends on the coming weeks.

I think we both know if the Dems ever get back in FULL power, that's the end of it for the Republicans as well as possibly the (entire) USA.

The end of the Republican party -- nope, not that. The end of a lot of Republican careers, maybe. The end of the US -- not so very much. The end of Trump -- definitely.

The U.S. Constitution is weeping

It has been weeping since January 21, 2017.

Put those goalposts back

They're on the other side of the field already.

[jelgate]

They haven't moved. You claim the Constitution and the founding fathers are crying because SCOTUS is about to become 6-3 in favor of conservatives, in effect saying that it's broken.

However, you seem to have no problem with the courts when they are favoring the left, such as the 9th Circuit court and some others are.

The goalposts haven't moved. You apply different standards depending upon which way the courts lean. If a court leans to the left, you and the left in general are fine with it. But if they lean to the right, well, the system must be broken.

Sort of like this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...es_446813.html

I have done no such thing. You are making it political when my whole point since the begining is the courts should not be political. You seem incapable of moving beyond that point to the point you are making up wild accusations about me

[jelgate]

He did. The hashtag on twitter was hilarious.
Laughed so hard the entire day with all the funny tweets.



It might, though unlike Annoyed, I think it will not be a large majority. If it doesn't it might also not be a large majority on the opposite side.

It all depends on the coming weeks.



The end of the Republican party -- nope, not that. The end of a lot of Republican careers, maybe. The end of the US -- not so very much. The end of Trump -- definitely.



It has been weeping since January 21, 2017.



They're on the other side of the field already.

In all fairness, Trump is not the first president who disregards or takes wild interpretation of the Constitution. My whole point of making the Supreme Court political has been going on for at least decades

[Annoyed]

I have done no such thing. You are making it political when my whole point since the begining is the courts should not be political. You seem incapable of moving beyond that point to the point you are making up wild accusations about me

Maybe I misunderstand your view then. Are you saying that you do have a problem with left-leaning courts such as the 9th circus which pretty much rubber stamps every liberal idea which comes before it?

[Falcon Horus]

Maybe I misunderstand your view then. Are you saying that you do have a problem with left-leaning courts such as the 9th circus which pretty much rubber stamps every liberal idea which comes before it?

I suggest you start watching The Handmaid's Tale.

[jelgate]

If its made after the 1980s, he isnt interested

[Annoyed]

I suggest you start watching The Handmaid's Tale.

Barefoot & Pregnant. I like it.

Seriously, from its WIKI entry, I don't see what that series has to do with this discussion about the courts.
I don't subscribe to Hulu in any case.

[Gatefan1976]

Maybe I misunderstand your view then. Are you saying that you do have a problem with left-leaning courts such as the 9th circus which pretty much rubber stamps every liberal idea which comes before it?

The circuit courts are not the SCOTUS, you simple minded peon. The circuits can lean left or right simply because there is a higher level to them to challenge their partisanship, the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS, by design was supposed to rule purely on LAW, not on political leaning.
If the SCOTUS rules against a "leftie idea" because it is illegal, it's doing it's damn job, and so be it.
If the SCOTUS rules against a "Rightie idea", because it's illegal, it's not frickking biased, it's doing the same damn job.
You gleefully want to stack the deck, in a deck that has never really been stacked, just disagreed with.

[Annoyed]

The circuit courts are not the SCOTUS, you simple minded peon. The circuits can lean left or right simply because there is a higher level to them to challenge their partisanship, the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS, by design was supposed to rule purely on LAW, not on political leaning.
If the SCOTUS rules against a "leftie idea" because it is illegal, it's doing it's damn job, and so be it.
If the SCOTUS rules against a "Rightie idea", because it's illegal, it's not frickking biased, it's doing the same damn job.
You gleefully want to stack the deck, in a deck that has never really been stacked, just disagreed with.

So, you're saying that circuit courts are permitted to be biased one way or another, and you're ok with that?
I'm sorry, that's not the intent of ANY court. Circuit or whatever, they all should be playing by the same neutral rules. Granted, real life, that's not the way it works. They do end up biased, to the right or to the left.

But I don't notice too much bellyaching from lefties if a court is biased to the left, such as the 9th circuit is. But let a court be biased to the right, and the screaming can be heard round the world.

[Gatefan1976]

No, I am saying that there is a higher level above the circuit courts that diminishes bias, yet the highest court in the land CANNOT have such bias as there is no appeal to them.
You have often admitted that a SCOTUS Judge played into your thinking (I doubt that, you would have changed it either way) about who to vote for, and you are probably even more stoked you get 2 choices. I don't believe for a second you care about neutrality based on your own decision-making.

[Annoyed]

No, I am saying that there is a higher level above the circuit courts that diminishes bias, yet the highest court in the land CANNOT have such bias as there is no appeal to them.
You have often admitted that a SCOTUS Judge played into your thinking (I doubt that, you would have changed it either way) about who to vote for, and you are probably even more stoked you get 2 choices. I don't believe for a second you care about neutrality based on your own decision-making.

I make no bones about preferring SCOTUS judges who are in line with my way of thinking, and I will vote for someone who I think will appoint a like-minded justice. I would even use that as the sole basis for voting for a candidate. And I am not alone in that regard. The SCOTUS is that important. I've said before that his impact upon SCOTUS is going to be the most important aspect of Trump's presidency.

And yes, I am excited that we are going to get a 6-3 SCOTUS as a result of Trump's getting 2 picks.
Wait till he gets a 3rd pick.

SCOTUS has been and always will be biased, one side or the other. There have been liberal periods, middle of the road periods and conservative periods. Remember the Warren court? Remember the the left's opposition to Justice Bork and Clarence Thomas? SCOTUS has been heavily politicized since at least that era. Why would it be a surprise that Trump or any Republican for that matter will try to push the court to the right at a time when the Democrats are powerless to stop it?

And it's not just my side / their side. Conservative justices tend to adhere more closely the words actually written in the Constitution, as opposed to liberal justices who tend to legislate from the bench, inventing laws and govt. powers that are not in the Constitution.

[Major Zoidberg]

And it's not just my side / their side. Conservative justices tend to adhere more closely the words actually written in the Constitution, as opposed to liberal justices who tend to legislate from the bench, inventing laws and govt. powers that are not in the Constitution.

On balance i think the conservatives are better when it comes to judicial activism and have made marginally better decisions. I think it was James Madison who said its better to be a government of laws than of men. If that line of thought had been followed for 100 years or so then there wouldn't be much for the left to fear from a Trump presidency because he wouldn't really have much power. The god like powers government have accumulated in the past 100 years means that there is grounds for fear.