Empirical*
-
00
-
Seriously???? wrote:
Seems Odd... wrote:
Lol. What kind of "empirical data" would satisfy you?
I'll make it easier for you to understand. Imagine Sonya Sotomayor's husband was in close, regular contact with the Biden administration and state officials about the prospect of implementing some obviously unconstitutional maneuver that would prevent Ron DeSantis from running for president (this would still be less outrageous than seeking to overturn certified election results, but nevertheless...). Imagine Sotomayor ruled on cases associated with this partisan ratf*cking scheme, rather than recusing herself. Clearly, this would compromise her status as an impartial judge. Republicans would be up in arms, and rightly so.
Basically the same thing has played out with Clarence Thomas. You don't need empirical data to see that he is a political agent.
What are you too really arguing about. Of course individual justices are partisan, everyone is to some degree. You really think Sotomayor is anything but an activist? How about Ginsberg? I mean my God she wasn't even the first woman justice the reason she was loved is because she didn't care about precedent and did whatever she wanted. And yeah Thomas is obviously extremely conservative. For us to lie about him or the nature of humanity is just silly. The real question isn't if the Court has bias, it's why are liberals so comfortable with 9 justices legislating from the bench? The answer is clearly because they always had a majority, now that they don't they push back. Let's not pretend either of you are truly principled at all lol
I think all three of you make some valid points, but your disagreements are based on confusion about your terms. Individual justices do not have to be partisan, they could theoretically be moderate independents politically, but the truth is, they would never get nominated to be on the Supreme Court, because the political parties only nominate conservative or liberal partisans. (If the numeric balance between conservative and liberal partisan judges is close, the Court as a whole, in deciding all of its cases, will appear moderate.)
Justices never "legislate" from the bench, since only legislatures can pass legislation (Statutes). Justices decide cases, and they issue opinions in those cases which explain why a majority of them believe that certain legislation, enacted by the federal or a state legislature, is consistent or inconsistent with the Constitution.
Because the Supreme Court is the final word on the Constitutionality of State and Federal Legislation, the only restrictions on each individual judge's partisanship are institutional, and the main institutional restriction is adhering to precedents. "Activist" judges believe in freely overruling precedents if they disagree with them, while "judicial conservatives" believe in following precedents, even if they disagree with them.
When a judge is activist when overruling precedents that results in political outcomes that they would disagree with as a partisan, but then act as a judicial conservative when reviewing precedents that result in political outcomes that they agree with as a partisan, the name for them is a "Hack."
The reason Chief Justice Roberts often angers the Republican party is that he is not a hack - he is at least sometimes willing to respect precedents that result in politically liberal outcomes. The three newest Justices all told the Senate that they would be judicially conservative, specifically in regards to respecting the Roe v. Wade precedent, even if they disagreed with the political outcomes it caused.
They lied.
12 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Pot or kettle wrote:
Actually John roberts has frustrated conservatives for years by siding with the liberal justices on issues. People just need to realize that roe v Wade was bad case law and it was always going to be at risk of being overturned because of that.
how is overturning roe v wade happening at the “cost of millions of American women”? Are they going to spontaneously combust? Do you really not understand what happens if roe is overturned? Do you even understand any of this or are you just throwing out hyper emotional talking points without even the ground level understanding of how to back them up?
but to answer your initial question: yes the issue is the leaker as that is a possibly illegal action that undermines the Supreme Court. You may approve of the leak this time because it goes in your favor, but what happens next time when it doesn’t? Will you still support the leaker or only when it’s convenient for your cause? Don’t continue to criticize the “insurrectionists” while supporting this leaker. It’s hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent.
You have no idea what will happen to many American women when they are denied the right to abortion. Many will choose to commit a criminal act and some will lose their lives in a back street. It will send the US back into a past that most Western countries long ago left behind. But the Taliban will approve.
That’s so stupid. The same amount of women died from legal abortion the year Roe v. Wade was established that had died from illegal abortions the year before. That’s because more women got abortions after it was legalized.
00 -
Precious Roy wrote:
Women with ectopic pregnancies or the dozens of other complications that threaten the life of the mother will die without access to abortions. Women who are raped will be forced to conceive the rapists baby (same for incest). Overturning Roe clears the way for state legislation making a fetus a person, which would mean that women can be jailed for a miscarriage. And women will be jailed and forced to conceive if they are caught trying to get a back alley abortion. No one talks about that because it is barbaric. But it is being planned in many jurisdictions as we speak. Women will be chained to a delivery table, put in stirrups and forced to conceive while serving jail time for seeking an abortion. That is just outright medieval.
