One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Yes Dems Want To Pack The Court, There's Three Ways...Two Are Wrong And One Is The Right Way
Page 1 of 2 next>
May 22, 2023 12:46:30   #
woodguru
 
People who operate purely on bias and political "sides" can't figure the idea of packing courts and what it means out. They see nothing wrong with their side putting judges on that are so far biased to one side they aren't judges, they are legislators, they don't even attempt to follow the laws and constitution, they openly and blatantly represent religious and party agendas. Where they might struggle to explain how they are following the constitution they don't even try, either not writing any ruling, or using arguments that are so lame they could never have passed law school trying to go there.

What is openly acknowledged as a conservative court is dead wrong by the very fact that is is and can be recognized. Judges are supposed to keep their political and religious views hidden, there is no way their rulings can be accepted as being fair and unbiased as far as staying to the strict limits of precedence or what the constitution says when they continually stray out of bounds of the law.

Packing a court with liberal hard left judges is no better than allowing them to be packed to the hard right with Federalist Society picked judges...the very idea of this hard right anti abortion organization having anything to say about judges is a complete late term arms and legs ripped off abortion of the system of picking centrist unbiased judges.

The third type of packing I mentioned is the one where the best judges, the only ones that should even be considered, are scored and ranked according to a solid history of judicial history that shows a consistent adherence to the law on rulings, their rulings stay solidly on point with the law regardless of what they personally believe. It's actually not that hard to assess a judges rulings and be able to see that they have a history of straying away from the actual law and bringing their personal beliefs into a decision here or there...some do it, some do it worse than others, and others virtually never drift, which makes them centrist to the law.

People who live and operate in a world of everything being biased, everything being politically motivated...can't see the other side where motivations are what they are supposed to be, they are determined by how the law sees it regardless of the political implications.

Talk of packing a court is just that, packing a court with an intentionally different type of judge than the supreme court is currently made up of. The idea isn't to pack it with extreme left liberals to offset the extreme right conservatives that are so hard to the right they are damn near in MAGA land, the idea is to stay so tightly to the center that neither the right or the left is 100% "happy" with them, because there are times when sticking to the law will not want to be what a politically biased person wants to happen.

To me, the only reason one side or the other has to reject the nomination of a highly qualified judge has to do with whether they have too many cases where they leaned towards their known political affiliation. No judge is perfect, but there are many that are a damned sight less biased in rulings than others. When Gorsuch was nominated, he was actually as close to centrist as it gets, with a slight lean towards the right. He is a republican, identifies as a solid lifetime conservative, but managed to have a long history of fair rulings...the reality is that he was a touch too conservative for many libs. His problem with the right was that he was not hard hard right enough to satisfy them.

That is how a judge should be , and the fact that the GOP wants judges to be so far biased to the right that the hard conservative ideology is the thing that matters is what proves the point that our judiciary needs to be cleaned up towards a far more centrist.

Reply
May 22, 2023 12:48:17   #
woodguru
 
The right can keep flapping it's jaws about the left wanting to pack the courts, but they want them packed with centrists that will bring a sense of stability to a supreme court that is so cartoonishly to the right that it's become a joke, not becoming a joke, it has been a joke for some time.

Reply
May 22, 2023 13:01:04   #
woodguru
 
Kavanaugh was the perfect case for a judge that should have been rejected for reasons other than stupid sex scandals...
...he had multiple bad rulings and was under a judicial review when he was nominated, that's a deal breaker
...one of his last cases on abortion was so bad it got immediately overturned as unconstitutional, he can't be a supreme court judge if he can't understand and adhere to the law
...he had $250k in gambling debts that were paid off by someone, either thing being game over as a judge

Reply
 
 
May 22, 2023 13:13:34   #
Justice101
 
woodguru wrote:
People who operate purely on bias and political "sides" can't figure the idea of packing courts and what it means out. They see nothing wrong with their side putting judges on that are so far biased to one side they aren't judges, they are legislators, they don't even attempt to follow the laws and constitution, they openly and blatantly represent religious and party agendas. Where they might struggle to explain how they are following the constitution they don't even try, either not writing any ruling, or using arguments that are so lame they could never have passed law school trying to go there.

What is openly acknowledged as a conservative court is dead wrong by the very fact that is is and can be recognized. Judges are supposed to keep their political and religious views hidden, there is no way their rulings can be accepted as being fair and unbiased as far as staying to the strict limits of precedence or what the constitution says when they continually stray out of bounds of the law.

Packing a court with liberal hard left judges is no better than allowing them to be packed to the hard right with Federalist Society picked judges...the very idea of this hard right anti abortion organization having anything to say about judges is a complete late term arms and legs ripped off abortion of the system of picking centrist unbiased judges.

The third type of packing I mentioned is the one where the best judges, the only ones that should even be considered, are scored and ranked according to a solid history of judicial history that shows a consistent adherence to the law on rulings, their rulings stay solidly on point with the law regardless of what they personally believe. It's actually not that hard to assess a judges rulings and be able to see that they have a history of straying away from the actual law and bringing their personal beliefs into a decision here or there...some do it, some do it worse than others, and others virtually never drift, which makes them centrist to the law.

People who live and operate in a world of everything being biased, everything being politically motivated...can't see the other side where motivations are what they are supposed to be, they are determined by how the law sees it regardless of the political implications.

Talk of packing a court is just that, packing a court with an intentionally different type of judge than the supreme court is currently made up of. The idea isn't to pack it with extreme left liberals to offset the extreme right conservatives that are so hard to the right they are damn near in MAGA land, the idea is to stay so tightly to the center that neither the right or the left is 100% "happy" with them, because there are times when sticking to the law will not want to be what a politically biased person wants to happen.

To me, the only reason one side or the other has to reject the nomination of a highly qualified judge has to do with whether they have too many cases where they leaned towards their known political affiliation. No judge is perfect, but there are many that are a damned sight less biased in rulings than others. When Gorsuch was nominated, he was actually as close to centrist as it gets, with a slight lean towards the right. He is a republican, identifies as a solid lifetime conservative, but managed to have a long history of fair rulings...the reality is that he was a touch too conservative for many libs. His problem with the right was that he was not hard hard right enough to satisfy them.

That is how a judge should be , and the fact that the GOP wants judges to be so far biased to the right that the hard conservative ideology is the thing that matters is what proves the point that our judiciary needs to be cleaned up towards a far more centrist.
People who operate purely on bias and political &q... (show quote)


YOU are the one who is "hard left" and biased. You need to research your topics before spouting off bs. The Federalist Society lawyers are not "hard right". It is made up of conservatives and libertarians. The society’s declared purpose is “to promote the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, the separation of powers is central to our constitution, and that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Federalist-Society

Reply
May 22, 2023 13:35:31   #
son of witless
 
woodguru wrote:
Kavanaugh was the perfect case for a judge that should have been rejected for reasons other than stupid sex scandals...
...he had multiple bad rulings and was under a judicial review when he was nominated, that's a deal breaker
...one of his last cases on abortion was so bad it got immediately overturned as unconstitutional, he can't be a supreme court judge if he can't understand and adhere to the law
...he had $250k in gambling debts that were paid off by someone, either thing being game over as a judge
Kavanaugh was the perfect case for a judge that sh... (show quote)


Prove your allegation that Justice Kavanaugh had $ 250,000 in gambling debts.

Reply
May 22, 2023 13:40:04   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
woodguru wrote:
People who operate purely on bias and political "sides" can't figure the idea of packing courts and what it means out. They see nothing wrong with their side putting judges on that are so far biased to one side they aren't judges, they are legislators, they don't even attempt to follow the laws and constitution, they openly and blatantly represent religious and party agendas. Where they might struggle to explain how they are following the constitution they don't even try, either not writing any ruling, or using arguments that are so lame they could never have passed law school trying to go there.

What is openly acknowledged as a conservative court is dead wrong by the very fact that is is and can be recognized. Judges are supposed to keep their political and religious views hidden, there is no way their rulings can be accepted as being fair and unbiased as far as staying to the strict limits of precedence or what the constitution says when they continually stray out of bounds of the law.

Packing a court with liberal hard left judges is no better than allowing them to be packed to the hard right with Federalist Society picked judges...the very idea of this hard right anti abortion organization having anything to say about judges is a complete late term arms and legs ripped off abortion of the system of picking centrist unbiased judges.

The third type of packing I mentioned is the one where the best judges, the only ones that should even be considered, are scored and ranked according to a solid history of judicial history that shows a consistent adherence to the law on rulings, their rulings stay solidly on point with the law regardless of what they personally believe. It's actually not that hard to assess a judges rulings and be able to see that they have a history of straying away from the actual law and bringing their personal beliefs into a decision here or there...some do it, some do it worse than others, and others virtually never drift, which makes them centrist to the law.

People who live and operate in a world of everything being biased, everything being politically motivated...can't see the other side where motivations are what they are supposed to be, they are determined by how the law sees it regardless of the political implications.

Talk of packing a court is just that, packing a court with an intentionally different type of judge than the supreme court is currently made up of. The idea isn't to pack it with extreme left liberals to offset the extreme right conservatives that are so hard to the right they are damn near in MAGA land, the idea is to stay so tightly to the center that neither the right or the left is 100% "happy" with them, because there are times when sticking to the law will not want to be what a politically biased person wants to happen.

To me, the only reason one side or the other has to reject the nomination of a highly qualified judge has to do with whether they have too many cases where they leaned towards their known political affiliation. No judge is perfect, but there are many that are a damned sight less biased in rulings than others. When Gorsuch was nominated, he was actually as close to centrist as it gets, with a slight lean towards the right. He is a republican, identifies as a solid lifetime conservative, but managed to have a long history of fair rulings...the reality is that he was a touch too conservative for many libs. His problem with the right was that he was not hard hard right enough to satisfy them.

That is how a judge should be , and the fact that the GOP wants judges to be so far biased to the right that the hard conservative ideology is the thing that matters is what proves the point that our judiciary needs to be cleaned up towards a far more centrist.
People who operate purely on bias and political &q... (show quote)


You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about.
By definition, a Constitutional judge is one who follows the Constitution and the law of the land (unless the later conflicts with the former, in which case their job is to STOP the later in it's tracks.) Those are the ones you are condemning as being extremists.
The Left wing judges are the ones who willingly ignore, or try to judicially change, the meaning of the Constitution by imposing populist and social changes and interpretation to the Constitution as written and amended.
You are being hypocritical, as usual, because you applaud when the leftleaning judges act partisan in their rulings, but condemn when the right does not conform to your personal wishes.
And then you rationalize in an ALWAYS vain attempt to justify your flawed, lying beliefs.

Reply
May 23, 2023 09:02:14   #
Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich
 
woodguru wrote:
People who operate purely on bias and political "sides" can't figure the idea of packing courts and what it means out. They see nothing wrong with their side putting judges on that are so far biased to one side they aren't judges, they are legislators, they don't even attempt to follow the laws and constitution, they openly and blatantly represent religious and party agendas. Where they might struggle to explain how they are following the constitution they don't even try, either not writing any ruling, or using arguments that are so lame they could never have passed law school trying to go there.

What is openly acknowledged as a conservative court is dead wrong by the very fact that is is and can be recognized. Judges are supposed to keep their political and religious views hidden, there is no way their rulings can be accepted as being fair and unbiased as far as staying to the strict limits of precedence or what the constitution says when they continually stray out of bounds of the law.

Packing a court with liberal hard left judges is no better than allowing them to be packed to the hard right with Federalist Society picked judges...the very idea of this hard right anti abortion organization having anything to say about judges is a complete late term arms and legs ripped off abortion of the system of picking centrist unbiased judges.

The third type of packing I mentioned is the one where the best judges, the only ones that should even be considered, are scored and ranked according to a solid history of judicial history that shows a consistent adherence to the law on rulings, their rulings stay solidly on point with the law regardless of what they personally believe. It's actually not that hard to assess a judges rulings and be able to see that they have a history of straying away from the actual law and bringing their personal beliefs into a decision here or there...some do it, some do it worse than others, and others virtually never drift, which makes them centrist to the law.

People who live and operate in a world of everything being biased, everything being politically motivated...can't see the other side where motivations are what they are supposed to be, they are determined by how the law sees it regardless of the political implications.

Talk of packing a court is just that, packing a court with an intentionally different type of judge than the supreme court is currently made up of. The idea isn't to pack it with extreme left liberals to offset the extreme right conservatives that are so hard to the right they are damn near in MAGA land, the idea is to stay so tightly to the center that neither the right or the left is 100% "happy" with them, because there are times when sticking to the law will not want to be what a politically biased person wants to happen.

To me, the only reason one side or the other has to reject the nomination of a highly qualified judge has to do with whether they have too many cases where they leaned towards their known political affiliation. No judge is perfect, but there are many that are a damned sight less biased in rulings than others. When Gorsuch was nominated, he was actually as close to centrist as it gets, with a slight lean towards the right. He is a republican, identifies as a solid lifetime conservative, but managed to have a long history of fair rulings...the reality is that he was a touch too conservative for many libs. His problem with the right was that he was not hard hard right enough to satisfy them.

That is how a judge should be , and the fact that the GOP wants judges to be so far biased to the right that the hard conservative ideology is the thing that matters is what proves the point that our judiciary needs to be cleaned up towards a far more centrist.
People who operate purely on bias and political &q... (show quote)


Question: How can the issues of "re-defining marriage", Homosexuality, & Abortion...be commented on by Lesbians?

