Legal scholars fully acknowledge that every interpretation of the law is full of ambiguities and often even outright contradictions. Ginsburg and Scalia perfectly captured this phenomenon by writing beautiful opinions that came to totally different conclusions. Truth be told, this also reflects the state of the human mind, in which we actually make decisions emotionally and then blindly rationalize them as if emotions had nothing to do with the process. No! It all comes down to how we feel! Even for our Supreme Court Justices.
Unhappily, our feelings are often in unresolvable conflict... as they are now about the fundamental direction of the country. Obama wanted fundamental change (although his actual goals were inchoate). Those who were happy with their lives were leery of where he might go. Today, things are a lot more divided along these same lines. Regardless, the Supreme Court shall be the ultimate arbitrar on all our critical hot button issues, from central government administrative rule vs states' rights, to social dysphoria vs traditional behavioral patterns, to gun control vs the 2nd Amendment, to individual liberty vs collective well being... etc.
Personally, I would like Trump to send down his nomination and Biden to name who he would choose... and defer the Senate vote until after the election to give the people a chance to express their feelings.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism#:~:text=Legal%20realism%20is%20a%20naturalistic,against%20observations%20of%20the%20world.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1307325966314864651?s=20
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1308036581006082049
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auFhWyZd93o
Merrick Garland is an outstanding judge, but Obama "didn't have the Senate," and "Mitch didn't want to do that," but "we have the Senate," so "there's a difference" - when you have the Senate, "you can sort of do what you want."
When you have the Senate, you can do what you want.
This is a recipe for destroying the legitimacy of the Court.
A group of moderates needs to emerge to make a deal here. That kind of thing used to happen. It happened under GHW Bush. Seems to me that ending the lifetime appointment of justices should be on the table - that would make these fights less life-or-death.
The patina of objectivity is very very thin and always has been. Dred Scott now reads like a horror story.
The reasoning underlying Roe is inchoate. The decision about gay marriage opens a pandora's box of psychological conflicts.The deciding line for First Amendment decisions is exceedingly wavey. We put robes on these folks and put them behind pseudo altars and like to pretend that we should respect their superior wisdom. On the other hand, we do need this sort of civilized control mechanism because the alternative is what is going on in Portland.
Unprecedented!
This will ruin our country!
Both true, but you didn't say anything about that. Nor did we because it was legal.
But now......oh, a late term appointment is not ok. It is the end as we know it.
It is the easiest thing to do in any political debate. Politics is organized hypocrisy.
But that never moves anything forward.
(this is putting aside the substance of your post, which was thin gruel)
- remember Reconciliation (that loophole used to pass Obamacare when you didn't have the votes which you were ok with)?
- remember the Harry Reid Rule
There are other examples. Your history shows that you have no problem pushing things through when you think it is justified and the other side doesn't. That is because you and the liberal Left think that only you get to decide, and the conservative viewpoint doesn't matter when you disagree.
Your problem is that you ask the other side to make concessions when you are at the disadvantage. That is like leading from the basement - it doesn't work.
That gets us (and the country) nowhere.
Neither side has a monopoly on hypocrisy and stupid moves.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
That is not to say that the SCOTUS is unimportant.
In fact it is our most important institution in some ways, which is why it is vital to maintain its legitimacy.
By the time I read it, many posts had rolled by, so I don't think I ended up posting on it??? Memory going.
I just remember (hopefully correctly) part of it arguing that SCOTUS should not be the be-all-and-end-all for pro-lifers that it is. Not conceding the point, but that cuts both ways. If it is not such a great issue for one side, then similarly to the other.
I would love it if the Court could be removed from the abortion wars.
That would save it.
Since it is a SCOTUS created right (something courts are not supposed to do...more properly in the realm of the legislative authority), though, the Left demands that it be handled by SCOTUS.
The only reason these fights are life and death is because the left has so hyper politicized the supreme court. Have you ever heard a judge other than RBG publicly criticize a sitting president? Did any of the conservative judges say a damn word when Obama circumvented the congress with executive orders?
What Trump said is perfectly reasonable - Obama did not have the senate - Trump does. He is president for 4 years, not three - RBG even said this in an interview. And to further quote people, Obama once famously said elections have consequences.
The problem is the left just does not like it when things dont go their way and then they throw temper tantrums and call everyone extreme partisans for simply following the process set forth in the Constitution, If the right really wanted to they could take the nominee from committee straight to a vote - avoid all the useless crap of the hearings - you know they wont be productive, they wont be civilized, and they wont change anyone's vote. That would take away the grandstanding and character assination. If the nominee is ACB then maybe have the hearings and let the left's anti catholic bias shine through.
And now the left is threatening to pack the court? Come on, RBG had the chance to retire under Obama, and she declined. Harry Ried changed the voting requirements to benefit the dems. The left has no one to blame but themselves for this, if and when they confirm a new Justice.
(no message)
Next spring the Democrats may well control the Senate and the presidency. Do you want them to think they can just "do what they want"? Because if that is the standard, then I promise they will. And you won't like it....and liberals will be saying you are just having a "temper tantrum."
(no message)
(no message)
When was the last time you saw the right rioting? burning shit down? For goodness sakes the radical left started on inauguration day and they are openly calling for it to continue.
If the left were to control the senate and the white house, do you really think that they would look back and say, you know what, the right was civilized and gentlemanly and held off on the supreme court pick so lets see if we can work across the aisle and come up with solutions that are good for the whole country. Wrong, they would try to do what they will try to do and at least some protection we can establish now is following the rules as set forth in the constitution. There is actually nothing partisan about that.
The dems already think they can do what they want:
1. Russia investigation
2. Impeachment
3. Spying on a presidential campaign
The left has already set the standard.
(no message)
(no message)
Trump was impeached for using the US government to entice a foreign power to bring down a political opponent
There was no spying on Trump's campaign and this was in a Republican report.
So, which is it, are you going to lie or see the facts as facts?
If you really believe what you wrote then there is no sense engaging with you. You know the old saying, when you wrestle with a pig....
Good luck
There weren't 33 Benghazi hearings by Republicans?
A Republican report didn't show there was no spying?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You can say Trump is deranged, or he approaches issues in a bizarre way, but you can't say he isn't in charge or making bold initiatives. Biden can barely speak from a teleprompter. Whatever his campaign is about, he has no idea.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
ran the show. Were you in the line that said "let's sit back until the next election with what we are proposing for healthcare reform and see what the electorate wants"? I am not trying to do the tit-for-tat crap, but you can't really believe that if the shoes were reversed, you would tell a dem president and senate to wait.
We are headed in a dark direction.
Democracy depends on some level of cooperation and trust of the other side. That has been steadily eroding for decades now...and Trump threw gasoline on it.
This fight over RBG has the potential to make everything much worse.
Democracy dies slowly, one destroyed norm at a time, all of them justified by "they did it first!"
you guys riot and RESIST and refuse to accept results. making up shit like Russia, Russia, Russia all along the way.
(no message)
(no message)
Is that what all these threats and violence is in your eyes? They are doing all these things without control, what are they going to be like with it?