Even a Conservative Supreme Court Might Turn on Trump

[Hawkeye10]

And i bet you have just the cure for this problem.

Better People.

 

[haymarket]

Better People.

I do not understand.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I do not understand.

How disappointing.

 

[haymarket]

How disappointing.

Perhaps you can elaborate so that you are understood?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Perhaps you can elaborate so that you are understood?

What am I supposed to do with someone who acts like they dont know that better people doing better is better?

Maybe you read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and then you get back to me.

Maybe I could do something with you then.

 

[Luckyone]

Perhaps you can elaborate so that you are understood?

What he is trying to say is simple. A company normally takes the personality of the head of the company, meaning that if the head of the company is good, honest, moral, ethical and honorable and the people he chooses are the same, the company will be highly successful. The opposite is also true.

As such, the head of our company (Trump) needs to be a role model for the company (the United States) and he in turn has to choose good people for all the jobs beneath him in order to the United States to be successful, be respected, be honorable, be ethical and be good.

Trump has been choosing the people to run the company, starting with the picks for SCOTUS and on down to the Chief of Staff and so far (and in my opinion), there is only one person that represents all that we should be and that is Mathis. Everyone else is mostly garbage and will take us down the wrong path. What is worse, is that by mistake Trump did choose some people that were good (such as McMaster, and Tillerson) but he has already fired them and replaced them with garbage. The latest example is Whitaker, who is garbage.

As such, you can expect the results to be negative, given that none of the people, starting with Trump, are honorable, honest, moral, ethical or good at their jobs. Put sh*t in and expect to get sh*t out.

 

[Bullseye]

Supreme Court Justice Roberts rebuked Trump yesterday on his debasing statement regarding the 9th Court decision on Asylum seekers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016

He said:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. An independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Should Trump be careful of not alienating the Supreme Court? After all, Judge Roberts was chosen by Bush and is considered a Conservative Judge. He could become the Centrist on the Court and decide issues and if he feels that Trump is trying to influence the court, he could lean to the other side.

Do you think Trump is going to far in criticizing Court judgments that come out against his wishes?

Are you looking for an honest answer or just trolling for more "attaboys" and "you go, guy"?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What am I supposed to do with someone who acts like they dont know that better people doing better is better?

Maybe you read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and then you get back to me.

Maybe I could do something with you then.

If someone asks you what time it is, don't come back at them with a 300 page treatise on the history of watches, just tell them it's 12:17 PM.
You're not being Zen, you're being vague and puerile.

 

[marke]

Supreme Court Justice Roberts rebuked Trump yesterday on his debasing statement regarding the 9th Court decision on Asylum seekers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016

He said:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. An independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Should Trump be careful of not alienating the Supreme Court? After all, Judge Roberts was chosen by Bush and is considered a Conservative Judge. He could become the Centrist on the Court and decide issues and if he feels that Trump is trying to influence the court, he could lean to the other side.

Do you think Trump is going to far in criticizing Court judgments that come out against his wishes?

Trump told the truth but the American people show signs of becoming more and more intolerant of the truth, exchanging feel good platitudes for inconvenient or uncomfortable truths.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If someone asks you what time it is, don't come back at them with a 300 page treatise on the history of watches, just tell them it's 12:17 PM.
You're not being Zen, you're being vague and puerile.

yuk..

Run your own life only, clearly that is more than enough to keep you occupied.

 

[OscarLevant]

Supreme Court Justice Roberts rebuked Trump yesterday on his debasing statement regarding the 9th Court decision on Asylum seekers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016

He said:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. An independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Should Trump be careful of not alienating the Supreme Court? After all, Judge Roberts was chosen by Bush and is considered a Conservative Judge. He could become the Centrist on the Court and decide issues and if he feels that Trump is trying to influence the court, he could lean to the other side.

Do you think Trump is going to far in criticizing Court judgments that come out against his wishes?

He is diminishing the office of the Presidency; this is but a sample of his wares.

 

[PleasantValley]

Supreme Court Justice Roberts rebuked Trump yesterday on his debasing statement regarding the 9th Court decision on Asylum seekers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016

He said:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. An independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Should Trump be careful of not alienating the Supreme Court? After all, Judge Roberts was chosen by Bush and is considered a Conservative Judge. He could become the Centrist on the Court and decide issues and if he feels that Trump is trying to influence the court, he could lean to the other side.

Do you think Trump is going to far in criticizing Court judgments that come out against his wishes?

He has every right to bash the 9th Circuit court and their 75% overturn rate.
This means their judgements are wrong 3 out of 4 times.
They should only have California as their territory.

That aside, In my research some courts have a 100% overturn rate.
How messed up is that.

 

[OscarLevant]

The 24/7 News Networks are in the main responsible for the perception of the politicization of the Courts IMO.

You could always go and find out which Justice or which Judge was appointed during which administration. It was simply never news until the 24/7 News Networks came along and could not find enough actual news to fill 24 hours. Their goal is to be provocative. They have nothing to do with news unless in fact it provides them the means to be provocative. It was not until the onset of the 24/7 News Networks that it became popular to continually point out when a judge was appointed and by which administration.

It is so bad, that I even heard a "respected" anchor on one of their shows this morning use the fact that THEY "have always identified who as President was responsible for a particular appointment" as a lead in to a discussion of why Roberts picked this particular moment to tweet on the subject of judicial appointments. In other words, we now have a generation of 24/7 Network News anchors old enough to know better that do not even acknowledge their role in this mess, utterly oblivious to their role in this mess.

24/7 News Networks are the single worst thing that has happened to our democracy IMO. A Donald Trump does not even get to 1st base without the 24/7 News Networks.

News by capitalism.

I should think, if dems win it all in 2020, should consider restoring the fairness doctrine, or something similar is a good idea.

But, for the 1A, I doubt there is much we can do about news by capitalism other than just to let to continue as it is, but restoring FD.

 

[haymarket]

What am I supposed to do with someone who acts like they dont know that better people doing better is better?

Maybe you read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and then you get back to me.

Maybe I could do something with you then.

Today THE WIZARD OF OZ if far more relevant.

 

[Luckyone]

He has every right to bash the 9th Circuit court and their 75% overturn rate.
This means their judgements are wrong 3 out of 4 times.
They should only have California as their territory.

That aside, In my research some courts have a 100% overturn rate.
How messed up is that.

The only thing I can say in response to your comment is that someone that is so incompetent himself (such as Trump is) should not be criticizing anyone.

 

[jnug]

He has every right to bash the 9th Circuit court and their 75% overturn rate.
This means their judgements are wrong 3 out of 4 times.
They should only have California as their territory.

That aside, In my research some courts have a 100% overturn rate.
How messed up is that.

What research. You clearly have not researched ANYTHING.

Circuit Courts of Appeal only have cases reviewed by the SJC that the SJC chooses to review. They choose to review cases and rulings that to them appear to be in conflict with existing Law and the Constitution. The actual overturn rate for the 9th Circuit is less than 1%. The Court with the highest overturn rate is the 6th circuit covering Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan.

 

[PleasantValley]

What research. You clearly have not researched ANYTHING.

Circuit Courts of Appeal only have cases reviewed by the SJC that the SJC chooses to review. They choose to review cases and rulings that to them appear to be in conflict with existing Law and the Constitution. The actual overturn rate for the 9th Circuit is less than 1%. The Court with the highest overturn rate is the 6th circuit covering Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan.

So we are in agreement, the 9th still has a 75% turnover rate, as you did not dispute that fact at all.
Glad to see we both agree on this.

 

[PleasantValley]

The only thing I can say in response to your comment is that someone that is so incompetent himself (such as Trump is) should not be criticizing anyone.

Is this how you intend to make for points on topics?
You will lose every time is this is all you have.