Never have figgered that one out!

As for their political affiliation?...They should never divulge that!

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2023 12:15:55   #
coelacanth Loc: Michigan swamp
 
woodguru wrote:
People who operate purely on bias and political "sides" can't figure the idea of packing courts and what it means out. They see nothing wrong with their side putting judges on that are so far biased to one side they aren't judges, they are legislators, they don't even attempt to follow the laws and constitution, they openly and blatantly represent religious and party agendas. Where they might struggle to explain how they are following the constitution they don't even try, either not writing any ruling, or using arguments that are so lame they could never have passed law school trying to go there.

What is openly acknowledged as a conservative court is dead wrong by the very fact that is is and can be recognized. Judges are supposed to keep their political and religious views hidden, there is no way their rulings can be accepted as being fair and unbiased as far as staying to the strict limits of precedence or what the constitution says when they continually stray out of bounds of the law.

Packing a court with liberal hard left judges is no better than allowing them to be packed to the hard right with Federalist Society picked judges...the very idea of this hard right anti abortion organization having anything to say about judges is a complete late term arms and legs ripped off abortion of the system of picking centrist unbiased judges.

The third type of packing I mentioned is the one where the best judges, the only ones that should even be considered, are scored and ranked according to a solid history of judicial history that shows a consistent adherence to the law on rulings, their rulings stay solidly on point with the law regardless of what they personally believe. It's actually not that hard to assess a judges rulings and be able to see that they have a history of straying away from the actual law and bringing their personal beliefs into a decision here or there...some do it, some do it worse than others, and others virtually never drift, which makes them centrist to the law.

People who live and operate in a world of everything being biased, everything being politically motivated...can't see the other side where motivations are what they are supposed to be, they are determined by how the law sees it regardless of the political implications.

Talk of packing a court is just that, packing a court with an intentionally different type of judge than the supreme court is currently made up of. The idea isn't to pack it with extreme left liberals to offset the extreme right conservatives that are so hard to the right they are damn near in MAGA land, the idea is to stay so tightly to the center that neither the right or the left is 100% "happy" with them, because there are times when sticking to the law will not want to be what a politically biased person wants to happen.

To me, the only reason one side or the other has to reject the nomination of a highly qualified judge has to do with whether they have too many cases where they leaned towards their known political affiliation. No judge is perfect, but there are many that are a damned sight less biased in rulings than others. When Gorsuch was nominated, he was actually as close to centrist as it gets, with a slight lean towards the right. He is a republican, identifies as a solid lifetime conservative, but managed to have a long history of fair rulings...the reality is that he was a touch too conservative for many libs. His problem with the right was that he was not hard hard right enough to satisfy them.

That is how a judge should be , and the fact that the GOP wants judges to be so far biased to the right that the hard conservative ideology is the thing that matters is what proves the point that our judiciary needs to be cleaned up towards a far more centrist.
People who operate purely on bias and political &q... (show quote)


Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but arms are. If you don't like it, you will have to suck on it until you do.

Reply
May 23, 2023 12:39:42   #
woodguru
 
woodguru wrote:
Kavanaugh was the perfect case for a judge that should have been rejected for reasons other than stupid sex scandals...
...one of his last cases on abortion was so bad it got immediately overturned as unconstitutional, he can't be a supreme court judge if he can't understand and adhere to the law

Take that one thing right there that goes towards figuring out if a judge has the right stuff to be on the highest court on the land...this is a court that has to be about one thing and one thing only...what does the constitution have to say about the case that was brought before the court in order to determine the constitutionality of the issue.

How can a judge be a good fit for determining what the constitution says if he has shown he cannot be trusted to follow the law in a lower court venue? When a judge is saying he doesn't care what the law says when he has different opinions and he rules according to how he sees it, this is exactly what a supreme court justice cannot do, they have to be trusted to adhere to the constitution whether they agree with it or not.

Reply
May 23, 2023 12:43:05   #
woodguru
 
coelacanth wrote:
Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but arms are. If you don't like it, you will have to suck on it until you do.

The way they are mentioned did not give the right to bear military assault weapons, and the fact of the matter is that there is an array of weapon types made for the military that are prohibited...fully automatic weapons are not openly legal in many states.

It's an obtuse argument at best.

