A court that doesn't represent the poeple

[Coyote]

It never did. It is not supposed to.it represents the constitution. It is not elected.

Every so often.....you surprise me.

The thought of a court representing the will of the people and not the rule of law is frightening.

But it is how the left has pursued it's agenda for years. What they can't get legislated in a statehouse....they try to get legislated in the courthouse.

Both sides have attempted that.

Won't argue that....

I just don't see it that the right has been as agressive.

Kavanaugh wasn't put there to help solidify law...he was put there to ensure that only proper laws are allowed to stand.

Yes...as were the 8 other justices.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Every so often.....you surprise me.

The thought of a court representing the will of the people and not the rule of law is frightening.

But it is how the left has pursued it's agenda for years. What they can't get legislated in a statehouse....they try to get legislated in the courthouse.

Both sides have attempted that.

Won't argue that....

I just don't see it that the right has been as agressive.

Kavanaugh wasn't put there to help solidify law...he was put there to ensure that only proper laws are allowed to stand.

Yes...as were the 8 other justices.

Well, no.....

Roosevelts attempt to pack the court was an effort to get around what they were doing.

As the existing court died off, he replaced them with people who were beholden to his plans.

 

[skews13]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the people.

The American people elected Trump in a landslide, he won 30 states outright, over 300 EC votes, the overall popular vote in 49 states by 1 million votes. Then nominated Kavanaugh who was confirmed in a bi-partisan vote of the Senate. So much for your thread I destroyed it.

Trump won by the thinnest margin in history. And even that took voter suppression tactics by several governors, and Russian hackers.

And still only won the electoral college by 74,000 votes over four different states. One of which suppressed over 200,000 votes by itself (Wisconsin).

And still lost the popular vote by 3 million.

That story will sound good to all of the prisoners that will be on his cell block though.

 

[Coyote]

It never did. It is not supposed to.it represents the constitution. It is not elected.

Every so often.....you surprise me.

The thought of a court representing the will of the people and not the rule of law is frightening.

But it is how the left has pursued it's agenda for years. What they can't get legislated in a statehouse....they try to get legislated in the courthouse.

Both sides have attempted that.

Won't argue that....

I just don't see it that the right has been as agressive.

Kavanaugh wasn't put there to help solidify law...he was put there to ensure that only proper laws are allowed to stand.

I will tell you what did concern me about Kavanaugh. Not the sexual assault stuff, we will never know for sure, but it occurred (if it did) when he was a minor, and no fault has ever been found with his conduct as an adult. That should not effect a confirmation. Some of his writings on executive power do concern me. As well as how he might be on settled law and the importance of precedent. Susan Collins seemed satisfied by her conversation with him. None of that is disqualifying and a president has a right to nominate a candidate of his choice. Congress provides advice and consent (a process that has also been heavily abused) and that is, I think, to insure a qualified individual (remember Harriet Meyers?). What bothered me was when he angrily came out with the remark about the Clintons. Because that politicized him, personally. And a judge should not be at all. That makes me wonder, will his decisions be independent or a mirror of Trump’s desires?

 

[Coyote]

The thought of a court representing the will of the people and not the rule of law is frightening.

But it is how the left has pursued it's agenda for years. What they can't get legislated in a statehouse....they try to get legislated in the courthouse.

Both sides have attempted that.

Won't argue that....

I just don't see it that the right has been as agressive.

Kavanaugh wasn't put there to help solidify law...he was put there to ensure that only proper laws are allowed to stand.

Yes...as were the 8 other justices.

Well, no.....

Roosevelts attempt to pack the court was an effort to get around what they were doing.

As the existing court died off, he replaced them with people who were beholden to his plans.

Agree, but I am talking about today’s court.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Like we always said the left pisses on the Constitution and American flag, they want mob rule.

However, they do not realize that organized American citizen militia can take out scores of anti-Americans within 1 minute.

Government for the people, by the people. Sound familiar?

