You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read.

The Supreme Court from the moment of it's inception has been political.

In September 1789, on the same day that the Judiciary Act passed Congress, President Washington nominated the six justices to serve on the first Supreme Court. For Chief Justice, he chose John Jay, one of the leaders of Washington’s Federalist Party and one of the chief advocates of the Constitution and a strong federal government throughout the founding period. Washington’s other five nominees, including John Rutledge who would succeed Jay as the second Chief Justice six years later, were likewise staunch Federalists and allies of the president.

"You just believe whatever rightwing gibberish you happen to read"

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spews right-wing talking points? That's what you are saying?

Oh, I needed that laugh like you can't believe...

PeteF. is having a bad day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Understatement.

I also watched the liberal, angry hens all dressed in white and scowling all night like they got stood up at prom. They refused to cheer for low unemployment, wage growth, or crime reform, for opposing late-term abortions, for the first lady, and for cracking down on sex trafficking.

But when Trump expressed joy for the record number of women in congress, then they stood, cheered, hugged, and high-fived each other, and even chanted "USA! USA!". They celebrated their own success, but not anyone else's.

Very, very telling. Self absorbed a**holes.

You might be better off studying history than thinking just because an 85 year old person said something it's true.
To think the Supreme Court is apolitical is silly, though you can wish it.
When the Democrats win and increase the number of Supreme court justices to 15 and appoint them then you'll be whining.

Although that early Court did not hear nearly as many cases as would subsequent ones, those first decisions reflect its political make-up and perspective. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), for example, the court ruled 5-1 that federal courts had the power to supersede states’ “sovereign immunity” and hear disputes between citizens and the states.

The case and decision were so controversial that they led directly to the first post-Bill of Rights Constitutional Amendment, the 11th, which when ratified in early 1795 reasserted the states’ sovereign immunity to federal court decisions.

The Court’s first reorganization, less than a decade after Chisholm, was even more overtly tied to partisan and electoral politics. In the aftermath of the hotly contested presidential election of 1800, President John Adams and a lame duck Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices from 6 to 5 and instituted a number of other sweeping changes to the federal judiciary that would benefit the current President’s party, and disadvantage the incoming one. Although the act passed only 19 days before Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams and Congress filled as many open judgeships as possible, leading to the act’s popular nickname, the Midnight Judges Act.

Pete, the fact is, until recently, senators not in the presidents party usually voted to confirm SCOTUS nominees. they didn’t go berserk trying to block the other party’s nominees. the democrats changed that, and as usual, they didn’t like being on the receiving end of what they started.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are wrong, 37 times out of 115 justices who have served is not usually, in 11 cases they were rejected in Senate roll call votes, in 11 cases the President withdrew the nominee and 15 lapsed at the end of a Senate session.

pete, here are the results of the senate votes since 1965

https://projects.newsday.com/databas...ourt-nominees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nonsensical meltdown
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there anybody else who discovered Kyrsten Sinema last night?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As has been said before you can make it work by defining the dates to get the results you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you have a wet dream?
She’d probably love to peg you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PeteF. The wet dreams stopped around 40 years ago. Thanks for the offer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump continued his attack on the intelligence and justice systems, threatening no legislation if they continue investigations, I guess it was time to come up with a new catch phrase; no collusion was getting old. The arrogance of this guy is unbelievable.

i thought hisnline attacking the investigations was awful, as was his line that we’d be at war with NK if he hadn’t won. two awful lines that never should
have been in there. i liked the rest, as did a huge majority of
americans, even according to cnn and cbs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device