No, only liberals ask themselves these questions. "Who will they side with" :roll: "who will they have empathy with".In an idealist world you are correct. But don't kid yourself that Republican candidates are going to appoint activist judges who will side with corporations to rule against environmental legislation. The Roberts court is already extremely pro-corporation vs. the rights of the individual
Absolutely. Their job is to side with the law, regardless of the policy or the parties involved. The Judge on the bench should care absolutely nothing for social justice, environmentalism, wise tax policy, of political fallout. They should care only about the letter of the law.
OpportunityCost said:Appeal to Google fallacy?
No, only liberals ask themselves these questions. "Who will they side with" :roll: "who will they have empathy with".
that's announcing from the start you intend to Corrupt the prices. It's like electing a President based on which wall street bank they are most beholden to.
So the Supreme Court disagrees with everyone?
No - you are simply projecting.If you actually believe that, you are very naïve.
:roll: So, you fail at reading comprehension.
Retreat to Semantics because the argument he is addressing is correct.
:roll: So, you fail at reading comprehension.
Retreat to Semantics because the argument he is addressing is correct.
: face palm: [It's not the Supreme Courts job to side with anyone [/I]. In fact, it's their job not to.
the SCOTUS is supposed to be a neutral body that examines any laws based on the constitution and the constitution alone.
if what congress or the president or any government agency is attempting to thwart the constitution then it is the job of
the SCOTUS to stop them regardless of their beliefs or ideology.
ever sense the marshall court the SCOTUS has become more political than judicial. where the ideology of the judges affect their
rules not the constitution. that is a huge danger in my opinion.
if a judge cannot rule based on the constitution as they are supposed to then they should be disbarred.
I don't care which judge it is. they take an oath of office to defend the constitution not their political ideology.
same goes with the president or any other member of congress.
if you violate your oath then you should be disqualified from serving office.
yet you see the political ideology all the time in these 5/4 split cases.
very few if any of the cases should be 5/4 splits if the judges are following the constitution.
: face palm: [It's not the Supreme Courts job to side with anyone [/I]. In fact, it's their job not to.
In an idealist world you are correct. But don't kid yourself that Republican candidates are going to appoint activist judges who will side with corporations to rule against environmental legislation. The Roberts court is already extremely pro-corporation vs. the rights of the individual
The Constitution is a framework. It is not a narrowly-defining set of laws or rules. The Founders knew this when they wrote it.
Those are your opinions, and you are entitled to them.
Don't kid yourself that Democrat candidates are not going to appoint judges who will side with the government against the people and the Constitution. We already have four on there now that do so on almost every vote.
Further proof that if you care about the environment....having clean air and water, and you care about a Supreme Court that isn't going to side with the polluters and corporation s 100% of the time...its now more important than ever to vote for the Democratic candidate.
I'm not kidding myself. I have said many times before the both sides appoint justices that have an idealogical bent. While I agree that the court should be non-political and neutral, the reality is that it isn't. But people who pretend that Republicans are not going to appoint justices with a right-wing bent are completely naïve.
Except they use the more professional term "Swat Team". Same difference it seems. https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/...ntal-protection-agency-need-its-own-swat-teamwhen I worked for the government, a well known "joke' was that the EPA was the closest thing to a goon squad the feds had.
You said, and I quote:
Those are your words, not mine. Yet a Google search for "Supreme Court sides with" came up with over a hundred thousand results. Maybe your Google doesn't come up with any results for that search?
You said, and I quote:
Those are your words, not mine. Yet a Google search for "Supreme Court sides with" came up with over a hundred thousand results. Maybe your Google doesn't come up with any results for that search?
I don't necessarily disagree, but Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy and Souter totally kills any validity to your accusation against Republicans.
thank you for not refuting anything I said.
It was argued that the SCOTUS needs to "side with" environmentalists. That is not its' job. It is supposed to side with the law, and not care about the nature of the plaintiffs. You are attempting to use lazy semantics and argue that because the SCOTUS has decided that the law came down on one side or the other, that they were "siding with" that side, rather than the law.
now - they may be doing that. They did that in the Oberfell decision. But that is not their job.
All of those search results in your pic were headlines from news agencies. That was lame dude. Google + headline= legal definition?
:roll: no, you are the one attempting to use sloppy language to make a semantic argument. Google headlines notwithstanding.You are guilty of the very sin that you accuse me of. I clearly showed what was at best a sloppy use of the words "sides with." You are attacking the messenger for pointing out your error.
You made the original point. You back it up. You will not attack the messenger to win a debate.
:roll: no, you are the one attempting to use sloppy language to make a semantic argument. Google headlines notwithstanding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?