Results 1 to 12 of 63

Threaded View

  1. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,358
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Here's the right answer while waiting for HRs wife to reply. US Supreme Court justices do not advertise their party affiliation because they're not supposed to consider partisan ideology when making decisions. Unfortunately, see my remarks above where certain justices vote party line most of the time on big issues.

    Of course, they're party affiliated. They still have the right to vote after being elected as justice. They're just not supposed to brag about it or let it influence their decisions but as we see they do and it does influence them.


    The president appoints the justices so that makes it politically affiliated right there. Presidents campaign to put judges in with their views. Boosters support candidates just to get justices in with their views. Look at the judges on the left especially the last two put in by OBY, extreme liberals - Kagen, Sottlemeyer plus Ginsberg before that. All DEMs all the time at least in all the major decisions like this one.

    Nixon got a bunch of conservative judges in that is affecting the court now like in this last decision however, it's now more difficult to put conservatives in. Reagan nominated Borke, a Christian conservative and the liberals in congress blocked him out. He then nominated Kennedy who was moderate and more to their liking and was unanimously confirmed, and he is always called the swing vote because he voted liberal on so many decisions. He was expected to on O BUMMER CARE but Roberts turned out to be the swing vote.

    Same thing with Roberts. W thought he was putting a conservative in. Then again maybe he wasn't because he has crossed the line, same as Kennedy and in the most important decision of our life time - OBUMMER CARE.

    It was funny but Karl Rove was on the nominating committee for a judge that recommended to Bush. Rove asked who he most respected that served on the court. He named a guy who wavered on many issues not siding with any one group and that's what he became but W still thought he was getting a conservative to placate those who elected him.

    Same with Souter. His pop nominated Souter who was supposed to be a conservative. They grilled him with the questions and he almost dropped out when again, Congress DEMs tried to stonewall him but he answered the questions the way the conservatives wanted but then rebelled once on the bench.

    Finally he gets in and voted liberal most of the time including the Florida re-count after the Bush-Gore election. His fellow GOPs voted for Bush but he voted against the family that put him in. However, when he retired he met with the conservative branch to see how long they would still be there and they said a while longer, enough time for another GOP to come in and maintain the balance of power. In
    the end he cared or somewhat care for the GOP ideology.

    In short, make no mistake about it. These are party affiliated positions and people are nominated by presidents who think their decisions will inflict his party's views at least on the major cases.

    It doesn't work that way as we have seen.

    That's the way it is.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 02:39 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland