"They don't want the court to rule on the jurisdiction issue."

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!

"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.

I don't want pure democracy. I think an independent judiciary is a good thing. But probably what we should have is a Supreme Court justice term that is as long as 3 Presidential cycles. A 12-year term would keep the Court from just being like a weather vane responding to mob rule and popular agitation, but not allowing the American people to be subjected to something like 58 years of Jim Crow.

You're welcome, 25n56il4 and you're not alone at all. Tuning out the TV garbage is a marvelous thing. Enjoy your writing and share some with us if you like. My new hobby is music in the form of keyboard playing and have been taking piano lessons since this past July. I just coughed up the loot to buy an electric keyboard that can do organ, piano, synth, and other effects. It's a lot of fun, not just playing but getting into music theory and the whole thing! Hey, maybe I'll have my own youtube video before I'm dead - Old Guy Plays...! LOL!

I'm so glad I'm not alone. I am getting a lot of work done on my writing now that I am turning off the News Channels. I really don't agree with or believe any of them anyway. Thanks for your post mccannon.

Agreed, Thoritsu, and that thought crossed my mind as I wrote my post. However, I dismissed it because I figure when the socialists/communists get a stronger hold the days of Kavanaugh and Thomas et al will be short numbered and reversal of anything legally blocking the statist agenda will be gone. Along with that goes what's left of the true meaning of "We the people...". I hope I'm wrong, but watching the news (which I'm watching less and less of) it's not looking good. I'm in the winter of my life span and will likely be dead before the final results is in play so I'm seeking other pursuits that are more pleasant than wasting what's left of my time on political idiots. Oh, I'll throw in my 2 cents from time to time, but I'll try to be less obsessive about the whole thing.

LOL! Make sure you burn some incense with all that bowing and groveling because, as we all "know", there's powerful magic in the smoke to ward off the evil spirits of rational thinking. LOL!

Yes.....and that includes NOT FORCING acceptance by the lgbtxyz groups.

Yes, but this is a specific reversal of the Heller vs DC SCOTUS precedent.

Don't question it could happen, but that opens Pandora's box. Roe vs Wade, and a host of others become equally vulnerable.

I humbly apologize for my criticism of "the great Latina" and bow before the alter of political correctness!

[/sarcasm]

Yes, Thoritsu, and the 2nd Amendment is constantly under assault. Here's a scenario in how, IMHO, it will go. First, since the anti-second amendment crowd is always saying the amendment is for state militias and not individuals, the word "people's" in the 2nd will somehow get redefined not to mean all the free citizens, but to mean the people appointed by the state to be the militia. After re-defining the meaning of "people" in the 2nd, it will only be a matter of time before the meaning of "people" in "We the people..." will be interpreted to mean "We the appointed by government...". Almost there now, actually, IMHO.

...begin sarc...

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...

Too bad! The term for Supreme Court Justices, according to Article 3 of the US Constitution, is LIFE (while "during good Behaviour" - using the British spelling, which is what's in the Constitution). To change this would require an Amendment to the Constitution, and that would require either: 1) Legislation, approved by 2/3 of both the House and Senate, which would produce a PROPOSED Amendment, or 2) an Article V Convention of States, which could pass a PROPOSED Amendment. By either path, the proposed Amendment is then sent to the State legislatures, of which a 3/4 majority (38 States)would have to agree (this being called "Ratification"). That is a very high bar, as it was meant to be. Hey, libs, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! Even the "ERA" failed to get 38 states for ratification.

Me dino has several movie channels and the tiny bit I saw completely turned me off.

I saw it. You missed nothing.

Libs remind me dino, save for Charlie, of the kids in the first Willy Wonka movie.
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 think this is a good idea, but only after we get term limits on Congress. Say only three terms for Senators, and 6 terms for house members.

A better idea is simply to have the Legislative Branch of Government simply do its job. For decades now they have failed in their duties to pass laws pertaining to the activities of the United States, instead delegating that authority to unelected judges. If the Legislature would take its duties seriously in passing laws, the Supreme Court wouldn't have as much power, nor would there be a need for such anti-Constitutional nonsense.

You're missing the entire point of having a higher court, nor would such a suggestion be at all practical.

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 think many misunderstand the principle of "advice and consent" - especially the last part. The Executive gets to propose people for certain positions including judgeships, but the Senate holds the veto power over such.

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.

You are right, Thoritsu! The Court is all about politics and I don't think that was the original plan. Plus, I think some parts of our lives should be private. I really don't care about anyone's sexual preferences or beliefs. We all have our own. It is crude to exploit any part of one's life!

Fingers crossed.

RBG is like John McCain, power hungry. The only way that she'll leave is being carried out feet first.

I personally feel a person's interest should be very closely directed to their closest political elements. City, County, State, and then Federal. I can speak for and against 'Term Limits'. But don't these Liberals understand what it would take to amend the Constitution? Don't we have enough problems without this? It's my theory I can eat an entire bear, one bite at a time. But these folks are trying to change an entire county from every possible direction. Not a workable idea.

Vox said, in 2016, McConnell refused to consider any of President Obama’s nominees

I understand (?) that this 'refusal' was in accordance with established tradition regarding Presidents soon to leave office.