Momentarily Standing Back From The Constitutional Precipice

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OldDude49, Aug 16, 2017.

  1. OldDude49

    OldDude49 Just n old guy

    GOG and duane like this.
  2. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus


    Maybe the article merely affirms that the conservative side of politics has its own flock of sheep, vulnerable to the kind of confirmation bias that they have a taste for.

    Is 'stacking' SCOTUS with conservative judges actually in America's best interests, or is it in the best interests of the special interest groups that would potentially benefit by that arrangement? The same criticism applies to the 'left'. The positive news is, that once appointed, judges have the freedom to exercise their jurisprudence independent of the 'judge makers' who believed that their recommended appointee was 'their man or woman'. Sometimes 'conservative' judges have proven to be more 'liberal', than might have been predicted before their appointment.

    Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older

    Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees - TIME

    Conservatives help liberals win at Supreme Court - CNNPolitics
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2017
  3. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    We all know that stacking the SCOTUS is a necessary reality whether it be for the conservative side or the liberal side. But, Chello does make a point in "that once appointed, judges have the freedom to exercise their jurisprudence independent of the 'judge makers'" I also think we neglect to think about all the other judicial appointments to the lower courts that have a much more immediate effect, and we are talking about a hell'va a lot of appointments.

    I found the article to be fairly informative but, in truth, anyone with half a brain already knows this but it is nice to see it in print. The main point being that it matters not whether the political hacks are Republican or Democrats they are all for themselves, their financial supporters and status quo. As every day passes, I begin to realize more and more that it matters not what the people want and vote for and this election has proven it without a doubt. I have even asked myself if it might not have been better to allow Hillary to obtain the Presidency and by doing so push us into the abyss of conflict. Personally, I am sure that would have happened but of course it is speculation but given her demeanor, arrogance and agenda I think it would have been highly probably. Perhaps, in that manner we could settle once and for all if this is a 'Government of the people, by the people, for the people" or if it will indeed 'perish from the earth" certainly seems to be going that way if it hasn't already gone which in my opinion is what has happened. It is dead and gone and buried deep.

    I did not agree with "Some of it is just plain HATRED for America" - well - maybe there is a few but for the large majority it is about "... BIG MONEY...", and status quo. These fat cats, these elites have got it good: power, money even the laws (that they voted in) are on their side. What we peasantry or, perhaps more appropriate, we rabble want or need is irrelevant and easily kicked down the road for another decade or two...until someone gets the tar and feathers out.
    chelloveck likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary