wah wah wah!!!!

EJ Dionne is having a meltdown over the judges.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...se_137371.html

Preventing a Partisan Court From Getting Worse

By E.J. Dionne
June 28, 2018

WASHINGTON -- Our constitutional system of "checks and balances" only works if those in a position to operate the levers of checking and balancing do their job. It is clear that a Republican Congress and Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have no taste for such work. For the moment, President Trump is mostly unchecked and unbalanced.

It is equally clear -- on Trump's travel ban but also on issues related to voting rights, labor rights and gerrymandering -- that the Republican Five on the nation's highest court have operated as agents of their party's interests.

And now things stand to get even worse because of Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. He was, at least on some occasions, a moderating force. His replacement by another conservative hardliner in the mold of Justice Neil Gorsuch would give right-wing interpretations of the law free rein.

This Court's direction was troubling enough with Kennedy there. On the travel ban, for example, the majority that included Kennedy discounted the obvious (practically every word Trump has said about Muslims) to make a decision based on a rather absolutist view of presidential power, about which they were skeptical when Barack Obama was president.

When it comes to access to the ballot, they are pushing the nation back to the jurisprudence of the pre-civil rights era. The majority's shameless ratification of a racial gerrymander by Texas' Republican Legislature, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent, demonstrated its refusal to enforce the "right of equal opportunity."

And on Wednesday, in what might be seen as a companion to the Citizens United decision that enhanced the influence of corporations on our political life, the majority voted to undercut organized labor's ability to fight back. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, it ended the practice of public employee unions automatically collecting fees from non-union members on whose behalf they negotiate contracts, tossing aside 41 years of settled law and crippling the broader labor movement.

As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent: "There is no sugarcoating today's opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation's law -- and in its economic life -- for over 40 years." The majority overruled precedent, she wrote, for "no exceptional or special reason" but simply "because it wanted to." That's judicial activism, and it's bringing back the Gilded Age.

You might ask: What's wrong with all these 5-to-4 partisan decisions? Well, there is the matter of the Republican majority in the United States Senate not even permitting a vote on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the court, allowing Trump to fill the seat with a Republican. Every 5-to-4 conservative decision is (in the parlance of judges) the fruit of a poisonous tree of unbridled partisanship.

But the other problem with 5-to-4 rulings was outlined by a distinguished jurist. "I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions," he said. "Politics are closely divided. ... There ought to be some sense of some stability if the government is not going to polarize completely."

The words are those of Chief Justice John Roberts to the legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen in 2006. And Roberts was right: The court he leads is contributing mightily to the polarization he decries.

A profound mistrust of the court will only be aggravated by the contrast between its approach to the travel ban and its method in an earlier 7-to-2 ruling in favor of a baker who did not want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

The cake decision uses statements by a Colorado regulator critical of religion to decry "religious hostility on the part of the State itself." The five-justice majority then turns around in the travel-ban case, as Sotomayor noted, and "completely sets aside the President's charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant." In the first, involving Christians, the court went out of its way to protect religious liberty. In the second, involving Muslims, it went out of its way to insist that religious liberty concerns did not apply.

All the recent talk about civility should not stop opponents of a right-wing court from doing everything in their power to keep the judiciary from being packed with ideologues who behave as partisans.

There is nothing civil about rushing a nominee to replace Kennedy before the midterm elections. And no rule of civility demands the confirmation of justices who would leave an abusive president unchecked and use raw judicial power to roll back a century's worth of social progress.

(c) 2018, Washington Post Writers Group

typical liberal fearmongering. what else is new?


Bader Ginsberg will die before 2020 and Trump will put a third conservative Justice on the Court.


no more "Legislating from the Bench", now it's Rule of Law. as it should be.

The "Rule of Law" was endangered by Obama. He said that he was going to govern by pen and by phone. He's gone and his legacy is vanishing.

Thanks President Trump. Thanks Criminal Hillary, the best Dim candidate in years.

The "Rule of Law" was endangered by Obama. He said that he was going to govern by pen and by phone. He's gone and his legacy is vanishing. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Speaking of "Obaminable" ... in June 2015 (His Second Year in Office!) ..... "Obminable" had a 46% approval rating with all the Hate Press with him.

Trump's at 47% with all the Hate Press against him!

Is this what winning looks like?

Bader Ginsberg will die before 2020 and Trump will put a third conservative Justice on the Court. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Ok, here's a question for everyone. Suppose, as is likely, the Republicans retain control of the Senate in the 2018 midterms. If another SCOTUS vacancy opens up in early 2020, would McConnell say - we have to wait until after the Presidential election to confirm a replacement, as he did with Merrick Garland? Would he, and should he, do so to be consistent with the "rule" he followed in 2016?

