Who do the Republicans look for in a judicial nomination?

[Craig234]

Two things. One, is that they subscribe to the plutocrat ideology - to deny power to the people to run the country, and support power for the rich to have all the power and wealth.

Second, is for them to support a religious/social right-wing agenda, so that they can be used as tools to make right-wing judges a campaign issue to motivate their voters. That's why this current nominee is just who they want - far-right radical religious views, and loyalty to the plutocratic agenda, a corrupt 'team player' for Republicans. Why is why she is being put on the Supreme Court after just three years as a radical right judge.

And of courses, the judges are not oblivious to this.

There is a pretense that it's all 'their views', but they are quite aware that the selection process, which will pick them or someone else, rewards the above, and they decide to be loyal Republican team members if they want to get appointed.

 

[Noodlegawd]

1. That they interpret the Constitution and statutes as they were written, not as Democrats wish they had been written.
2. See #1.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Two things. One, is that they subscribe to the plutocrat ideology - to deny power to the people to run the country, and support power for the rich to have all the power and wealth.

Second, is for them to support a religious/social right-wing agenda, so that they can be used as tools to make right-wing judges a campaign issue to motivate their voters. That's why this current nominee is just who they want - far-right radical religious views, and loyalty to the plutocratic agenda, a corrupt 'team player' for Republicans. Why is why she is being put on the Supreme Court after just three years as a radical right judge.

And of courses, the judges are not oblivious to this.

There is a pretense that it's all 'their views', but they are quite aware that the selection process, which will pick them or someone else, rewards the above, and they decide to be loyal Republican team members if they want to get appointed.

When you silly people post these types of obvious erroneous information you just help the Republicans. Republicans like textualist, or constitutionalist. Rule on the law of the constitution as written not as you personally would like to see it, which seems to be what liberal judges do quite often.

 

[Questerr]

1. That they interpret the Constitution and statutes as they were written, not as Democrats wish they had been written.
2. See #1.

When the Constitution was written the Founders intended corporations to be people and money to be speech?

 

[Noodlegawd]

When the Constitution was written the Founders intended corporations to be people and money to be speech?

Not that I'm aware of, and neither has the Supreme Court.

 

[Questerr]

Not that I'm aware of, and neither has the Supreme Court.

Except they did. Citizens United v FEC.

And worth noting, the two primary conservatives on the Court were the critical votes in that decision and both of them lied on financial disclosure forms so they wouldn't reveal they had ties to the plaintiffs and should have recused themselves.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Except they did. Citizens United v FEC.

Except no they didn't. Try actually reading it.

 

[Questerr]

Except no they didn't. Try actually reading it.

So that ruling didn't apply individual rights of people to corporations?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The nominee has to be someone with a good chance of being confirmed before the SCOTUS has to settle the issue that Trump is already preparing for of who really won the 2020 election.

 

[Noodlegawd]

So that ruling didn't apply individual rights of people to corporations?

Not really. It (1) recognized the long-established principle that the First Amendment applies to corporations and unions, not just individuals, and (2) noted that corporations are associations of individual people.

The court also alluded to the absurdity of concluding that the First Amendment does not protect the free speech of a corporation with many shareholders, while it would effectively protect the free speech of a company with a single very-wealthy shareholder.

 

[OrphanSlug]

"Who do the Republicans look for in a judicial nomination?"

Pretty easy really:

1. Theocracy
2. Guns to the hills and back
3. Wealth Protection
4. White Nationalism
5. Their version of Government Power
6. Marginalization of the Constitution for everyone else

That should sum it up.