President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

The basic problem, Alma, is that for BOTH parties, the truth is that a Supreme Court justice is just another vote in an unelected, life tenure body that has and has exercised the final say on all American political activity. So the distinguished judicial record, etc. is just a con. The Republicans would be happy to put Matt Gaetz on the court and the Democrats happy to have Ilhan Omar, because the idea there's some kind of highminded debate going on at the Court is a bad joke. Each
Justice is just another fucking vote for one side or the other. This cannot be admitted, because an unelected body wielding ultimate political power might not be too popular, so we get this bullshit with every Court nominee. Court packing would at least be honest. "Don't like it? Vote us out and let the other guys pack the Court in their turn."

 

Votes for a Justice, by date, names withheld just to show the trend:

96-3, 1993
87–9, 1994
78–22, 2005
58–42, 2006
68–31, 2009
63–37, 2010
54–45, 2017
50–48, 2018
52–48, 2020

 

The law firm of Eastman, Scavino, Navarro and Thomas. We break the law, so you don't have to.

 

He said she's qualified. Yet he won't support her because he fears she's an activist judge. Yet he and his klan want activist justices if they'll work to overturn 50-year precedent on, say, abortion.

 

yes but only because you wouldn't yield on abortion

 

The argument on Roe v. Wade is the original ruling was activist.

 

Between this (he also said asking Putin for dirt on Hunter Biden was “about the worst possible thing you can do”) and Sununu, something tells me the polls aren’t all that strong.

Hogan calls Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill ‘absurd’

https://thehill.com/news/sunday-talk-shows/3257683-hogan-calls-floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-absurd/

 

The failure to nominate Garland was the death of politeness or faux politeness. The GOP decided that if they had 51 in a Democratic Presidency, there isn't a single justice whom they will approve. Fuck them and if they are going to make it about pure power and a lack of respect for institutionalism, then why shouldn’t the Democrats play by the same rules?

 

Mr. Blunt and his klan also think Brown v. Board of Education was activist. They think anything is activist and evil if it recognizes that circumstances change and that the law can adapt with values. The SEC states aren't too keen on Amendments 13 through 15 and only went along because acceptance was a condition of the olive branch they were extended.

In further interest of debunking the both sides nonsense, I'll point out that none of Biden's federal judicial nominees has received a vote of Not Qualified by the ABA's Standing Committee. Nine Trumpist nominees -- a staggering total -- received the thumbs-down from the ABA.

 

Roe, Brown, Loving, Griswold, Obergefell.

The right thinks all of these were decided by activists justices, and they would like to take away these rights that were granted by these decisions.

 

And then there's this one:
https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/how-conservatives-fell-in-love-with-judicial-activism/

In February, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, struck down the state’s restrictions, ruling that in-person transmission of a deadly respiratory illness must be allowed to proceed.

It was an audacious ruling in many ways. The Court substituted its own views on a critical scientific matter for those of medical experts, engaging in what Justice Elena Kagan acerbically called “armchair epidemiology.” It held that the law discriminated on the basis of religion, even though it treated religious and non-religious gatherings equally. And six unelected judges decided that they should set pandemic policy, rather than the government voters elected.

That last aspect of the ruling—the Court overturning the decision of elected officials—made it a classic case of “judicial activism.” The Court has been doing a lot of judicial activism these days. Last month, it overturned the Biden administration’s moratorium on evictions enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In July, it invalidated California’s requirement that charities reveal the identities of their donors, a decision that could lay the groundwork for gutting disclosure requirements for contributors to political campaigns—long a holy grail for the conservative movement.

 

That ignorance will cause so much more damage.