The 5-4 Supreme Court

[ron4342]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

Seriously Frank, can you think of anything Obama could say or do (Other than to put his neck on a chopping block.) that would make Thomas, Alito, or Scalia look to the Constitution rather than the gop for direction? These three have to be some of the scummiest justices this country has ever seen.
Consider the ethics of Scalia. A case comes before the SC that involves his hunting buddy cheney. A responsible judge would recuse himself based on their close friendship. Does Scalia recuse himself? Of course not. Oh, and by the way, if I am not mistaken he voted in favor of cheney. Maybe for republican's it is okay but as for me Scalia's decision not to recuse himself does NOT pass the smell test.
Cheney v. United States District Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fuck off you partisan pig. Name one decision that a clinton or obama appointee made that you disagreed with

Now see, I haven't called you any names but there you go calling me a "partisan pig." If that is the way you prefer to communicate I will accommodate you.
So, fuckface, one of the things that I have learned on these boards is that ignorant little piss ants like you who cannot rebut factual arguments always resort to name calling to hide their stupidity.
Oh, and for your info, I disagree with Obama for not taking action against bush for starting a war based on lies and on cheney for war profiteering. Of course you are aware that several countries around the world have declared bush a war criminal. And even rand paul is now calling cheney a war profiteer. I also disagree with Obama for not pushing harder for a one payer system. Further, I do not agree with all his appointments but I am a firm believer a president should be able to pick his own team. I also think Obama should have come out for equal rights for gays earlier. Happy fuckface?

 

[Uncensored2008]

In the context of Constitutional jurisprudence, the "liberals" acknowledge long-standing, accepted and settled case law, while "conservatives" seek to pull that case law down.

Is that what they taught you at that Manilla law school, Saul.

There are no "conservatives" or "liberals," there are constitutionalists and activists. We had an activist bench for years, which had open contempt for the Constitution. Now we have 5 constitutionalists and 4 activists. You partisans are melting down because you know the attack on Hobby Lobby is unconstitutional, and that the 5 constitutionalists on the court will rule it so - which will be the end of Fascist Care.

Y'all are throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[ron4342]

In the context of Constitutional jurisprudence, the "liberals" acknowledge long-standing, accepted and settled case law, while "conservatives" seek to pull that case law down.

Liberals consult the wisdom of a tribal shaman in equatorial Africa; Conservatives refer to the Constitution

I am curious frank, where in the Constitution does it hold that a corporation is really a person and has the same rights as a person. Please cite the exact language where that occurs.

 

[Antares]

In the context of Constitutional jurisprudence, the "liberals" acknowledge long-standing, accepted and settled case law, while "conservatives" seek to pull that case law down.

Liberals consult the wisdom of a tribal shaman in equatorial Africa; Conservatives refer to the Constitution

I am curious frank, where in the Constitution does it hold that a corporation is really a person and has the same rights as a person. Please cite the exact language where that occurs.

Seriously, you want to play that card?

Show me the EXACT language where it says a woman has the "right" to kill her child.

Yes, that's how stupid your statement is.

 

[The Rabbi]

In the context of Constitutional jurisprudence, the "liberals" acknowledge long-standing, accepted and settled case law, while "conservatives" seek to pull that case law down.

Liberals consult the wisdom of a tribal shaman in equatorial Africa; Conservatives refer to the Constitution

I am curious frank, where in the Constitution does it hold that a corporation is really a person and has the same rights as a person. Please cite the exact language where that occurs.

14th Amendment.

 

[blackhawk]

Republicans gripe when the Court doesn't rule the way they want Democrats gripe when it doesn't rule there way partisans are never happy when they don't get their way.

 

[natstew]

Political Parties have corrupted all the Supreme Courts, Federal and State.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices should be politically blind Constitutionalists. PERiOD!!
Same with State Supreme Court Justices, with the State's Constitution taking priority.

 

[natstew]

Conservative Judges rule by the Constitution, Liberal Judges rule by ideology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the context of Constitutional jurisprudence, the "liberals" acknowledge long-standing, accepted and settled case law, while "conservatives" seek to pull that case law down.

Liberals consult the wisdom of a tribal shaman in equatorial Africa; Conservatives refer to the Constitution

Liberals invented a right to abortion,a right to privacy, a right to equal schools, a right for municipalities to take stuff to give to private developers for money, and a power to tax found nowhere in the Constiution.
Conservatives struck down gun free zones and bans on handguns.
I know who's doing his job and who is legislating from the bench.