 

[whitehall]

Are we going to be flooded with inane posts by ignorant lefties who have more education experience in putting a condom on a cucumber than they have about the concept of Constitutional law? The Constitution works.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Every so often.....you surprise me.

The thought of a court representing the will of the people and not the rule of law is frightening.

But it is how the left has pursued it's agenda for years. What they can't get legislated in a statehouse....they try to get legislated in the courthouse.

Both sides have attempted that.

Won't argue that....

I just don't see it that the right has been as agressive.

Kavanaugh wasn't put there to help solidify law...he was put there to ensure that only proper laws are allowed to stand.

I will tell you what did concern me about Kavanaugh. Not the sexual assault stuff, we will never know for sure, but it occurred (if it did) when he was a minor, and no fault has ever been found with his conduct as an adult. That should not effect a confirmation. Some of his writings on executive power do concern me. As well as how he might be on settled law and the importance of precedent. Susan Collins seemed satisfied by her conversation with him. None of that is disqualifying and a president has a right to nominate a candidate of his choice. Congress provides advice and consent (a process that has also been heavily abused) and that is, I think, to insure a qualified individual (remember Harriet Meyers?). What bothered me was when he angrily came out with the remark about the Clintons. Because that politicized him, personally. And a judge should not be at all. That makes me wonder, will his decisions be independent or a mirror of Trump’s desires?

The anger thing bothered me too.

We'll see about his decisions.

In today's world, you won't get the best....not if they have any skeletons (verifiable) in his or her closet.

 

[toobfreak]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the poeple.

Hey Bupkis,

First of all, PEOPLE isn't spelled "poeple." Go back to 2nd grade and learn to write.

Second, since when does the SC represent the ideology of the populous? It represents the LAW. As in a Republic? At least it's SUPPOSED to, you guys have been trying to politicize it to effect social change, but thanks to Trump, we've put it largely back on track.

Thanks to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the Constitution has real meaning again.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the poeple.

Hey Bupkis,

First of all, PEOPLE isn't spelled "poeple." Go back to 2nd grade and learn to write.

Second, since when does the SC represent the ideology of the populous? It represents the LAW. As in a Republic? At least it's SUPPOSED to, you guys have been trying to politicize it to effect social change, but thanks to Trump, we've put it largely back on track.

Thanks to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the Constitution has real meaning again.

One more to go.

Unless we get lucky and Kagen strokes out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the poeple.

Test your Supreme Court knowledge: In the entire history of the court, exactly one justice has been

a) nominated by a president who didn’t win the popular vote and

b) confirmed by a majority of senators who collectively won fewer votes in their last election than did the senators who voted against that justice’s confirmation......

Donald Trump won just under 46 percent of the popular vote and 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. And Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote of 54-45. According to Kevin McMahon of Trinity College, who wrote all this up this year in his paper “Will the Supreme Court Still ‘Seldom Stray Very Far’?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America,” the 54 senators who voted to elevate Judge Gorsuch had received around 54 million votes, and the 45 senators who opposed him got more than 73 million. That’s 58 percent to 42 percent......

And it gets worse, Thomas and Alito were both confirmed by senators who got less votes than the opposition. That mean 4 out of 9 judges were appointed against the wishes of the majority.

The Supreme Court no longer represents the people.

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people. That's why states who elect their judges are constantly fucked up.

This is yet more shit that demonstrates why the Democrats lost this fight, and why they continue to lose almost every fight. Even when conservatives are dead set on making the dumbest argument they can think of, the Democrats find an even dumber argument.

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people?

What country are you from?

Federal courts should reflect the will of the people the consequence of the political process, where the will of the people is expressed when the majority of the people vote to elect a given candidate president.

But that didn’t happen with Trump, who was elected by the majority of the states, not the people, and in opposition to the majority of the people, who is now making judicial appointments not reflecting the will of the of the people.

The Framers assumed – incorrectly – that a president elected by a majority of the states and not the people would have the wisdom to make judicial appointments consistent with the will of the people and the rule of law, to not make political the judicial process; the Framers never anticipated the likes of Trump, however.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Federal courts should reflect the will of the people the consequence of the political process, where the will of the people is expressed when the majority of the people vote to elect a given candidate president.

Here. You don't seem to be awake.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the poeple.

Test your Supreme Court knowledge: In the entire history of the court, exactly one justice has been

a) nominated by a president who didn’t win the popular vote and

b) confirmed by a majority of senators who collectively won fewer votes in their last election than did the senators who voted against that justice’s confirmation......

Donald Trump won just under 46 percent of the popular vote and 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. And Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote of 54-45. According to Kevin McMahon of Trinity College, who wrote all this up this year in his paper “Will the Supreme Court Still ‘Seldom Stray Very Far’?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America,” the 54 senators who voted to elevate Judge Gorsuch had received around 54 million votes, and the 45 senators who opposed him got more than 73 million. That’s 58 percent to 42 percent......

And it gets worse, Thomas and Alito were both confirmed by senators who got less votes than the opposition. That mean 4 out of 9 judges were appointed against the wishes of the majority.

The Supreme Court no longer represents the people.

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people. That's why states who elect their judges are constantly fucked up.

This is yet more shit that demonstrates why the Democrats lost this fight, and why they continue to lose almost every fight. Even when conservatives are dead set on making the dumbest argument they can think of, the Democrats find an even dumber argument.

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people?

What country are you from?

No, they are not, they are supposed to follow the will of the LAW. Following the will of the people is what got us lynch mobs.

The courts should follow the rule of law, settled, accepted precedent, as codified by Constitutional case law.

We have now a Supreme Court hostile to the rule of law, a Court with contempt for settled, accepted precedent, a Court that will seek to dismantle codified Constitutional case law and replace it with wrongheaded conservative judicial dogma – contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

 

[toobfreak]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the poeple.

Hey Bupkis,

First of all, PEOPLE isn't spelled "poeple." Go back to 2nd grade and learn to write.

Second, since when does the SC represent the ideology of the populous? It represents the LAW. As in a Republic? At least it's SUPPOSED to, you guys have been trying to politicize it to effect social change, but thanks to Trump, we've put it largely back on track.

Thanks to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the Constitution has real meaning again.

One more to go.

Unless we get lucky and Kagen strokes out.

I give it 1-3. I figure Ginsberg is 85. She can't last but a couple more years. The added strain now of having Gorsuch and Kavanaugh breathing down her neck can only hasten her exit. I can only hope that Brett often invites them all over to the pub for a frosty Dinkelaker Dark while watching the young girls ride the mechanical bull after a long day in Court.

But Breyer is right behind her. He's 78-79 and his clocks ticking. Surely these people want to have a bit of life before they kick the bucket?

But then there is Sotomayor. She ain't looking too good and I hear she's fighting diabetes.

Of the remainders, all are conservative constitutionalists and fairly young, except Kagan.

So I figure the odds are VERY good Trump gets at least one more pick in his first term. Hoo Haa. Chances go up greatly to TWO more picks if he gets reelected.

THAT and keeping the evil skank Hildegarde out of the White House I figure is more than good enough that I don't care if Trump runs around streaking on the White House lawn every day naked with a feather duster up his ass clucking like a chicken. It was worth it.

 

[saveliberty]

Federal courts should reflect the will of the people the consequence of the political process, where the will of the people is expressed when the majority of the people vote to elect a given candidate president.

But that didn’t happen with Trump, who was elected by the majority of the states, not the people, and in opposition to the majority of the people, who is now making judicial appointments not reflecting the will of the of the people.

The Framers assumed – incorrectly – that a president elected by a majority of the states and not the people would have the wisdom to make judicial appointments consistent with the will of the people and the rule of law, to not make political the judicial process; the Framers never anticipated the likes of Trump, however.

Court should apply laws you idiot. Otherwise you basically have Pilate letting the crowd decide to crucify someone.

