I could give a rat's azz about their politics. I do care greatly that they are constitutionalists, and make their decisions based on the constitution and nothing else. Our judicial system was implemented to be separate from our political system and desperately needs to get back to being so.

Ok, ok, I'll do it... you don't have to beg...


Seriously though, do you know anyone who knows less about politics? I'd be perfect!

So your not in the camp that hoped RGB died or retired 4 or 5 years ago so a Obama could backfill her slot?

I heard he just dry humped her.... 😟

I heard after that a cop shot her :/

... and that's why I kneel...

I thought you just liked the cabasa.

Hope Roberts is the next one replaced

They give opinions,we decide if it valid, enforcement maybe if it in our self-interest.

Last day of SUMMER... it's chessburg day 🍔🍔 enjoy, I'm getting hungry.

No. I'm not Bucky, also I hate that McConnell did not bring Obama's nominee to the floor. That was wrong.

The SCOTUS Memes are going to be...












Ruthless!

---

RBG said that Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty selecting Merrick Garland, but the Senate should have done its duty and at least given Garland an up or down vote.

Spey,

Post #3 was not directed at you. Sorry if it came across that way.

It was directed at those in another RIP post who insinuated that they wish she died or retired under Obama's watch so Obama had a chance to nominate a replacement. I didn't want to sully the RIP post with political crap (which it will end up being) so tried to back out without further comment within that specific post. Your post was in the appropriate forum and I agree with your initial post 100%.

I, like you, firmly believe that the Supreme Court or any court for that matter has be completely blind to any politics or any bias of any sort. Judges HAVE to rule based ONLY on the laws as they are written and interpret it without prejudice.

It's an idealistic position that will never happen as long as humans are involved but it should be the gold standard for which we should strive for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice 

The the foundation of checks and balances that the founders tried to write in the Constitution should remain timeless and not be blurred which they seem to be getting more and more.

Legislative branch makes the laws.
Judicial branch interprets the laws.
Executive branch enforces the laws.

Simplistic view of it, I know. I'm sure some of the Cigar Scholars here will pipe up to scold me and belittle me for such a basic view but that's expected. I believe if and when either branch crosses into the lines of responsibility and power of one of the other branches, we have a problem.

Do they even teach civics in hs anymore Bucky?

Actually, my daughter in Jr High has her first civics class this semester. I couldn't do much other than chuckle.

I don't have much confidence in the current teaching establishment to teach independent thought in classes like these without injecting their own preconceived biases.

No one said they wished her to die during Obama's tenure. You made that up.

has there ever been a POTUS who nominated a SCOTUS candidate without consideration of political beliefs...

the last two that were approved had clear records which indicated their political foundation...that's why they were nominated...

there have been some nominations with a heavy consideration of moderation due to the current political winds, but I don't know of a single SCOTUS who was chosen only for his judicial intellect...

Buckeye, thank you for the clarification.

I put this up for just that reason, she deserves respect, but like Scalia and any other SCOTUS judge who passed does. IMHO they have the most important role in the country. In truth I would love to see a libertarian nominated. , not in the political sense, but in the thought process. A libertarian Supreme Court might solve many of our problems.

Foremost a Supreme court justice if you understand federalism is not the most important role in the country. If these unelected black robed justices for life have the most important role in the country, then you are living under a judicial tyranny.
As Ron Paul (a real libertarian) wrote "Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government."

The lower federal courts themselves are a creation of Congress under Article III of the Constitution, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." As you can see by the wording, Congress can create, destroy, restructure the inferior courts or limit federal court jurisdiction. Obviously Congress hasn't had any backbone to use their authority, probably because they like judicial activism when it suits their rotten agendas.

So what do you think, would any President in the two-party duopoly ever nominate a real libertarian? It's pretty hard to imagine since the Democrats and Republicans prefer a judge they think they can control and rubber stamp their unconstitutional laws if challenged. The thought that either would nominate a libertarian loose cannon who would adjudicate only based on the Constitution seems unthinkable.

but Ray, often the pick thought to be controllable departs from that assumed policy and either uses independent judgement, or is persuaded by another view in discussions, or simply supports precedent.