Posted on 11/14/2014 5:45:28 AM PST by Petrosius
Yes. They are acting political. Not judicial.
Goes without saying, anything left of Obama is extremist conservative.
Paradoxically, the Court that has gutted minority voting rights in Shelby County and limited women’s access to birth control in Hobby Lobby “
And the court did NOT overturn the Voting Rights Act in Shelby, in spite of what liberals say about that case.
The court ruled that outdated formulas, statistics, population analysis, etc. had to be changed by Congress in order to keep the thrust of the Voting Rights Act in place.
Since Congress is/has been run by Republicans, this has not been done because it can’t be done in a way which liberals would approve of.
Liberals take the above facts and go off on emotional tangents, that “the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, because they are conservative, turning back the clock” when it was actually a legalistic technical ruling.
I don’t see her mentioning the Supreme Court, in homosexual marriage cases, has opened the door wide, in ruling that homosexual marriage will be recognized by the federal government. This action by the court spawned judicial activism in numerous lower courts, as they have ruled for homosexual marriage over and over, since the 2013 rulings by the Supreme Court.
I mention these cases because homosexual marriage is a liberal cause celebre. This writer is cherry picking certain cases to “prove” that the Court is “too conservative”, while ignoring rulings from the same court which were a liberal dream come true.
“The Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education had five members who had served in elected office. The Roberts Court has none.”
Roger Taney who authored the infamous Dred Scott decision had served as a state legislator, a state senator and then and then served as both Attorney General and Treasury Secretary of the United States. I think that he would be quite comfortable in the company of the Brown VS Board crew with those bona fides. Which shows that that the author’s premise about the current courts so called lack of qualifications is meaningless. This author should study his topic more because he sounds like an idiot which would qualify him perfectly for the New Republic.
My bad, I assumed the author is a he but the writer is a she. I figured anyone that dumb was a man since women are usually brighter than the article would imply.
. . . and the means of selection has to be different, too. I would suggest adding two SCOTUS justices selected as running mates of the presidential candidate, like the VP every four years - and those two justices be term-limited to 22 years.The court would end up with 11 rather than 9 justices as at present. It would go higher than that in the short run, but I wouldn’t favor having Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas, the three senior justices, term limit out while Clinton’s and Obama’s four picks all remain on the Court. We will be on defense in the selection of SCOTUS justices for a long time thanks to Obama, and to McCain who lost to him.
what a disgusting picture
The key there is FDR who did in fact stack the Federal Bench with hard left ideologue from which we got all the most expansive rulings and have never recovered.
That being said this lady is on powerful psychotic drugs if she thinks this is a particularly conservative federal court. No court that observes no meaningful limits upon their or federal power is either just or conservative in the american sense.
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.