The Supreme Court Is Exactly Where It Should Be

[Moderate Right]

A recent poll showed only 51% of Democrats approved of the Court while only 51% of Republicans approved of the Court. That tells me the Court is exactly where it should be, showing no bias to either side. During the term we also had many 9 - 0 decisions. If one side favors the Court a lot more than the other side, then something IS wrong with the court.

Supreme Court approval dips with Democrats, Republicans equally unhappy, poll finds

Approval of the Supreme Court dropped to 49%, according to a Gallup poll. That comes amid a broader debate about structural changes to the high court.

www.yahoo.com

 

[j brown's body]

A permanent consensus, which is what we essentially now gave on the court, is an contradiction of democratic principles.

The right-wing using the court to implement policy will errode its reputation as a non-partisan umpire.

 

[jcgriff2]

A recent poll showed only 51% of Democrats approved of the Court while only 51% of Republicans approved of the Court. That tells me the Court is exactly where it should be, showing no bias to either side. During the term we also had many 9 - 0 decisions. If one side favors the Court a lot more than the other side, then something IS wrong with the court.

Supreme Court approval dips with Democrats, Republicans equally unhappy, poll finds

Approval of the Supreme Court dropped to 49%, according to a Gallup poll. That comes amid a broader debate about structural changes to the high court.

www.yahoo.com

Agree - The US Supremes are doing just fine. No need to add any radical left-wing justices.

And leave the poor guy alone (justice) that does not want to retire yet.

 

[Mr Person]

3-3-3 or 4-1-4 is what it really should be, if you're interested in the best quality of decision.


Very few people are interested in that.

 

[Moderate Right]

Agree - The US Supremes are doing just fine. No need to add any radical left-wing justices.

And leave the poor guy alone (justice) that does not want to retire yet.

I just love how confident the left actually feel about holding on to the Senate or even the presidency in 2024. If they were so confident they wouldn't be begging Bryer to retire now, before it's too late.

 

[Moderate Right]

A permanent consensus, which is what we essentially now gave on the court, is an contradiction of democratic principles.

The right-wing using the court to implement policy will errode its reputation as a non-partisan umpire.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political body, therefore they are not supposed to stand for Democratic principles, only the principles of the law and the Constitution.

 

[Slartibartfast]

SCOTUS approval is about average if you look at the last 20 years.

 

[iguanaman]

Agree - The US Supremes are doing just fine. No need to add any radical left-wing justices.

And leave the poor guy alone (justice) that does not want to retire yet.

After so many radical right judges you don't think we will put a moderate on now do you? Moderation is for ******s. That is the message your side sent us.

 

[iguanaman]

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political body, therefore they are not supposed to stand for Democratic principles, only the principles of the law and the Constitution.

That is exactly why the appointment of so many radical right wing justices was so wrong. They are now walking on eggs lest they destroy the courts reputation. You will be surprised and not in a good way.

 

[j brown's body]

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political body, therefore they are not supposed to stand for Democratic principles, only the principles of the law and the Constitution.

It cultivates an image of not being political, but, of course it is. They are named by politicians based on their judicial philosophies which have political implications.

 

[KLATTU]

A permanent consensus, which is what we essentially now gave on the court, is an contradiction of democratic principles.

The right-wing using the court to implement policy will errode its reputation as a non-partisan umpire.

You mean like them killing Obamacare? we've already seen several examples of this court not rubber stamping Republican or Trump stuff.
something it'd be very unlikey to see with lw activists on the courst

 

[KLATTU]

It cultivates an image of not being political, but, of course it is. They are named by politicians based on their judicial philosophies which have political implications.

That's how it works, The problem for you is - most of the current court was appointed by Republicans. You 'd prefer that the majority would be appointed by Democrats to help enact policies YOU like.

 

[j brown's body]

That's how it works, The problem for you is - most of the current court was appointed by Republicans. You 'd prefer that the majority would be appointed by Democrats to help enact policies YOU like.

The problem for democratic society is the conceiving of a permanent consensus within one of the branches of government.

Two of three judges named by Trump should have gone to Democrats. One party seeing the other not as opponents with ideas to be debated, but enemies to be destroyed, which is the approach McConnell took in denying those seats to Democrats, is a direct challenge to one of our most sacred democratic principles.

 

[j brown's body]

You mean like them killing Obamacare? we've already seen several examples of this court not rubber stamping Republican or Trump stuff.
something it'd be very unlikey to see with lw activists on the courst

Republicans will continue to try and use the court to legislate and inbthe long run, it will not well serve the Court's reputation.

 

[KLATTU]

Republicans will continue to try and use the court to legislate and inbthe long run, it will not well serve the Court's reputation

Oh please. Hasn't happened yet and it won't happen.If there is one signature success of the Trump administration, it is nominating a large number of judges who realize that they are jurists, not legislators
As I've brilliantly and famously stated before ,RW justices tend to rule by law and lw justices tend to rule by desired reult.
It's been that way for decades.