And the only person to blame for women dying after hemorrhaging during a back alley abortion are the religious zealots in this country who see women as birthing slaves to their "god".
Hyperbole much? None of what you are asserting is true. Just alarmist silliness.
11 -
Numbian wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
And the only person to blame for women dying after hemorrhaging during a back alley abortion are the religious zealots in this country who see women as birthing slaves to their "god".
Hyperbole much? None of what you are asserting is true. Just alarmist silliness.
Agreed. Just pure emotional arguments. Something you expect from people high school age and younger. I guess some people never mature out of that stage.
22 -
Pot or kettle wrote:
Numbian wrote:
Hyperbole much? None of what you are asserting is true. Just alarmist silliness.
Agreed. Just pure emotional arguments. Something you expect from people high school age and younger. I guess some people never mature out of that stage.
All I ever did was congratulate Mike Pence for coming out of the closet and my post was removed.
10 -
Having had experience with this exact situation, I promise you I'd be on CNN for one reason or another had it not been 25 years ago.
02 -
A thread on women's rights taken over by men. But only of a certain kind. Par for Letsrun.
21 -
The squad stood up for your rights today as they were led off in cuffs. Oh wait, as they pretended to be led off in cuffs. My mistake.
21 -
comedyreIieff wrote:
The squad stood up for your rights today as they were led off in cuffs. Oh wait, as they pretended to be led off in cuffs. My mistake.
It isn't your only mistake. They aren't my rights. But I guess you were cheering as they were arrested. Like most of the guys here who know what's good for women.
01 -
Aside from a select few progressives, most of the Democratic Party have moved on from the Dobb's decision. It gave them a quick bump in the polls and then quickly faded. They're all back on the January 6th discussion now, but less people care about that than Dobb's. Biden just lost his climate control legislation and inflation continues to soar. Not a good time to be a democrat in youre running for office or re-election in midterms.
22 -
move on wrote:
Aside from a select few progressives, most of the Democratic Party have moved on from the Dobb's decision. It gave them a quick bump in the polls and then quickly faded. They're all back on the January 6th discussion now, but less people care about that than Dobb's. Biden just lost his climate control legislation and inflation continues to soar. Not a good time to be a democrat in youre running for office or re-election in midterms.
So you watch Fox.
10 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
comedyreIieff wrote:
The squad stood up for your rights today as they were led off in cuffs. Oh wait, as they pretended to be led off in cuffs. My mistake.
It isn't your only mistake. They aren't my rights. But I guess you were cheering as they were arrested. Like most of the guys here who know what's good for women.
And just to be clear, nobody was arrested for protesting. They were arrested for blocking traffic.
01 -
comedyreIieff wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It isn't your only mistake. They aren't my rights. But I guess you were cheering as they were arrested. Like most of the guys here who know what's good for women.
And just to be clear, nobody was arrested for protesting. They were arrested for blocking traffic.
So that makes the end of Roe ok?
01 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
comedyreIieff wrote:
And just to be clear, nobody was arrested for protesting. They were arrested for blocking traffic.
So that makes the end of Roe ok?
It means standing in traffic is still illegal.
10 -
I’ve held the belief for a couple years now that if people want to protest in traffic it is fine, but drivers should have the right to move them out of the street with either their hands or their cars if need be.
Love the liberal tears and love aoc pretending to be handcuffed.
02 -
comedyreIieff wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It isn't your only mistake. They aren't my rights. But I guess you were cheering as they were arrested. Like most of the guys here who know what's good for women.
And just to be clear, nobody was arrested for protesting. They were arrested for blocking traffic.
Which is a form of protest. Did you think protesting means standing outside a building with a placard? Cute.
00 -
Yawn^24 wrote:
I’ve held the belief for a couple years now that if people want to protest in traffic it is fine, but drivers should have the right to move them out of the street with either their hands or their cars if need be.
Love the liberal tears and love aoc pretending to be handcuffed.
That exact thing happened in Charlottesville in 2017
00 -
comedyreIieff wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So that makes the end of Roe ok?
It means standing in traffic is still illegal.
So that's what matters here? You don't seem to have noticed why they were doing it. I don't think they were too bothered about being arrested - that was the point of the protest. The protest was about the SCOTUS.
00 -
I support this. It's about time that we change something people has been accustomed of doing for years!
Jez | Personal injury lawyer00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.