I'm not sure about this. I believe conservatives (people/voters) in the US also want to the courts to be biased in their favor because again, they believe that otherwise the courts will be biased the other way 'to let the evil liberals destroy the world'. It's easy to say the GOP are manipulating the courts and brainwashing the public but i think it's the opposite, I think the egg came before the chicken. The people keep voting these people in because they are scared and want their reps to put elephants on the their side of the seesaw. Abortion, guns, immigration and healthcare are not really issues we face in Canada. But in the States, if you are conservative, you really feel the sky is falling.
Therefore, if progressives really want to put through their changes, healthcare, climate change, gun control, abortion etc.. they have to put bomb-throwers on their side of the seesaw.
That may be true. I don't really have data to draw on to support my opinion. I'm assuming that most people just don't think that much about the supreme court and that they themselves assume that what they learned about the legal system growing up is the way things should and actually do operate.
Of course anyone, whether conservative or liberal, wants institutions that create the society they think is best.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
It never ceases to amaze me how one poster at a time with perfect trolling technique can bring this site to it's knees with no major threads able to move past that one poster's control.
I hesitate to criticize, but perhaps this community focuses laser hard on poster on poster insults and harsh speakers, but tends to leave perfect, thread destroying posters for months because they're technically not breaking a rule, which have a vastly more destructive wake on discussion.
Perhaps we need to be a little more versatile and human in our moderation of clear destructive posters? It's a private site, you don't have to give in to trolls just because they do a good job.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Lifetime appointments need to die. 16 years is plenty. 12 or 20 would be fine, too. But there's no reason these things can't be on a schedule where two get appointed in each 4 year term.
Listening to Ben Shapiro today its obvious conservatives only care about one thing: power. They will say whatever they have to, and make any insane mental pretzel argument to get the court where they want it.
People need to come to terms with the fact that the Republicans won. They have now got 3 justices out of Trump. To everyone who stayed at home in 2016 in swing states Hillary lost, this is what happens.
The Following User Says Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
Listening to Ben Shapiro today its obvious conservatives only care about one thing: power. They will say whatever they have to, and make any insane mental pretzel argument to get the court where they want it.
People need to come to terms with the fact that the Republicans won. They have now got 3 justices out of Trump. To everyone who stayed at home in 2016 in swing states Hillary lost, this is what happens.
I feel like, eventually, you're going to learn that all listening to Shapiro accomplishes is learning about the absolute worst traits "conservatives" have straight from the human manifestation of the virus invading conservative politics.
I feel like, eventually, you're going to learn that all listening to Shapiro accomplishes is learning about the absolute worst traits "conservatives" have straight from the human manifestation of the virus invading conservative politics.
No offense but this is a fairly obnoxious post. Like, ya man, I get it. But I still want to know what these people are thinking and saying. I don't see any value in pretending this stuff doesn't exist. You don't need to talk to me like I'm a naïve child who thinks these are good opinions.
The Following User Says Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
You need to listen to the worse to see what you're up against. Fox News, the nation's most watched news network. White Out is right, the Democrats haven't taken the courts issue seriously in the past. Will they now? Is this the awakening?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
While I often agree with that, you are giving them money, unless you are pirating their stuff. And by doing that you allow them to continue to spread their toxic messages.
No offense but this is a fairly obnoxious post. Like, ya man, I get it. But I still want to know what these people are thinking and saying. I don't see any value in pretending this stuff doesn't exist. You don't need to talk to me like I'm a naïve child who thinks these are good opinions.
I never said you think they're good opinions, or that you should pretend they don't exist.
I'm saying that "listening to Ben Shapiro and it's obvious conservatives care about is..." is an obnoxious statement. Ben Shapiro doesn't represent all conservatives, he represents the worst of conservatives, and you can predict his position on any given topic from a half mile away. So it's essentially impossible to learn anything new or interesting about the greater conservative body from Ben Shapiro, unless you didn't know Shapiro or regressive conservatives existed in the first place.
It's categorically no different than listening to a far-left pundit and saying "I've learned that all the left cares about is..." It's one person, and they're hardly representative of the wider base.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
There are definitely worse conservatives out there than Ben Shapiro. But he certainly represents the sort of person (conservative or otherwise) for whom the ends justify the means.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
In summary so far, the right seems to be taking the position that the democrats are going to "destroy the institutions" by packing courts and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states to tip the balance. Ben cites "rules" of how they added 1 state for each party a time as not to disrupt the balance, and if they impeached Trump it would violate a "rule" that you only impeach on certain things.
The level of cognitive dissonance to say that this requires is amazing. When Republicans violate their own set rules and standards it's just following the constitution. When the Democrats fire back using the same instruments of the constitution, it's 'breaking the institutions for power'.
In summary so far, the right seems to be taking the position that the democrats are going to "destroy the institutions" by packing courts and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states to tip the balance. Ben cites "rules" of how they added 1 state for each party a time as not to disrupt the balance, and if they impeached Trump it would violate a "rule" that you only impeach on certain things.
The level of cognitive dissonance to say that this requires is amazing. When Republicans violate their own set rules and standards it's just following the constitution. When the Democrats fire back using the same instruments of the constitution, it's 'breaking the institutions for power'.
America is ####ed.
Sure. The Republicans today are trotting out that Obama couldn't name Garland because the President and the Senate were controlled by different parties but today the President and Senate are controlled by the same party so it's ok.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I'm not disagreeing with the points you're making generally, but I also think the point Ark raises is most likely true. Most people across the political spectrum have a faith that the court system is and should be apolitical. Identifying the people who are doing all of this damage to the integrity of the court with the broad label of conservative lumps in a bunch of people who actually hold principled beliefs about the impartiality the supreme court should have. There are real political monsters in the GOP who are destroying this. Those monsters and the GOP deserve to be called out by name for how they are destroying America for liberals and conservatives alike. They shouldn't be enabled to hide under cover of a broad term and diverse group.
I would agree with this except for the fact that it is a policy and platform position for the GOP and conservatives in the United States. They are NOT trying to introduce balance into the courts, they are intentionally trying to introduce ideology to the bench so their political views will be carried out through means they cannot achieve through the other branches of government. This was the one branch that was to be apolitical, but here we are with one group clearly articulating this is their goal and intent. That is the big difference.
I would agree with this except for the fact that it is a policy and platform position for the GOP and conservatives in the United States. They are NOT trying to introduce balance into the courts, they are intentionally trying to introduce ideology to the bench so their political views will be carried out through means they cannot achieve through the other branches of government. This was the one branch that was to be apolitical, but here we are with one group clearly articulating this is their goal and intent. That is the big difference.
It may be a policy and platform position for the GOP, but I wouldn't say being on-board with that position is a necessary or sufficient condition for being conservative. It's a position that is purely about the seizure of power with no regard for the sanctity of fundamental government institutions. It actually flies in the face of some conservative values.
I see what's happening more as the co-opting of left-right, liberal-conservative divide in the US to undermine the stable functions of government and seize power. The people doing this would assume any position along the political spectrum that was convenient for achieving their ends. That's what needs to be named, nakedly identified and attacked. It should be attacked by anyone, left or right, who values stable government.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Someone was mentioning how these 2 provide great debates across right and left, this was a great introduction into the show for me. Def wanna watch more now,
Today, a happy RBG memory – the time I talked her into talking trash.
In OT06, the clerks had a fantasy baseball league. Some chambers had teams. Some individual clerks did. And Justice Alito wanted a team – for himself, not his clerks.
In the last week of the term, the Ginsburg clerks were matched against Alito’s team.
RBG was on the losing end a lot that term.
Not this time. We destroyed him: 10-0.
The next day, I went to see RBG in her office. I explained that her clerks were playing fantasy baseball, against other clerks -- and Justice Alito. And I described, in some detail, the sheer dominance our team had displayed.
She looked at me like I was insane. Which, I was. The end of the Court’s term is kind of busy.
Then I said, “Justice, I took the liberty of typing up a memo, which you might want to send Justice Alito.” And I slid it across her desk.
She stooped over and studied it for what seemed like forever. Then she looked up and said, “What is fantasy baseball?”
So I started over. (I think that’s the only time I had to tell her something twice.)
Back she went to reading.
The memo was all of two sentences. But she looked it over like an opinion.
Then she smiled and said, “I’ll sign it.”
“Copies to the Conference?” I asked. And she said yes. So copies were soon hand delivered to every justice.
The memo said:
Dear Sam,
My law clerks inform me that last week their fantasy baseball team defeated yours by a score of 10-0. I know you are busy, but we expect more, even from the junior Justice.
Respectfully,
Ruth
A short while later, Justice Alito replied. He acknowledged that RBG was entitled to gloat. But he added that, with the end of term, he planned to dedicate more time to his team, so our success wouldn’t last long.
Shortly after that, an Alito clerk called to complain – the Justice had assigned him to manage his team.
RBG chuckled when I told her. That’s the part of her that didn’t often come across in public. She wasn’t beyond a bit of mischief.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
Someone was mentioning how these 2 provide great debates across right and left, this was a great introduction into the show for me. Def wanna watch more now,
I find that the scope of their discussions is rather limited. Krystal presents herself as the "left populist", and Saagar presents himself as the "right populist". However, Saagar's views align very closely with Tucker Carlson's, and Krystal spends much more time harshly criticising Biden than she does Trump.
Overall, the two of them have one thing in common: their main goal seems to be to pull as many votes away from Biden as possible.
This election is existential, regardless of how much Saagar tries to sell you on the idea of litmus tests.
I would agree with this except for the fact that it is a policy and platform position for the GOP and conservatives in the United States. They are NOT trying to introduce balance into the courts, they are intentionally trying to introduce ideology to the bench so their political views will be carried out through means they cannot achieve through the other branches of government. This was the one branch that was to be apolitical, but here we are with one group clearly articulating this is their goal and intent. That is the big difference.
Supreme Court appointments have never not been political.
I’m not sure any president has appointed any justice without regard to ideally. Garland was Obama’s attempt to put someone right enough to the spectrum that Mitch would bite.
All of the “liberal” justices were appointed by democrats. All the conservative justices by republicans. These positions have always been political appointees. The hope is that given it is very difficult to impeach a Justice that they are not bound by the idealogical that got them to the bench and are free to make wise decisions on the basis of their interpretation of law.
The idea of impartiality is a fairytale. The best you can hope for is that they apply the law consistently within their philosophy so the textualists are always textualists and the contextualists are contextualists even if it doesn’t suit them.
So how is the packing of the Supreme Court with Justice aligning to their view Monstrous
Last edited by GGG; 09-21-2020 at 08:16 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
