Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed by the Senate as the new replacement Supreme Court Justice. Now the 9 justices are comprised of 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats! Yeah!
Pretty much, although I doubt that they think of themselves along party lines. "Republican" Roberts has pretty much been anything but "Republican." He lied about Obamacare being a tax, permitting the largest overreach of Federal powers (the power to punish citizens for not buying a product) ever in the history of this nation. The same holds true for Kavanaugh so far. He's sided against the conservative justices several times already. In one case NYC was playing with gun owner's rights, and when SCOTUS decided to take the case, NYC changed their regs and said "Now there's nothing for you to rule on. We made it go away." Of course, they can make it come back again. Kavanaugh agreed that NYC can play this game in a 5-3 vote and decided against hearing the case since NYC made it go away...for now. He's also sided with a too-broad interpretation of the Clean Air and Water Act. Let's hope Barret is not an equal "surprise." I believe Gorsuch has been a stricter Constitutionalist.
I’m glad she made it in. Her credentials are impeccable and she undoubtedly deserves the position but unfortunately, she really won’t make a difference if the Biden/Harris ticket gets the nod and they attempt to pack the court.
The last case of court-packing occurred in 1937, when FDR tried it after winning his 2nd term as President and lost. The "New Deal" honeymoon was over! Hal
The thing is, there are not supposed to be so called, Republicans and Democrats in the Supreme Court. They’re supposed to be Constitutionalists and nothing more and certainly nothing less. Their job is to decide the constitutionality of law without the superimposing of a decision with one’s feelings or political partiality. The now, Associate Justice Barret said as much in her speech last night and I truly hope she sticks to her guns. But that isn’t the way the normal politician nor Joe Public sees things. If the court is slanted in either direction regarding their voter registration of being Dem or Rep, then everyone gets their shorts in a wad which is probably righteous since I know of very few decisions that have been made that do not feel as though it is biased in some way. That said, the Dems now feel cheated and want a court that is more balanced hence they wish to expand the court to 12 or even 15 justices, and preferably, registered Democrat justices. The Nine we now have are just fine if and only if they can go into the chamber and negate any other influences other than what is actually in our Constitution.
Help me please! Where exactly in the Constitution it is written that its ok to kill babies in the womb?
It isn’t but the constitutionality is a question regarding the Mother’s rights. Until it is figured out and agreed upon just when a fetus is considered to be a living human being then the Mother’s rights supersede the rights of the fetus to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can define a quark and mathematically predict it’s existence but cannot agree upon the difference between a glop of cells versus a human being.
This thread isn't the place for a Roe v. Wade argument, but though I'm conservative I remain a proponent of women's rights (and right to choose). No man should have any say in that matter, and no law should force me into a life I don't want to live.
What gets lost in that argument is that we have a representative legislative process. To the extent SCOTUS effectively legislates from the bench. everyone's right to that representative process is negated. If SCOTUS rules something to be UnConstitutional, then there is a process to amend the Constitution...but it's done by the process. I firmly believe that the Left operates under the "By any means necessary" form of activism. They do not care about process. They do not care about rules. They call Roe v Wade "settled law" because of precedence (which is a legally invalid concept), but have no problem attacking precedent that they don't like. If a conservative justice ruled in a way that I personally agreed with but was done in an activist manner (negating the aforementioned Constitution and representative system), I would scream bloody murder. But that's because most conservatives have a sense of universality and of the greater good. I believe that most on the Left are in the "By any means necessary" camp, and gladly change the rules from moment to moment. There is no honesty or consistency to it. Pelosi is the poster child for this. Everything the Left does is to give them more power, and they'll destroy our systems (like the Electoral College) in order to get it.
We do agree. Congress, throughout the entire Obama administration (and beyond to some point) has handed over their job, that is, to make law, to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to represent the Constitution and the Constitution represents the citizenry. All they are supposed to hear are cases as they apply to the Constitution and nothing more. They’re not supposed to make law, mandate law or enforce law but to compare laws and bills against the Constitution and not compare them to their personal feelings or their political biases. Sometimes I would rather the Supreme Court Justices be dyed in the wool Stoics or akin to Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame. I digress. Sadly, because all Congress has to do anymore is to sit in their very expensive happy seats and be as disruptive as they can through a bunch of meaningless speeches, the real business of making law is left to the supposed grownups in the Supreme Court.
Congress has unconstitutionally delegated their legislative authority to Federal agencies as well. THAT needs to stop. It was that issue I alluded to in my statement about Kavanaugh. He's taking it the wrong direction.
The problem with "likes" in praising the contents of a post is the author may assume you don't like it if your name doesn't appear.