Posted on 07/03/2018 8:07:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What concerns me is the prevalent media and man-in-the-street attitude toward the judiciary. The liberal establishment has for a long time turned the courts into an alternative unelected legislature, with which to obtain decisions and pass “laws” that it could never ram through congress.
I’m afraid conservatives have adopted the same strategy with less than stellar results, considering the perfidiousness of CJ Roberts’ writings on Supreme Court cases. This tactic is fraught with danger for the republic, resulting in an overblown reliance upon judicial decisions which affect the everyday lives of millions of Americans, and disrupting the checks and balances that were supposed to exist between the three branches of government.
The media, both conservative and liberal alike, are going bananas over these picks, and dragging the populace along with them. We don’t need a high octane judiciary. We need a return to reality and respect for the Constitution as written, and a push to seriously consider shorter terms for supreme court justices.
Forty years or more as a justice is just a recipe for more abuse of power, especially where the executive and legislative branches are daily being weakened by special interests and outright sabotage. It would also be a breath of fresh air if future nominees were not exclusively culled from the population of law school graduates.
This perverse reliance upon the law degree as the litmus test for congressional as well as judicial nominees and candidacies has contributed substantially to the sickness existing within our governmental institutions today, and we all know why that is.
Stupid....who they clerked for doesn’t mean anything.
It's a mistake to nominate somebody for a 30-40 year gig based on a current issue.
I’ll wait until Trump announces then back his decision.......
Re: Kethledge
“Conservatives Concerned: Judge on Trump’s SCOTUS Shortlist Could Be Next Anthony Kennedy”
One more woman would make it four women, five men.
Trump should pick the best nominee, and not pay any attention to gender, faith or race.
What I meant was, if a woman was placed there now, soon one of the women already there, perhaps Ruth, would leave, and they would have hissy fit demonstrations declaring the replacement would HAVE to be a woman.
Sorry I wasn’t clear.
The issue would be the erroneous thought process that lead to those ruling perhaps leading to other rulings.
So he ruled the right way but some are concerned about his reasoning? Interesting.
They will try to make hay out of this on Kethledge:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/36022/14962
Go to page 9 after opening it up.
They will try to make hay out of this on Kethledge:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/36022/14962
Go to page 9 after opening it up.
They will try to make hay out of this on Kethledge:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/36022/14962
Go to page 9 after opening it up.
They will try to make hay out of this on Kethledge:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/36022/14962
Go to page 9 after opening it up.
They will try to make hay out of this on Kethledge:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/36022/14962
Go to page 9 after opening it up.
The party most to blame for disruption of the checks and balances between the three branches is the legislative branch. They write legislation that empowers executive agencies to draw up regulations out of wholecloth, and fail to impeach judges who legislate from the bench. They hold the purse strings to starve any department they choose and can re-size the federal judiciary any time they please...and yet they never assert any of their checks or balances.
Yes you are correct. The legislative branch has been divesting itself of its constitutionally-mandated authorities and handing them over to the judiciary for some time now. That’s the mechanics. Truly devious to the nth degree. Satanic and demonic.
I see concerns about each candidate mentioned.
4 more days
Some of the unmentioned seem solid
Gruender
Hmmm. Opposite of Gorsuch. The later ruled the WRONG way but a bunch of FReepers defended it tooth-and-nail because his "reasoning" in the concurrence was "like Scalia"
Even though the Scalia decision was 8-1, the Gorusch decision was 5-4, and NONE of the four conservative judges who actually served with Scalia voted the same way as they had done with the earlier Scalia decision, and NONE of them agreed the Scalia decision applied to the current case they were considering or involved the same sort of precedent at all.
Oh well. Obviously Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, and Anthony Kennedy were ALL wrong, and Gorsuch was doing the right thing by voting with the four commies on the court. No doubt Scalia would be proud that Gorsuch was the lone GOP judge who helped score a victory for the Ruth Bader Ginsburg wing. < / sarcasm>
As I recall Gorsuch’s reasoning in his concurring opinion WAS sound.
Would Justice Impy rule the right way politically even if I thought that was wrong legally? Maybe, probably. On a big issue, most definitely, for example I’d ignore the Illinois Constitution on pensions on the grounds of “it’s not a suicide pact”. On this case? Probably would have voted the other way too, yeah. But I respect Gorsuch not doing so.
In any case it didn’t worry me about Gorsuch at all.
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.