Political Bias on the U.S. Supreme Court

[ludin]

Please check with the Official Score Keeper. You continue to not meet the minimum standards to qualify, thus rendering you ineligible for any certifiable wins.

Now in your world of Make-Believe, Alternative Facts, Fake News and Filter Bubbles, you can write the script any way you want.

your failure to address the argument is what causes you to lose.
You made the argument that he was ambigious on his answers.

I gave you the reason all. All judges are ambigious in their answers to questions.
if they were to give what would be considered an opinion on a case or future case then
under the law they would have to recuse themselves.

no judge wants to recuse himself.

so you can either address the argument or you can't. chances are you won't since you didn't do it the last time.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

your failure to address the argument is what causes you to lose.
You made the argument that he was ambigious on his answers.

I gave you the reason all. All judges are ambigious in their answers to questions.
if they were to give what would be considered an opinion on a case or future case then
under the law they would have to recuse themselves.

no judge wants to recuse himself.

so you can either address the argument or you can't. chances are you won't since you didn't do it the last time.

Good morning ludin!

in case you ignored my previous memo to you, post #91, you can now easily review it-

Previous memo from Trippy Trekker to ludin - You crack me up Ludin. Your humor resulted in my first broad morning smile! Did you really think for even a second I would ever deem you a reliable source for insight on how the judicial process works?

Count your blessings you never met Rev. Jim Jones. He may have talked you into moving to Jonestown. Until you remove yourself from your Filter Bubble, I give anything you post little or no credibility.

If you really want to know my answers, read the thread. This marks my 59th post to this thread.

Feel some Love! May our Best Times Lie Ahead!

 

[ludin]

Good morning ludin!

in case you ignored my previous memo to you, post #91, you can now easily review it-



If you really want to know my answers, read the thread. This marks my 59th post to this thread.

Feel some Love! May our Best Times Lie Ahead!

thank you for once again proving as I said that you could not address the argument.
you have proven me correct yet once again.

you concession in this argument is noted.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

thank you for once again proving as I said that you could not address the argument.
you have proven me correct yet once again.

you concession in this argument is noted.

All grins! You enjoy Fiction more than Fact. I enjoy Fact more than Fiction. To each their own. Whatever makes our world go around.

 

[matchlight]

Do you have any ideas on how to minimize the issue of Bias on the Supreme Court?

Sure. Impeach and remove Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Then, when Ginsburg and Kennedy are gone, which can't be too many years from now, replace them with originalist judges.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Sure. Impeach and remove Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Then, when Ginsburg and Kennedy are gone, which can't be too many years from now, replace them with originalist judges.

In a frank moment, upon hearing about Scalia's death, a random thought slipped into my mind: God had answered a prayer. if I could have removed a single Justice, I would have chosen Scalia. Then I offered my condolences to the Scalia's family, many friends and admirers.

This time, God appears to have answered your prayer. Congratulations to Team Gorsuch!

 

[Mustachio]

I've never claimed that I am in favor of the court being biased. In fact, the post you commented on said exactly the opposite: "I don't want any left wing or right wing bias." So stop putting words in my mouth, please.

When I say I just want the Constitution to be upheld, it's not BS. It is truth. You are pathetically wrong if you believe otherwise of me.

The fact that you are a volunteer means nothing. Who is your State Senator? Does he desire a liberal-biased Supreme Court Justice? If so, then you are just as much at fault for court bias as the person who doesn't vote. I suggest you see to yourself before you start complaining about others.

So what kind of bias do you fear the courts will impose upon us? Are you against all changes to the constitution ever made throughout the history of this nation? I certainly hope not. Slavery would remain legal if all we had were courts and politicians who went solely by the constitution.

My state senator whose campaign I volunteered to help is Al Franken, who views the constitution as a living document. He was in favor of Garland being appointed, who would have been an excellent member of the court. There is ALWAYS bias, because judges are people and people are biased as to how they interpret the constitution. That's why the court explains its rulings. If there was no bias, rulings would be self explanatory and in theory we would have no courts. Just as I said before, you "don't want bias" on the court, you just want judges who interpret the constitution exactly the same way as you do... which is a biased interpretation.

 

[Mycroft]

So what kind of bias do you fear the courts will impose upon us? Are you against all changes to the constitution ever made throughout the history of this nation? I certainly hope not. Slavery would remain legal if all we had were courts and politicians who went solely by the constitution.

There are only two provisions in the Constitution that enable it to be changed, and I approve of them both. Neither provision involves any court.

My state senator whose campaign I volunteered to help is Al Franken,

That answers my questions perfectly. Thank you.

Just as I said before, you "don't want bias" on the court, you just want judges who interpret the constitution exactly the same way as you do... which is a biased interpretation.

Here you go...trying to put words in my mouth again.

I've said NOTHING about how I interpret the Constitution.


I'm starting to find your biased hackery to be tedious and a waste of my time. Our conversation is over.

You are dismissed.

 

[Mustachio]

There are only two provisions in the Constitution that enable it to be changed, and I approve of them both. Neither provision involves any court.



That answers my questions perfectly. Thank you.



Here you go...trying to put words in my mouth again.

I've said NOTHING about how I interpret the Constitution.


I'm starting to find your biased hackery to be tedious and a waste of my time. Our conversation is over.

You are dismissed.

Thank you for giving me your time, I know it's hard for you to spend your time on an internet forum and must be very tired. You said nothing "about how you interpret the constitution," which means there are multiple ways to interpret portions of the constitution, which means that there is no such thing as an unbiased judge unless you take the position that the constitution is black, white, and covers every and all issues we face.

Sorry for the late reply, I have a job. But you can go now. You are irrelevant because I think I choose who can and cannot post.