 

[Buckeyes85]

I just love how confident the left actually feel about holding on to the Senate or even the presidency in 2024. If they were so confident they wouldn't be begging Bryer to retire now, before it's too late.

Seems like a pretty hypocritical comment based upon your OP.

BTW- are you suggesting if the republicans regain the majority in the senate, they will simply refuse to ever vote on or confirm a candidate nominated by a democrat? If so, that's beyond sad. Pulling that scam once in a generation is enough.

 

[j brown's body]

Oh please. Hasn't happened yet and it won't happen.If there is one signature success of the Trump administration, it is nominating a large number of judges who realize that they are jurists, not legislators
As I've brilliantly and famously stated before ,RW justices tend to rule by law and lw justices tend to rule by desired reult.
It's been that way for decades.

It's happening all the time.

Your brilliance and infamy notwithstanding, courts legislate all the time.

Either way, a permanent consensus is anti-democratic.

 

[jnug]

A recent poll showed only 51% of Democrats approved of the Court while only 51% of Republicans approved of the Court. That tells me the Court is exactly where it should be, showing no bias to either side. During the term we also had many 9 - 0 decisions. If one side favors the Court a lot more than the other side, then something IS wrong with the court.

Supreme Court approval dips with Democrats, Republicans equally unhappy, poll finds

Approval of the Supreme Court dropped to 49%, according to a Gallup poll. That comes amid a broader debate about structural changes to the high court.

www.yahoo.com

The court should not be about approval. Its about Constitutionality. I would bet that less than half of Americans know what is in the Constitution, let alone how the Court applies it or should apply it.

 

[KLATTU]

It's happening all the time.

Your brilliance and infamy notwithstanding, courts legislate all the time.

some courts do legislate all the time.
ABSTRACT
We test the proposition that litigation outcomes in the Ninth Circuit are significantly more activist and liberal on all federal court cases filed over a 20-year time period in which a U.S. executive agency, the USDA Forest Service, was a defendant in a lawsuit challenging a land management decision. Our results reveal that the Ninth Circuit was not significantly more likely to reverse agency decisions in the liberal direction; however, the District Courts located in the Ninth Circuit were. Additionally, opinions that all Circuits', including the Ninth Circuit, judicial panels opted to publish were significantly more likely to reverse agency action and be in the liberal direction. One consistent and statistically significant finding was that any reversal of agency action, not just those that are published, were much more likely to be in the liberal direction.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1111782

Yep.

 

[j brown's body]

The court should not be about approval. Its about Constitutionality. I would bet that less than half of Americans know what is in the Constitution, let alone how the Court applies it or should apply it.

Most people just figure that when they agree with a decision, the court is following the constitution, and when they disagree, it isn't.

 

[j brown's body]

some courts do legislate all the time.
ABSTRACT
We test the proposition that litigation outcomes in the Ninth Circuit are significantly more activist and liberal on all federal court cases filed over a 20-year time period in which a U.S. executive agency, the USDA Forest Service, was a defendant in a lawsuit challenging a land management decision. Our results reveal that the Ninth Circuit was not significantly more likely to reverse agency decisions in the liberal direction; however, the District Courts located in the Ninth Circuit were. Additionally, opinions that all Circuits', including the Ninth Circuit, judicial panels opted to publish were significantly more likely to reverse agency action and be in the liberal direction. One consistent and statistically significant finding was that any reversal of agency action, not just those that are published, were much more likely to be in the liberal direction.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1111782

Yep.

Thinking about the conservatives on the court throwing out a law that kept dark money out of politics and gutting the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, not to mention creating an individual right to own firearms.

Like I said, it happens all the time.

 

[jcgriff2]

After so many radical right judges you don't think we will put a moderate on now do you? Moderation is for ******s. That is the message your side sent us.

Who the hell knows what you people will do to turn the US into a socialist state.

 

[Roadvirus]

The court should not be about approval. Its about Constitutionality. I would bet that less than half of Americans know what is in the Constitution, let alone how the Court applies it or should apply it.

Then maybe our schools should stop teaching students how all White people are automatically racists because of past sins of their ancestors and instead teach them the fundamentals of the Constitution, the law and how the judicial branch works with regards to both.

 

[KLATTU]

Thinking about the conservatives on the court throwing out a law that kept dark money out of politics and gutting the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, not to mention creating an individual right to own firearms.

Like I said, it happens all the time.

all based on sound legal grounds. You just don't like the results.

 

[Metric Mouse]

It's happening all the time.

Your brilliance and infamy notwithstanding, courts legislate all the time.

Either way, a permanent consensus is anti-democratic.

What is permanent about the court? We've had 3 new judges in the last 4 years... Every president in my lifetime has appointed new judges, most of them multiple judges... Not exactly low turnover...