Reply
May 23, 2023 12:48:25   #
woodguru
 
RandyBrian wrote:
You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about.
By definition, a Constitutional judge is one who follows the Constitution and the law of the land (unless the later conflicts with the former, in which case their job is to STOP the later in it's tracks.) Those are the ones you are condemning as being extremists.
The Left wing judges are the ones who willingly ignore, or try to judicially change, the meaning of the Constitution by imposing populist and social changes and interpretation to the Constitution as written and amended.
You are being hypocritical, as usual, because you applaud when the leftleaning judges act partisan in their rulings, but condemn when the right does not conform to your personal wishes.
And then you rationalize in an ALWAYS vain attempt to justify your flawed, lying beliefs.
You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking a... (show quote)


We don't really have left wing judges to the degree that there are openly right wing judges, they prove themselves by not caring about the political extremists they associate with, and they side with agendas that are definitely contrary to the constitution such as voting rights. The conservative court has gutted voter's rights that protected voters in right wing controlled states and kept them from infringing on those rights, when the voters rights act was gutted and oversight of red states was lifted those states that needed to be regulated immediately started making it harder to vote in select regions.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2023 12:52:02   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
woodguru wrote:
Take that one thing right there that goes towards figuring out if a judge has the right stuff to be on the highest court on the land...this is a court that has to be about one thing and one thing only...what does the constitution have to say about the case that was brought before the court in order to determine the constitutionality of the issue.

How can a judge be a good fit for determining what the constitution says if he has shown he cannot be trusted to follow the law in a lower court venue? When a judge is saying he doesn't care what the law says when he has different opinions and he rules according to how he sees it, this is exactly what a supreme court justice cannot do, they have to be trusted to adhere to the constitution whether they agree with it or not.
Take that one thing right there that goes towards ... (show quote)


I agree with you....they should and MUST follow the Constitution. The ironic thing is that YOU do not agree with your own statement, as has been abundantly proven by your posts.

Reply
May 23, 2023 12:55:44   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
woodguru wrote:
The way they are mentioned did not give the right to bear military assault weapons, and the fact of the matter is that there is an array of weapon types made for the military that are prohibited...fully automatic weapons are not openly legal in many states.

It's an obtuse argument at best.


The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". It does NOT NOT set limits on type or use of such weapons. Perhaps it SHOULD in some cases.....so why aren't you proposing an amendment??????? Do it the correct way, instead of trying to misinterpret the statutes you do not agree with. NO one elected or appointed YOU to be the arbiter of what the Constitution says!

Reply
May 23, 2023 13:02:44   #
coelacanth Loc: Michigan swamp
 
woodguru wrote:
The way they are mentioned did not give the right to bear military assault weapons, and the fact of the matter is that there is an array of weapon types made for the military that are prohibited...fully automatic weapons are not openly legal in many states.

It's an obtuse argument at best.


Your vast ignorance of the Constitution and gun laws is showing. The military has never used AR-15 "Style" weapons. Ever! Besides, arms commonly possessed and used are protected. This includes suppressors, standard capacity magazines, laser sights, 30.06 ammunition, tasers, etc. Arms, get it? Arms and the access to arms is the birthright of every American. I understand if you girly-men don't get it, that's your right. I will defend your right to disagree, unless you're up in my grille. Then, you will have a pressing need.

Reply
May 23, 2023 13:11:01   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
woodguru wrote:
We don't really have left wing judges to the degree that there are openly right wing judges, they prove themselves by not caring about the political extremists they associate with, and they side with agendas that are definitely contrary to the constitution such as voting rights. The conservative court has gutted voter's rights that protected voters in right wing controlled states and kept them from infringing on those rights, when the voters rights act was gutted and oversight of red states was lifted those states that needed to be regulated immediately started making it harder to vote in select regions.
We don't really have left wing judges to the degre... (show quote)


Oh, horse crap, Woody. None of that is true except in the warped minds of leftwing fanatics. Such as yourself. The left leaning SCOTUS judges have been deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution for decades. Instead of passing judgement on the various judges based on friendships, try looking at their RECORD of votes! The left wing extremists have consistently voted in support of things contrary to the Constitution based on their personal opinions of what is 'fair', or to 'correct' past issues of perceived 'unfairness', whether it was true or not. And usually they did it by stomping on the rights of individuals. They respond to social and cultural pressure, not the law or the Constitution.
The rest of your rant, including the nonsense of infringing on voter rights, is a pathetic repeat of DNC talking points. Name, if you can, someone who was deliberately kept from voting for the candidate of their choice. EVERYONE had to opportunity to go vote or to vote by absentee ballot. EVERYONE. The most convenient way to vote would be by phone, or to have enough pollsters to go door to door and tally the votes. We do NOT do either one because the ability for fraudulent counting is much to easy. The EXACT same reason that general mail in voting should not be allowed.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.