Posted on 02/09/2016 6:58:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Considering how little the Supreme Court has been mentioned in election debates, a space alien might conclude that it’s the “least dangerous” branch of government.
A Gallup poll released on October 2, 2015 indicates that 50 percent of Americans “disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job,” a drop of 12 points since 2001.
A CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted from June 10-14, 2015 asked 1,007 adults nationwide:
“In general, do you think the current Supreme Court justices decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal or political views, or do you think they sometimes let their own personal or political views influence their decisions?
75 percent responded: “personal, political views”
16 percent responded: “just legal analysis.”
With those results and the likelihood that the next president will appoint two or three justices to the Court, it would be refreshingly relevant to hear a debate moderator ask the following of candidates:
“Let me quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 78, and then ask each of you to respond to two questions”:
‘Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.’
“Questions: Do you think the judiciary is the 'least dangerous' to our constitutional rights, and what are your criteria for choosing nominees to the Supreme Court who will not “annoy or injure” our rights?”
There were no such questions during the three-hour ABC News New Hampshire Republican debate
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
He is inconsistent.
He once said that he liked Clarence Thomas a lot.
He also said that his partial birth abortion supporting sister, a judge at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court jsutice.
Ah yes the old lie the Conservative Establishment trots out this every 4 years. “Got to vote how we want you to so we have the Court”.
Oh really? Well we gave you the whole Government from 2001 to 2006 and look at the Court we got for our efforts? A Pro Obama care, pro Gay Marriage judicial activist court!
Thanks for nothing GOPE.
RE: Well we gave you the whole Government from 2001 to 2006 and look at the Court we got for our efforts?
We got half and half. We got Samuel Alito ( Great) and John Roberts ( who was a disappointment with Obamacare but made the right decision on the gay marriage issue ).
And of course, the justice who gave us gay marriage is none other than the Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy.
Supreme Court Justices don’t have to be judges or lawyers. Trump might be willing to appoint someone who has never been a lawyer or judge. That may or may not be a good thing.
Trump says his pro-abortion sister would make ‘phenomenal’ Supreme Court justice
We need Ted Cruz to make these appointments. I believe that Cruz’s criteria for a Supreme Court Justice would be different than Trump’s or any of the GOPee candidates. hillary, bernie or biden’s first choice would probably be van jones.
Between Jeb's father and brother
List of Judges who screwed us
David Souter , father of Kelo v. City of New London
It would hurt Jeb on his Eminent domain against Trump. Souter made it the law of the Land.
Then we have Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote law on Obamacare
Appointed by GW Bush and supported heavy by writings by Ted Cruz. see National Review article ( so called conservative Journal)
It bothered me when Trump said that about his sister, but I seriously doubt he’d really consider appointing or nominating family to key positions. Here’s why: in a recent interview (Jesse Watters?) he was asked if he’d appoint children to cabinet positions and after saying how great they would be, he said (paraphrasing): “but no, I wouldn’t do that, it wouldn’t look right”. He repeated it several times, so I think he gets it that appointing family like JFK did, would be inappropriate. In that context, I can chalk up any positive comments about his sister’s qualifications as kind words in the interest of maintaining good family relations - a lot of people would have said the same, I think!
Also, I’ve seen his interviews from years ago when he was pro choice - even then he went out of his way to say it was because at the time he thought it was a woman’s right - but that he hated abortion itself. Since then he says he has ‘evolved’ due to witnessing people that he is close to facing that decision, and learning more about when life begins. I think he’s in good company on that score too.
I do agree that the scotus question is a question that should have been asked in the debates!
And the last refuge of the scoundrels that will be pestering us will be that we need to do it for the Supreme Court justices.
In anticipation, I say to all my fellow Freepers who would vote for someone like Jeb Bush just because Supreme Court:
Screw you!
RE: It bothered me when Trump said that about his sister, but I seriously doubt he’d really consider appointing or nominating family to key positions.
I’m not talking about a family member, I’m more concerned with someone who is LIKE his sister.
That is my opinion as well.
The Donald, suddenly, after a lifetime as a pro-abort, discovered that he wanted to run as a "Republican" for POTUS. That ambition is not available to open pro-aborts in the GOP however much the GOP-E may fervently wish it were.
What to do, given that The Donald was on record as favoring even partial birth abortion? The Donald constructed a useful fantasy to feed to zombies who might support him and yet, inexplicably, were "PRO-LIFERS" and generally outside his personal acquaintance or experience.
The Donald spun a tale that he suddenly realized that he had been wrong on abortion while bouncing the REALLY AMAZING infant of a friend in his lap. Surely this REALLY AMAZING child ought not to have been aborted and thankfully was not. This would not survive unless the lamestream media were determined that this vulgar buffoon be the GOP nominee. The lamestream media IS his Superpac and no fundraisers are necessary. If and when he has secured the GOP nomination, that will change dramatically. See the 2012 campaign experience of Romney, Moral Monster Mitt.
Media with integrity wuld ask:
a) Mr. Trump, did you ever hold your own infants in your lap? Most were born before you expressed your commitment to Partial Birth Abortion and described yourself as being as "pro-choice" as anyone in the USA.
b) Or were your own kids not REALLY AMAZING? What made, makes them inferior to that REALLY AMAZING infant responsible for converting you?
c) Do kids who are just ordinary and not REALLY AMAZING also deserve to live? If not, why not?
True, yet to always seem to forget THEY have the authority/power to tell the Courts what they CAN/NOT touch.
Funny how that is, no?
More ‘Fun With the Constitution’ D.C. loves to play w/ We the People as they feign, “We T-R-I-E-D”.
Define “just legal analysis”.
IMO, that’s even worse than their personal views, as they nary use the Constitution for the basis of any ‘analysis’ to even insinuate ‘legality’.
50+ pages of lawyer-ese, citing case upon case of precedent. Never to they begin “The Constitution states...”; which would make most/every case 3 pages, 2x-spaced.
Just a revolving door of bloviation: law > layer > judge >...
Fair enough, but I don’t think he’ll do that either.
I’ve been firmly anti-choice all my life; I guess I’ve always known there is a human life from conception, so to me it’s murder unless self defense. But my wife (who has always felt the same) is a midwife who has delivered thousands of babies, and she encounters many, many people who were pro choice and converted to pro life after seeing an ultrasound. It is unfathomable to you and me, but many people were/are able to convince themselves that it is just non living tissue they are discarding. Maybe it helps them sleep at night, I don’t know.
In any case, when someone joins the ranks of pro-life, I say let’s welcome them - it’s what we want right? - to have them see the light? I understand being suspicious when it’s a candidate for POTUS, but for whatever reason, I choose to believe him. I hope I’m not wrong.
You clearly don’t believe him, and that is your choice. I know of plenty of people who have changed there view after first seeing an ultrasound.its amazing to me that it would take that much to convince them there is a human life from conception, but I welcome them to the pro life side rather than saying what took you so long or doubting their sincerity.
True, someone running for President as a Republican has a motive to lie about it but I’ve listened to him discuss it and I choose to believe him - hope I’m not wrong.
there=their
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.