Is it time to restore the Supreme Court to legitimacy?

This is interesting, I still don't see the connection you are making with democracy here but I do understand your appreciation of the system. I don't think one can have true freedom without true democracy, but you can have a democracy without freedom.

A truly democratic government is the arm of the people, therefore there should be no need to protect people from themselves, what is really the government overreach here? How is this the ultimate pro-democracy institution, I still don't see it.

 

They seem to be doing ok
They winning more than the Demos. ..

Rocket River

 

wow. this is a big topic. The founders were COMPLETELY mistrustful of government. They had just gone through a revolution to get rid of a bad government. They had experimented with a sort of laissez-faire approach to government with the Articles of Confederation and that was a fail. Going back to the drawing board they knew they needed stronger medicine but were aware of the risks in creating the governmental equivalent of a Frankenstein monster.*

*aside: Frankenstein wasn't written until 1818, so pardon the anachronistic reference.

They created a structure that provided the strength the Articles couldn't give them, but spread all the power around (checks and balances) so that no one branch of the government could threaten the entire "body politic."

but like I said, huge subject.

 

ignore at your peril

 

What does it mean when the process of the ultimate pro-democracy institution is gamed in a way that leads to unequal representation for the people based on ideology and political affiliation?

Why was an elected president not allowed to select a justice, and what is the legitimacy of a system at the point that the foundational process was corrupted from the founders' intent.

I understand this is how the American system was set up, and I'm not saying it was without merit, but our governmental system isn't the sole embodiment of democracy, and disruption or threat to an aspect of the system isn't necessarily a threat to democracy itself.

 

it doesn't mean anything. the Court is not Congress. Congress is proportional representation. The Court is not

he did select a justice nominee. The Senate declined to act on its confirmation role.

not sure I follow, unless you're referring to the "elected president not allowed to select a justice," in which case I disagree that the "process was corrupted."

 

and again, please recall this was simply a calculated risk on the part of the Republicans in the Senate. They were anticipating a Clinton presidency. I'm guessing they believed Clinton would nominate someone less wacky than Garland (which is not too bad a guess, the Clintons as power brokers have always been very pragmatic, whereas Obama sometimes was anything but). This was Scalia that Obama was replacing. Garland was an extremely risky choice.

When Trump won, they won the lottery.

Remember: Hillary had one job. Not to screw it up.

 

How was the process not corrupted when the senate refused to process a judge for Obama due to it being "an election year" but did so for Trump in a shorter time?

And this seems like kangaroo court, hardily sounds like the process and calculations for a institution that is viewed by some to be the ultimate pro democracy body.


What's not kangaroo court is that avatar, sharp, all business.

 

you and I must have different definitions of corruption. There is no law requiring the Senate to fulfill its "advise and consent" role nor is the question of "when" addressed constitutionally. The Senate Judiciary Committee sat on its hands, and it worked out for them.

you got it

 

there are some people who speculate that had Clinton won, the Senate might have still confirmed Garland before her inauguration. I don't buy that theory myself, but it has been floated from time to time

 

I’m glad I know where you stand so I don’t have to waste time replying to most of your BS. Do you care at all about the direction this country is headed? These academics, most likely have never worked a real blue collar job in their life… you go throw 120 pound bags of rice at the port then come back and tell me after six months how you feel about this ****ing country.

 

lol. you don't know me, you don't know my background. Once again you speak from a 100% position of ignorance.

 

I did that at 18 just reading all posts here you are one of the most full of crap out of touch asswipes on this forum. @Commodore @MojoMan you ****-suckers are pretty close…

Now I’m done…

 

lol, I rather doubt that, but it's good to set goals for oneself

 

Would have if you didn’t response. Go back and defend Uncle Thomas and I’ll pay this no mind.

Would also love to hear your hard day at work though LOL…

 

hey, you're back!!! I missed you

 

Have you ever cut your own lawn? Lol…ok I do have to go and work a real job in the morning so I’ll let the rest ride. ****ing boomers…

 

well, as a boomer I worked my way through college loading and unloading UPS trucks to pay for school. Nowadays we cry that Biden isn't giving us our student loan forgiveness

 

So are you "crying" about the far right Supreme Court majority taking away the 50 years of settled law that was Roe, a direct assault on the rights of just over 50% of the citizens of our country?

How about the poor women of America who are working those kinds of jobs, not in hopes of paying to go to college, or even in hopes of paying for their children to go to college, but simply to pay the rent and put food on the table? What if they find themselves pregnant, unplanned and with 2 or 3 kids already? Unable to take off work to drive hundreds of miles to another state to get an abortion? Where are your "tears" for them?