 

[jnug]

So we are in agreement, the 9th still has a 75% turnover rate, as you did not dispute that fact at all.
Glad to see we both agree on this.

No we don't agree. Less than 1% of their rulings are overturned.

By the way I don't know what turnover rate even means in the context of Circuit Court Judges.

 

[PleasantValley]

No we don't agree. Less than 1% of their rulings are overturned.

By the way I don't know what turnover rate even means in the context of Circuit Court Judges.

yes I do.
The 9th Circuit court's rulings / judgements have been overturned about 75% of the time.
They only represent California mores and attitudes.
That is why they are wrong 3 out of 4 times and overturned.

:comp:

 

[Mach]

You do know the a significant portion for Trump's "deplorable base" are long-term Democrats, right? How do you think he won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

I can only comment on the morons I see posting in this forum that support Trump, and those I know in person, and those I see on TV and read about.
In nearly all cases, they are obviously ignorant. In most cases, they are also deplorable.

I don't really care what they call themselves or how they identify themselves, I care about how I identify them based on reality. Most of the entire population of the world is incredible ignorant and unethical SDET, not sure why you feel former Democrats who now support Trump would be immune.

 

[Mr Person]

UGH.

I really don't like threads like this. Judges have biases, but mainly in the sense that they've reached a certain set of viewpoints that they'll steer their decisions towards. At a lower level, there can indeed be biases against a side in general, against an individual (maybe because they are legitimately a bad person, which is not the question at trial).

But I really don't see much of any evidence that Supreme Court justices decide they hate certain politicians and therefore craft their decisions to be for or against that politician. The only reason they're labeled conservative and liberal justices is that the people doing the labeling look to how they think the decisions line up with each party's platform. They don't do it based on some deep analysis of precedent, nor would it make sense to even try.



To the extent there's a real split in methods of interpretation, it's between the people who pretend they are 'originalist' and the people who proclaim to be 'living constitutionalists'. They ultimately do the same thing in cases. Kyllo is a great example. SCOTUS case where the question was whether an infared scan of a house that detects heat emanting from a garage in unusal quantities - a scan conducted from a public space - is a "search."

You've got justices talking about whether or not it reveals the intimate parts of the home. You've got justices talking about whether or not that heat would melt snow in the winter and thereby altert passing pedestrians to the fact that the garage is warmer than usual. I'm dead serious. That's all in there. These are "originalists", more centrist, and more "living constitutionalist" judges arguing about **** the founders did not have any intent about. They're all trying to guess what the founders would think the answer should now be.




They are doing the same thing.

 

[Mr Person]

Supreme Court Justice Roberts rebuked Trump yesterday on his debasing statement regarding the 9th Court decision on Asylum seekers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-trump-comment-about-obama-n939016

He said:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. An independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Should Trump be careful of not alienating the Supreme Court? After all, Judge Roberts was chosen by Bush and is considered a Conservative Judge. He could become the Centrist on the Court and decide issues and if he feels that Trump is trying to influence the court, he could lean to the other side.

Do you think Trump is going to far in criticizing Court judgments that come out against his wishes?

How many things are being asserted vs. asked here?

Your title postulates that a conservative court might "turn on" trump, which itself raises a number of objections.

But your question is do we think Trump is going too far in criticizing the court.



Do you mean both? Because there are a whole lot of problems with the title's implications. As for the other, probably. He goes to far in everything. Ranting about an "Obama judge" makes the same fundamental mistake that wondering about the likelihood of a so-called "Conservative" (or "Bush and Trump") court might turn on a Republican: they both assume that someone works most of their adult life as a lawyer, gets a position on the lowest level of a state court (usually), works their way up, ends up on a Circuit Court, ends up on the Supreme Court......

......and then decides (or has always) carefully crafted their decision using legal language to favor a specific political result.



They have their biases allright. So does anyone. But then there's acting on them. And I really don't see much to indicate that justices are just BS'ing around to reach a specific political result. Rather, they're labeled liberal or conservative based on the results of their cases.