The Founders recognized mob rule as bad and so created a Democratic Republic. Look it up you might learn something (seriously I doubt you have the capacity). The Founders created checks and balances for the appointment of Justices, they most certainly did not consider the will of the people, otherwise the people would elect justices.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The supreme Court no longer represents the will of the poeple.

Test your Supreme Court knowledge: In the entire history of the court, exactly one justice has been

a) nominated by a president who didn’t win the popular vote and

b) confirmed by a majority of senators who collectively won fewer votes in their last election than did the senators who voted against that justice’s confirmation......

Donald Trump won just under 46 percent of the popular vote and 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. And Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote of 54-45. According to Kevin McMahon of Trinity College, who wrote all this up this year in his paper “Will the Supreme Court Still ‘Seldom Stray Very Far’?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America,” the 54 senators who voted to elevate Judge Gorsuch had received around 54 million votes, and the 45 senators who opposed him got more than 73 million. That’s 58 percent to 42 percent......

And it gets worse, Thomas and Alito were both confirmed by senators who got less votes than the opposition. That mean 4 out of 9 judges were appointed against the wishes of the majority.

The Supreme Court no longer represents the people.

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people. That's why states who elect their judges are constantly fucked up.

This is yet more shit that demonstrates why the Democrats lost this fight, and why they continue to lose almost every fight. Even when conservatives are dead set on making the dumbest argument they can think of, the Democrats find an even dumber argument.

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people?

What country are you from?

No, they are not, they are supposed to follow the will of the LAW. Following the will of the people is what got us lynch mobs.

The courts should follow the rule of law, settled, accepted precedent, as codified by Constitutional case law.

We have now a Supreme Court hostile to the rule of law, a Court with contempt for settled, accepted precedent, a Court that will seek to dismantle codified Constitutional case law and replace it with wrongheaded conservative judicial dogma – contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

And of course when the dems did that OVER and OVER the last 20 years you said nothing.

 

[skookerasbil]

Awesome article.....best I've read post-Kavanaugh ball spike!!

Mob rule loses....again....

Rejuvenated Republicans rediscover unity in litmus-test Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fight

 

[saveliberty]

The courts should follow the rule of law, settled, accepted precedent, as codified by Constitutional case law.

We have now a Supreme Court hostile to the rule of law, a Court with contempt for settled, accepted precedent, a Court that will seek to dismantle codified Constitutional case law and replace it with wrongheaded conservative judicial dogma – contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

You seem to forget the will of the people was segregation, Prohibition and other thing that were changed. The court is certainly not hostile to the rule of law. The accepted precedent of law is weed is illegal, how do you feel about that? Precedent was health insurance was the option of the individual, thanks for agreeing that was poor judicial judgement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people?

What country are you from?

The Courts are supposed to represent the Rike of Law, as written. They are not intended to interpret the Law, just enforce it; except when the legitimacy of the Law itself is on trial. In that case they are to interpret the Lsw against the Founding Documebts of the city or state or the US Constitution in the case of Federal Law.

Wrong.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the courts would interpret the Constitution and determine its meaning, ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, Section 2 – US Constitution

The Constitution therefore exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The rule of law means that the courts follow established precedent.

Sadly, there now exists a conservative Supreme Court majority willing to follow political dogma rather than the rule of law and established precedent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Courts aren't supposed to represent the will of the people?

What country are you from?

The Courts are supposed to represent the Rike of Law, as written. They are not intended to interpret the Law, just enforce it; except when the legitimacy of the Law itself is on trial. In that case they are to interpret the Lsw against the Founding Documebts of the city or state or the US Constitution in the case of Federal Law.

Wrong.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the courts would interpret the Constitution and determine its meaning, ultimately the Supreme Court:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, Section 2 – US Constitution

The Constitution therefore exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The rule of law means that the courts follow established precedent.

Sadly, there now exists a conservative Supreme Court majority willing to follow political dogma rather than the rule of law and established precedent.

And yet you have ABSOLUTELY no facts or evidence to support this claim.