Ok, here's a question for everyone. Suppose, as is likely, the Republicans retain control of the Senate in the 2018 midterms. If another SCOTUS vacancy opens up in early 2020, would McConnell say - we have to wait until after the Presidential election to confirm a replacement, as he did with Merrick Garland? Would he, and should he, do so to be consistent with the "rule" he followed in 2016? Originally Posted by lustylad

No. this goes back farther than Reid or Biden. that it bit the Dems in the ass is poetic justice. get it? justice lol.

it has always been the sitting President's right to appoint Judges and Justices to the Courts, especially the Supreme Court. if another opening occurs while Trump is the sitting President, or in the future afterward, it is the right of that President to appoint a nominee and both parties should not try to postpone it past an election, especially a Presidential election.

No. this goes back farther than Reid or Biden. that it bit the Dems in the ass is poetic justice. get it? justice lol.

it has always been the sitting President's right to appoint Judges and Justices to the Courts, especially the Supreme Court. if another opening occurs while Trump is the sitting President, or in the future afterward, it is the right of that President to appoint a nominee and both parties should not try to postpone it past an election, especially a Presidential election. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I know the whole history, going all the way back to Robert Bork. However, the libs are still fuming about Merrick Garland even though McConnell in delaying any vote was merely following the "rule" laid down by Biden, Schumer and Reid under Republican Presidents. So yes, I get the poetic justice part.

However, you can't choose to follow rules or principles only when they benefit you. Right now Dems are lying about what the rule is (after denying any rule even existed 2 years ago). They say it applies to ALL election years - Presidential or midterm. McConnell is on tape correcting them and saying it applies to Presidential election years only. If he were to disregard his own words in 2020, then the Dems would go berserk, and rightly so.

It's bad enough watching the left freak out irrationally all the time. I wouldn't want to see them freak out in a rational way.

The Dems started this race to the bottom. But at some point someone has to act like the adult in the room and say - rules are meant to be followed, and you must treat the other side as you want it to treat you. Right? If we don't follow our own rules, then we are no better than those left-wing maggots who wouldn't hesitate to tear up the Constitution in pursuit of their agenda if they thought they could get away with it.

Of course, this is all hypothetical and may not happen.

Speaking of "Obaminable" ... in June 2015 (His Second Year in Office!) ..... "Obminable" had a 46% approval rating with all the Hate Press with him.

Trump's at 47% with all the Hate Press against him! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Correction .... June 2014 was his "2nd year in office"!

I know the whole history, ... Originally Posted by lustylad

In 2016 there was going to be a "new President" in the next term.

One way or the other. And that's the primary distinction.

The Dems started this race to the bottom. But at some point someone has to act like the adult in the room and say - rules are meant to be followed, and you must treat the other side as you want it to treat you. Right? If we don't follow our own rules, then we are no better than those left-wing maggots who wouldn't hesitate to tear up the Constitution in pursuit of their agenda if they thought they could get away with it.

Of course, this is all hypothetical and may not happen. Originally Posted by lustylad

i prefer this "Rule" not be followed at all. Election year politics should not hinder a sitting President from making an appointment as is that President's right under the Constitution.

regardless of party, that sitting President should make the appointment and the Senate should act like adults and hold a confirmation.

biden/reid rule judicial nominations in presidential elections.

that rule should be followed, after all the precedent has been set by democrats and republicans merely followed the rules set by former senate majority leaders should there be another vacancy in 2020.

democrats hate the fact the republicans haven't been compliant with the democrats on most issues and they're having major meltdown.

biden/reid rule judicial nominations in presidential elections.

that rule should be followed, after all the precedent has been set by democrats and republicans merely followed the rules set by former senate majority leaders should there be another vacancy in 2020.

democrats hate the fact the republicans haven't been compliant with the democrats on most issues and they're having major meltdown. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

nope. it's a shit rule made by shitheads. it should be disregarded unless the shitheads (dems) keep trying to invoke it.


then stick it up their asses.

DESPERATION: HuffPo Tells dim-retards To Stack SCOTUS With 11 Justices Next Term

(The Daily Wire)

.

nope. it's a shit rule made by shitheads. it should be disregarded unless the shitheads (dems) keep trying to invoke it.

then stick it up their asses. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

yeah you're right its a shit rule, but it was only meant to benefit democrats, not republicans.

one set of rules for the democrats, another for anybody else. that's how they roll.

they don't like it when their rules are being followed that benefits republicans.

its why they're so upset about the garland thing in 2016 which they say was a stolen nomination. what about the stolen nominations under Bush 41 & 43? karma is a bitch!

kick them in the asses!