Now they want SCOTUS term limits
Interesting how now the dems want term limits, but when O-douch-e put two unqualified young judges on, there was no such discussion.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
No, I haven't seen the Johnny Depp remake and no one's gonna make me.
No one's gonna make me!
Nyah! Nyah!
I understand (?) that this 'refusal' was in accordance with established tradition regarding Presidents soon to leave office.
Obama had already appointed two ultra-progressives to the Court, neither of which was superbly qualified and neither of which properly recused themselves in critical hearings. McConnell played a risky card and it payed off.
What on earth do you mean not superbly qualified?! Sonia Sotomayor brought to the bench the "Hispanic Female" perspective! Isn't THAT the only requirement for her to be superbly qualified and exempt from any possible recusal for any reason?! Sheesh, blarman, you've got to get more attuned to these modern progressive PC times!
...end sarc...
[/sarcasm]
Laws exist ostensibly so that everyone operates under the same standard and can apply for the same "redress of grievances". To attempt to undermine that by tossing out all case law and precedents would be to suggest that there are no standards. It's a patently absurd proposition.
I know. We're pretty close to that absurd land. (I should have used sarcasm tags before.)
If the court rules on some issue like which level of government had jurisdiction, people immediately go to the politics of the case in question. This is even mainstream commentators. They don't want the court to rule on the jurisdiction issue. They want the court to stand up for gun rights, gay rights, abortion rights, or whatever hot button issue is and ignore true legal issue. It's like we're giving up on justice being blind.
Absolutely! +1. If the court were to do that, almost every case would end the same way: "We refer this to the Legislature for consideration."
Totally missed that you were being sarcastic. That makes a lot more sense. +1 to your original post as well!
Just run through the titles: most are anti-Trumper.
These aren't judges anymore. They are legislators. A majority of the people arguing here believe the Roe vs Wade precedent is more important than the Second Amendment. They therefore seek to subvert the Second by reinterpretation, but woe be it to someone suggestiong Roe vs Wade is just about privacy. (not that I am a religious anti-abortioner)
Don't question it could happen, but that opens Pandora's box. Roe vs Wade, and a host of others become equally vulnerable.