• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who do the Republicans look for in a judicial nomination?

Craig234

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
46,930
Reaction score
22,875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 
1. That they interpret the Constitution and statutes as they were written, not as Democrats wish they had been written.
2. See #1.
 
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tlrmln said:
1. That they interpret the Constitution and statutes as they were written, not as Democrats wish they had been written.
2. See #1.
Click to expand...

When the Constitution was written the Founders intended corporations to be people and money to be speech?
 
Questerr said:
When the Constitution was written the Founders intended corporations to be people and money to be speech?
Click to expand...
Not that I'm aware of, and neither has the Supreme Court.
 
Tlrmln said:
Not that I'm aware of, and neither has the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Questerr said:
So that ruling didn't apply individual rights of people to corporations?
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom