US Supreme Court

Aug 2010
16,063
Welsh Marches
#61
The extreme politicization is a relatively recent thing, and the Democrats have been largely responsible; Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is just about a much a constructivist and leftist as it is possible to be was voted in 96 to 3 in the arly 90s. She herself said that the Kavanaugh hearings were the wrong way to do it and hers (or the earlier) way of conducting things was the right way. It look as if they were trying to discredit Kavanugh and thus the status of the court even if he should be voted in, as a sort of backstop. Purely political and utterly revolting at a human level. It will e very hard to draw back from this, and well qualified people might well hesitate to put themselves forward in future for fear of having their repuations smeared, That cannot be a good thing. (I am not an American and have no political bias in favour of Kavanaugh.) To decide the matter by public would make the situation even worse in view of the prevailing polarization general lack of responsibility in the American media, which is now beyond a joke.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,228
#62
C’mon. Any election where the presidential candidate does not receive the largest slice of the popular vote should be null and void.
Those are not the current rules of the game in the US... As far as I know , no one has seriously attempted to change them, so it useless to complain about the rules when the game result does not go one's way.... The rules of the game also define how the game is played.... all candidates play the game of getting the electoral votes.... the popular vote is irrelevant for all candidates.... getting a majority of the popular vote is, under the current system, a by product, not a goal in itself.....
 
Oct 2010
4,985
DC
#63
Those are not the current rules of the game in the US... As far as I know , no one has seriously attempted to change them, so it useless to complain about the rules when the game result does not go one's way.... The rules of the game also define how the game is played.... all candidates play the game of getting the electoral votes.... the popular vote is irrelevant for all candidates.... getting a majority of the popular vote is, under the current system, a by product, not a goal in itself.....
The issue comes up without noting that the electoral college is like a temporary parliament that elects a head of state, you do not need the majority of voters to become a PM if your have enough MPs voting for you.

If I were to guess, Borking and Bush v. Gore (7-2 decision and 5-4 followup) are why we are here in the first place.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,829
Caribbean
#64
I don't care about politicization when it benefits what I consider to be right, I'm a proud hypocrite generally who values substance over institutions
In my book, you deserve credit for candor. So many put a lot of effort trying to pass that modus operandi off as a recognized form of juris prudcence or a legitimate interpretation of text.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,847
US
#65
Who is "we"? Why don't you go to a political forum instead of trying to worm your politics in here at every turn.

In regard to your suggestion:

Of course, if we did that then a few key large states could run roughshod over smaller states.

Large states still get more representative power with their numerical superiority of delegates so the system at least tries to give some balance to the system while all states some influence. We are the UNITED STATES after all.

Additionally, without the delegate system it is arguable that candidates could ignore many states.

The founders, IMO, had good reason to setup the system the way it is. It is arguable that a few of the smaller states would not have signed on to the constitutional arrangement without it.
Some people think they are smarter than the Founders, and, surprise, they pontificate right here.
I wasn’t being too serious about the election of judges but it struck me that if their appointment has become so politicised then you might as well go the whole way and vote them in.
As if that latter process wouldn't be just as, or even more so, politicized? Since when does fixing a problem consist of doing more of which is making it a problem?
 
Oct 2010
4,985
DC
#66
Some people think they are smarter than the Founders, and, surprise, they pontificate right here.

As if that latter process wouldn't be just as, or even more so, politicized? Since when does fixing a problem consist of doing more of which is making it a problem?
I was thinking of something but every time I think of a solution, I start thinking such solution can be politicized as well.

If all can be hypocrites, then using that particular word should become redundant.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,847
US
#67
I was thinking of something but every time I think of a solution, I start thinking such solution can be politicized as well.

If all can be hypocrites, then using that particular word should become redundant.
Despite it not being in vogue, and the evident shortcomings with issues like slavery, the Founders were a brilliant group of men. For people to easily dismiss their system because they don't like how one event turns out is not very reasonable, rational or wise. Thankfully, those kind of people aren't calling the shots, at least not yet.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,829
Caribbean
#68
I thought one of the driving features of the Constitution was the separation of powers but Supreme Court judges are effectively political appointments, which seems odd to an outsider. Any commments from our American friends? Logically, shouldn’t the SC judges be elected? I believe that people like district attorneys are elected, how far up the legal tree does that apply?
The much discussed left-right tilt of the justices is, IMO, a charade and myth. The first thing I think of is that the most common result of the Supreme Court is 9-0.

Every time there is an open seat, well-financed special interest groups and TV stations looking to boost advertising rates, rev up the emotions of the public - especially on abortion. And for what? In the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1991, 8 Republican appointees not only upheld the core of Roe v Wade, but (imo) expanded abortion rights by striking down a law relating spousal or parental notification. I have aggravated many of my conservative and Republican friends by telling them - you can have all 9 Justices, that ruling isn't going anywhere. The Judiciary Cmte. asked the last nominee if Roe v Wade is "settled law," and instead of declining to answer, he said "WELL settled law."

IMO, when the "fix" is in, it won't matter who nominated the justices. They'll manage to get just enough "defectors" to cobble together enough votes to create a majority. For example, I cannot imagine anyone concocting an argument to make me believe that all nine justices (and everyone with even a passing familiarity with the US Constitution) know that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. And yet somehow, I never had a doubt the court would find the opposite. I was only wrong about which so-called "conservative" justice would defect.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,829
Caribbean
#69
Thomas should probably not have been confirmed. His accuser(s) were not nameless. He should never have been confirmed in my opinion.
His "accuser" had a name, yes, but she was also contradicted by a about 15 witnesses, and contradicted herself; on her way to making some vapid allegations. If that was all it took to stop a nomination, all the justice seats would be vacant. I suspect you would have opposed him anyway.

BTW, didn't you find the whole thing amusing? Ted Kennedy on the committee investigating the supposed mistreatment of a woman? Truth is stranger than fiction.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
16,063
Welsh Marches
#70
Yes, the hypocrisy is astounding, and now someone like Kavanaugh being hounded by the very people who summarily dismissed much more credible accusations against Clinton; but then there is nothing personal in it, they want to destroy Kavanaugh for purely political reasons, not because they have tried to reach any impartial judgement about the value of the claims made against him. This whole sorry business shows why due process is essential when serious cliams are made against anyone.
 

Similar History Discussions