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.
Neither Democrats not Republicans "hold" the Judicial branch.
On the contrary...the Republicans currently "hold" the Judicial branch - specifically, there's a 6-3 Republican majority on the Supreme Court.
Yes, one can quibble about how the justices on the Supreme Court are supposedly non-partisan, but review history. Even as far back as the waning days of the John Adams administration the Judiciary was packed with Federalists. After the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800 wherein the Democratic Republicans gained majorities in Congress and won the Presidency, it was said by historians that the Federalists had retreated into the Judiciary, where they remained in power, well after the actual demise of the Federalist political party.
1. Preserve life, and give women options that feel they cannot afford to care for a child, the supposed Number 1 reason for choosing abortion.
2. Secure the southern border, which would be doing the job that they are supposed to do, rather than what is going on at this point.
3. With a secure border and stopping economic immigrants from continuing to enter (costing billions of dollars per year), and be given public assistance, they would have the money to address homelessness (especially bad in liberal cities) and mental health.
4. Support small businesses, unlike what happened during the "COVID" emergency. So many businesses have closed eliminating competition for bigger businesses.
5. Attempt to solve issues with foreign governments, rather than sending troops, and again costing billions that could be spent on our many issues that are being ignored.
6. Respect our military and its traditions, and reinstate those that were wrongly kicked out of the military for refusing an experimental vaccine, which based on a prior decision concerning using our military as guinea pigs, was wrong from the get-go.
7. Respect states rights, hopefully educating those that still don't get why individual states have rights.
8. Stop the general downward spiral of our country, and Make America Great Again. The world has lost respect for our country due to, well, you know who, and it isn't Trump either!
On the contrary...the Republicans currently "hold" the Judicial branch - specifically, there's a 6-3 Republican majority on the Supreme Court.
Yes, one can quibble about how the justices on the Supreme Court are supposedly non-partisan, but review history. Even as far back as the waning days of the John Adams administration the Judiciary was packed with Federalists. After the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800 wherein the Democratic Republicans gained majorities in Congress and won the Presidency, it was said by historians that the Federalists had retreated into the Judiciary, where they remained in power, well after the actual demise of the Federalist political party.
6 to 3? And yet liberal rulings are as common as conservative rulings.
Some judges are liberal, some are conservative. One of the important points of the Trump administration was the appointment of conservative judges, BUT those judges did not leave their position when a new election was held. AND judges do not write law.
Moderator cut: Hyperbolic nonsense deleted in keeping with mod instructions in Post No. 3: "This is the Great Debates forum and, as such, discussions are to remain civil here. Please remember this, and post with maturity and intelligence, rather than with an excess of emotion."
Every Supreme Court Justice is non-partisan, even though they were selected for consideration because of their views. No justice tests the polls for the attitude of "his" party before writing his opinion.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 10-31-2022 at 09:41 AM..
Reason: Please follow the guidelines
6 to 3? And yet liberal rulings are as common as conservative rulings.
Some judges are liberal, some are conservative. One of the important points of the Trump administration was the appointment of conservative judges, BUT those judges did not leave their position when a new election was held. AND judges do not write law.
Moderator cut: Hyperbolic nonsense deleted in keeping with mod instructions in Post No. 3: "This is the Great Debates forum and, as such, discussions are to remain civil here. Please remember this, and post with maturity and intelligence, rather than with an excess of emotion."
Every Supreme Court Justice is non-partisan, even though they were selected for consideration because of their views. No justice tests the polls for the attitude of "his" party before writing his opinion.
You recognize that one of the Trump administration's top priorities was to seat conservative judges, but you think that they are non-partisan somehow? That's a very strange thing to say.
I said "the Trump administration" rather than Trump though, because while I believe that he personally hoped to install loyalists who would help him dodge any accountability for anything he may have done... much more significantly I believe that McConnell had promises to keep. He's the real force behind a lot of that, and the whole thing of being willing to change the rules on the fly to control who sits on the SCOTUS...I mean, I'm sorry but that was a power play on a level rarely seen even in modern American politics.
And every one of those justices said during their confirmations that they considered Roe to be settled "law of the land" and had no intention of challenging it, and every one of them lied.
The only small concession I will grant to your point here, is that Trump's thinking that every judge who got the job because of him will be so loyal that they'll let him get away with anything...that isn't so. Once they are seated, they are not bought and paid for and they will rule as they see fit. But they are certainly ideological conservatives, with well known ties to the conservative think tanks. If anything, they are much more aligned with the old evangelical conservatism than Trump ever was.
6 to 3? And yet liberal rulings are as common as conservative rulings.
Speculation at best.