If you squint you can see the penumbra from the Living, Breathing Constitution

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the context of Constitutional jurisprudence, the "liberals" acknowledge long-standing, accepted and settled case law, while "conservatives" seek to pull that case law down.

Liberals consult the wisdom of a tribal shaman in equatorial Africa; Conservatives refer to the Constitution

I am curious frank, where in the Constitution does it hold that a corporation is really a person and has the same rights as a person. Please cite the exact language where that occurs.

In the penumbra

 

[Uncensored2008]

Republicans gripe when the Court doesn't rule the way they want Democrats gripe when it doesn't rule there way partisans are never happy when they don't get their way.

That may be, but certain decisions defy the Constitution and established precedent. Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo v. New London all fall into this. These cases are simple legislation from the bench in direct defiance of the Constitution.

 

[BDBoop]

There was a point where our Supreme Court was looked at as being above partisan politics. That is what the founders envisioned. Now they are deeply entrenched in it

Is there any way out?

 

[guno]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

Those guys think by eating a cracker and drinking wine it becomes their mangod, Now how insane is that!!

 

[Freewill]

The Supreme Court's two tribes - The Week

From 1801 to 1940, only 2 percent of its rulings came by 5-4 decisions. But in the Roberts years, 22 percent of cases have ended in such rulings, an all-time high. In oral arguments, the justices do little to disguise their tribal affiliations: The conservative, Catholic male justices recently expressed open sympathy for a Christian-owned company fighting the "contraception mandate," while the female liberal justices focused on women employees who might be denied contraceptive coverage. It sounded more like a debate on MSNBC or Fox News than a judicial proceeding. We humble citizens are thus left to wonder: Are the good justices dispassionately weighing each case on its constitutional merits, or are they mere ideologues who start off with a desired result and reason backward?

Have you not noticed that the right can not win elections? Or at least that is the left's storyline. Have you not noticed how much, since democrats have taken power, have been decided along party lines? Obamacare being the biggest example? But I seriously doubt you would accuse the left, who is in power, of not using that power wisely. Or even attempting to compromise in a meaningful way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There was a point where our Supreme Court was looked at as being above partisan politics. That is what the founders envisioned. Now they are deeply entrenched in it

Is there any way out?

RW is a mindless hack. He spews idiotic crap from the hate sites.

Do you REALLY think there was a time when the SCOTUS was "looked at as being above partisan politics?" If so, when was this? When they were supporting democrats with the absurd Dred Scott ruling, which has no justification in law? Or perhaps when they were crafting legislation out of whole cloth with RvW? You may love and worship abortion, there is still zero legal basis for the court to create law that the legislature fears to make.

EVEN Marbury v. Madison was a purely partisan decision.

Justices are appointed by presidents, presidents who have agendas, and who select justices that will further that agenda.

So when was it that the SCOTUS was above politics?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

Maybe you may one day forego posting an idiotgram when a serious issue is posted. You may get thanks from partisans, some even dumber than you, but don't let that go to your head. Thoughtful people see you as a lightweight, unable to post anything substantive, so you default to being a class clown.

 

[NLT]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

Kagan should go after she refused to dimiss herself from the ACA ruling. Talk about ethically challenge, she is also a big fat lying dyke.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative Judges rule by the Constitution, Liberal Judges rule by ideology.

Pot, meet kettle

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe Obama can chide SCOTUS again in his next SOTU address?

He's such a charmer and knows how to work with others, even when they disagree with him

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

Kagan should go after she refused to dimiss herself from the ACA ruling. Talk about ethically challenge, she is also a big fat lying dyke.

What does her weight have to do with anything? And calling her a "lying dyke" say much about you and nothing about the Justice. I suspect Scalia and Thomas attending private parties without press coverage hosted by the Brothers Koch is nothing that gives you concern. That too says much about you.

 

[The Rabbi]

why? is that what's making their decisions pathetically bad?

I have a better idea... maybe the ethically challenged like Scalia and Thomas shouldn't be on the bench?

yeah, that's the ticket.

Kagan should go after she refused to dimiss herself from the ACA ruling. Talk about ethically challenge, she is also a big fat lying dyke.

What does her weight have to do with anything? And calling her a "lying dyke" say much about you and nothing about the Justice. I suspect Scalia and Thomas attending private parties without press coverage hosted by the Brothers Koch is nothing that gives you concern. That too says much about you.

The fact that you spent your law enforcement career on your knees in front of inmates speaks volumes about you.
It explains why you can never make a cogent point in any post and fail to defend every position you've ever taken.