State of the union?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I laugh when I hear people claim that Bork and Kavanaugh were choirboys "

You're hearing voices again, no one ever said that. Maybe take off your tin foil hat once in awhile to air out the cobwebs between your ears.

I said Bork was qualified, and was the first nominee to be rejected for political reasons. You may not like that. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Before Bork, it was understood that if the POTUS nominated someone who was qualified, both partied would support the nomination. It wasn't a purely political exercise like it is now.

Untrue other nominees were rejected or never reviewed
It has always been a political exercise, not a rubber stamp
And it was not designed as such
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Untrue other nominees were rejected or never reviewed
It has always been a political exercise, not a rubber stamp
And it was not designed as such
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fascinating. You know more about the confirmation process than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who complained last year at how political it has become, she noted that Scalia got confirmed unanimously, and her vote was 96-3.

She should have consulted you. You could have told her that it's always been political, even though only 3 voted against her.

You just make it up as you go along.



https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/...gress_justice/

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fascinating. You know more about the confirmation process than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who complained last year at how political it has become, she noted that Scalia got confirmed unanimously, and her vote was 96-3.

She should have consulted you. You could have told her that it's always been political, even though only 3 voted against her.

You just make it up as you go along.



https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/...gress_justice/

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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...

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.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

Nonsensical meltdown
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device