Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you mean G. W. Bush's selection as president, by the Supreme Court in 2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
The USSC didn't select him. The voters did.
The USSC merely pointed out what rules the voters had put into place long before the election, and told the voters how those rules applied to Owlgore's constant demands for delays, recounts, etc., for only small segments of the electorate, and far past the deadlines established by the States and the Fed govt.
Gore was trying to violate those rules. The USSC told him he was out of line, and to knock it off after a certain date. And it was absolutely right to decide the way it did.
All that seems very nice, if the decisions come down on your side. If they opposed your view, you'd say they'd gone to liberal hell. There was a conservative majority on the court in 2000. There was never any chance they would rule differently, regardless of the merits of the case. And of course, a right-winger would think that was the correct decision. I personally think that the Supreme Court works against democracy, as its power is too enduring. Term-limits are needed, to balance it against the other two branches of government.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 10-01-2017 at 10:38 PM..
As a strong proponent of federalism, I believe the current Supreme Court is too liberal. Instead of following the Constitution, today's Court often rules from the bench, creating laws as they see fit. Much worse are justices who believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", whose meaning should "evolve with the times". This is not at all what the Framers had in mind.
I hope to see more judges who adhere to a constructionist, or at least textualist, interpretation of the Constitution, leaving most decisions to the lower courts, as they were intended to be.
All I'm going to say is, the Supreme Court is the only big reason why I voted for Trump. I was hoping he would get one or 2 judges appointed, because the liberal judges were getting dangerous on the 2A.
As a strong proponent of federalism, I believe the current Supreme Court is too liberal. Instead of following the Constitution, today's Court often rules from the bench, creating laws as they see fit. Much worse are justices who believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", whose meaning should "evolve with the times". This is not at all what the Framers had in mind.
I hope to see more judges who adhere to a constructionist, or at least textualist, interpretation of the Constitution, leaving most decisions to the lower courts, as they were intended to be.
Here's the problem. The end goal of the Radical Right, is to change the Constitution, not protect it. In particular they would like to address those annoying free speech, free press and free election provisions; their dream of a new fascist state will never be realized when these are available to the citizens.
If that can be done through the amendment process, they will surely go down that path. But the other route is to institute laws either civil or criminal that will essentially undermine the Constitution. A perfect example is the Citizens United decision by SCOTUS. Effectively, this undermined the Constitutionally protected right of citizens to representation, not by directly taking away their vote, but by granting the right of representation to super-citizens (by viewing corporate entities as citizens, and allowing the free flow of dollars from those super-citizens into the election process). All the while their votes are being devalued across the board, the mush-brained citizenry is distracted into worrying about illegal aliens and border walls.
All that seems very nice, if the decisions come down on your side. If they opposed your view, you'd say they'd gone to liberal hell. There was a conservative majority on the court in 2000. There was never any chance they would rule differently, regardless of the merits of the case. And of course, a right-winger would think that was the correct decision. I personally think that the Supreme Court works against democracy, as its power is too enduring. Term-limits are needed, to balance it against the other two branches of government.
There ya go. The lifetime appointment rule in the Supreme Court is the single biggest flaw in the American system. If we had SCOTUS term limits, and dumped the Electoral college, it would breathe new life into our aging democracy. I don't see other of those happening anytime soon; because the Radical Right is leveraging those weaknesses to their advantage. Remember, their goal is to tear down the current system and replace it with a neo-fascist Utopia. This objective has been crystal clear for decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