Quote:
Some judges are liberal, some are conservative.
And some are liberal on some issues but conservative on other issues.
Justice Neil Gorsuch stands out in my mind as one of them. Conservative on most things, but an advocate for gay rights.
Quote:
One of the important points of the Trump administration was the appointment of conservative judges
Exactly. Why else would Republican and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have herded two of three SCOTUS appointments to Donald Trump? That literally reeks of partisan politics.
Quote:
BUT those judges did not leave their position when a new election was held.
Yes, Supreme Court Justices hold their position for life, unless they voluntarily retire, or they are removed through the process of impeachment (which has never happened).
Quote:
AND judges do not write law.
Judge have and do write the law. Why do you think they hand down opinions?
You are aware that in this nation there are four types of law aren't you? Constitutional law is that law explicitly written in the Constitution's Articles and Amendments. Statutory law is created through the legislative process. Regulatory law is created when the Executive branch needs to carry out and enforce statutory law. And case law (aka common law) is derived from court decisions.
Quote:
Every Supreme Court Justice is non-partisan, even though they were selected for consideration because of their views. No justice tests the polls for the attitude of "his" party before writing his opinion.
Non-partisan? Did you type that with a straight face?
Selected for consideration because of their political views? Absolutely.
At this point in time, all Justices are picked for their adherence to the political philosophies of the Administrations that nominate them. One may claim that they don't poll their political parties before writing their opinions, but then they don't have to, do they. They already hold to the party line when writing their opinions. About the only thing that you can say is that all justices hold back on being blatantly partisan. Specifically, they aren't about to march lock-step to Donald Trump's orders concerning the various legal entanglements that he finds himself in (much to Mr. Trump's chagrin, I imagine).
Consider historically the vast majority of Supreme Court Justices were confirmed either by affirmation or by very large majorities in the US Senate. That all changed with George HW Bush's nomination of Robert Bork and GHWB's nomination of Clarence Thomas. Two highly political nominees, one who was shot down and the other who got in on only 52 affirmative votes.
Here in the present day, the Justice with the highest confirmation vote is John Roberts, who was confirmed 78-22. Two of President Obama's nominations, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan exceeded the 60 vote threshold. The rest have between 58 and 50 affirmative votes.
Want to make SCOTUS less political? Reinstate the Senate rule requiring a 60 vote majority confirmation vote for Supreme Court Justices. Or maybe even a two-thirds majority. Set the bar high and force the process to put justices on the bench who are palatable to both sides of the political aisle.
Until that is done, both sides are going to be putting up highly partisan candidates.
OK. Some people believe the Judicial branch of the US government is held by Republicans or held by Democrats.
The Supreme Court, we are reminded, is mostly in conservative hands. The Supreme Court hears about 80 cases per year and rules on another 100. Some of them are important and all of them are interpretation of existing law. The Supreme Court does not write law; they interpret it (what does the right to keep and bear mean?...)
Altogether, there are nearly 1,770 judgeships authorized across the 209 courts in the federal court system. About half of the judges sitting on federal courts are appointed by the president of the United States for life terms.
Some of those judges have been on the bench for a very long time. They rule on all sorts of crimes and actions, most of them not involved in politics in the least way - murder, for instance.
The average President of late has appointed around 200 judges. That's not enough to change anything, since some retiring blue leaning judges will be replaced by another blue leaning judge, and so forth.
So, the question is, "Which party do you believe holds it now? And how can that ever change?"
My contention is, no President makes enough appointments to affect a change during his tenure.
OK. Some people believe the Judicial branch of the US government is held by Republicans or held by Democrats.
The Supreme Court, we are reminded, is mostly in conservative hands. The Supreme Court hears about 80 cases per year and rules on another 100. Some of them are important and all of them are interpretation of existing law. The Supreme Court does not write law; they interpret it (what does the right to keep and bear mean?...)
Except that courts do make law. Your denial does not change this fact.
Also, while SCOTUS hears only 80 cases per year and rules on 100 more, these tend to be very important cases, ones that can change existing laws or make new law.
Quote:
Altogether, there are nearly 1,770 judgeships authorized across the 209 courts in the federal court system. About half of the judges sitting on federal courts are appointed by the president of the United States for life terms.
Some of those judges have been on the bench for a very long time. They rule on all sorts of crimes and actions, most of them not involved in politics in the least way - murder, for instance.
While federal judges serve for life, most of them issue judgements that can be overturned on appeal.
The one court whose decisions cannot be overturned by a higher court is SCOTUS. That's why appointing judges to lower federal courts doesn't really pack the punch of appointing a SCOTUS justice.
This is why I'm advocating for a return to a 60 or 66 vote majority required for confirming Supreme Court Justices - they're just so much more powerful than most other judges and co-equal to the other two branches of the federal government. Setting the bar back to its high standard will mean that justices appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court will be at least unobjectionable to a good majority of the Senate.
Quote:
The average President of late has appointed around 200 judges. That's not enough to change anything, since some retiring blue leaning judges will be replaced by another blue leaning judge, and so forth.
I believe that I've already covered federal judge appointments below the Supreme Court. IMO, they're far less important than Supreme Court nominations.
While it's true that a POTUS usually gets to appoint only one or two justices to SCOTUS due to term limits, there are no term limits on Senators. As I've already pointed out, Republican Senate Majority/Minority Leader Mitch McConnel held the door open for Donald Trump to appoint two new justices to SCOTUS, taking one pick from Barack Obama and another pick from Joe Biden. Maybe someone could make the case that one of the picks should have gone to Trump...but not both. McConnell talked out of both sides of his mouth to make that happen.
Also, there's the Federalist Society. Surely you've heard of them? Founded in the early 1980's? Focused on getting reliably conservative judges appointed to federal courts? In the current SCOTUS, six justices are either current or former members of the Federalist Society - every single one of them nominated by a Republican POTUS.
Quote:
So, the question is, "Which party do you believe holds it now? And how can that ever change?"
My contention is, no President makes enough appointments to affect a change during his tenure.
Here's my case. It's not about one president not being able to make enough appointments to effect a change in SCOTUS's basic philosophy. It's about an effort stretching back 40 years to get a stable Republican conservative majority on SCOTUS that will (from the looks of it) last for at least 20 or 30 years.
I prefer we require passing a decently rigorous civics test before issuing anyone a photo-ID card to vote. If they fail the test they have to take a civics course at a local public school, and if need be, repeat the course, until they can pass a civics test to show they understand how our government works, how voting works, what the safeguards are that assure an honest vote, etc. Right now we have a nation of dummies voting based on total BS they see in TV lies, Facebook lies, internet lies, and other lies that show in snail-mail or email.
I believe that is tantamount to requiring a Literacy Test. Or that only landowning gentlemen can vote.
We may be a nation of dummies (name a nation that isn't) but that's what universal suffrage is all about.
If a candidate cannot persuade a group of dummies to vote for them, then they are not trying hard enough. Or sending the wrong message. If inner city and rural youth are unemployed and don't see much of a future beyond the next hit on the crack pipe (or meth, depending on culture) then the political class did something terribly wrong for a long time. The politician who speaks to hopeless cases and gives them hope, is the one that gets their votes.
Go ahead, require poor, under-educated young men to hit the books before they can vote, and you'll get close to the same result as if you only allow landowning gentlemen to vote.
Well, based on history, despite what the GOP says we can pretty much only count on one thing that we KNOW they will do:
Tax cuts. That is the sum total of GOP domestic accomplishments for the last 22 years. They have given us very little else. Their other major initiatives had to do with "promoting Democracy abroad" through wars but they seem to have shed their foreign policy adventurism, so that's gone. They are not a party of ideas. They were not even able to repeal Obamacare despite saying they would do it for 7 years and then having more than enough power to do so. They have no health care ideas whatsoever. They have no inflation ideas whatsoever, despite complaining about it a lot.
I don't have any confidence they will build any walls, improve education, nuclear power, etc... They have not proven they can actually pass proactive domestic legislation. They have a lot of complaints and resentments, that is all they have. They complain about any discussion of race or the history of it in our society and they complain about immigrants despite the fact we need workers very badly. They are a party of grievance and resentments who want to cut taxes mostly for the wealthy.
In 2020 they didn't even have a platform, that is how pathetic they were.
The only things the GOP can do during a super majority of any sort is to cut taxes for their corporate sponsors or some type of bill that get big donors their xmas presents. We see that with both parties because they are both aware that having a super majority is usually a one year event. Then they will lose it the next year or atleast before a gridlock happens.
We're looking at a possible gridlock soon after the midterms.
We may be a nation of dummies (name a nation that isn't) but that's what universal suffrage is all about.
That's precisely why, in some circles, universal suffrage is decried as mob-rule. There's a willful and determined push to make the voter-pool more aristocratic... or in other words, to make the system more like a republic and less like a democracy.
In this interpretation, to appeal to the masses and to garner a literal majority, is a fool's errand. The politician who does this, is either lying, in having no intention of carrying out the promises that elicited the majority's vote... or, is binding himself to enacting foolish things, because the crowd is generally foolish and has foolish wants.
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.
