I can see both sides, but who are the people that are willing to

rons1®

All-TigerNet [12592]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 6312

Joined: 12/24/15

Re: A few places

Mar 20, 2024, 2:50 PM [ in reply to A few places ]

Catahoula® said:

First, is there a vocal Democratic push for Sotomayer to step down? If so, do you have sources?

Next, you chose three professors and their statements, and in one example, they were met with laughter at their suggestion. They're also... you know, professors. Not people with any sway over these decisions.

So you've done very little to prove this:

The left is determined to push a progressive agenda by attacking the Court for not giving them what they can't convince Congress to give them.

I'm also going to ask: Do you have a problem if Sotomayer steps down for this purpose considering what happened with Garland?

All the danger to our democracy is from the right we are led to believe. I do not believe that.

I think most intelligent people realize that extremism from either side is a danger. And you haven't given quantifiable evidence of some grand scheme coming from universities or this crowd. Just three professors.

Did a source inspire you on this post?

And finally, the crash and burn:

The lefties are highly educated which makes them potentially more dangerous in the long term as they control universities and have a much more prominent role in the MSM.

So... are you saying that the righties aren't highly educated? Wouldn't stupid people be dangerous? Probably moreso? Haven't we gotten where we are as a species with smart people?

And... where did all these intelligent conservative judges and lawyers come from?

1-I would not characterize this as a highly vocal Dem push for Sotomayor to step down, but several non conservative outlets are reporting this such as WAPO, Politico and The Atlantic.

2-I think it goes without saying that the left has for years utilized the courts to influence or attempt to influence public policy. In the Bloomberg Law article on this matter, Molly Coleman, the executive director of the People's Parity Project, a progressive group, is cited as stating that the Supreme Court has become the ultimate policy-making body in the country. That is the problem in my opinion. The Supreme Court should be ruling on the legality of public policies, NOT making public policy.

3- It would probably be smart for Sotomayor to step down and for Biden to appoint another Constitution is fluid liberal that is decades younger. This murmur amongst some Dems and Progressives will only get louder if Biden's poll numbers do not improve. I would prefer all the SCOTUS justices be more committed to ruling on the law instead of making law, but this is Biden's time as the legally elected President and he is free to choose whomever he wants if Sotomayor stands down.

4-I never stated there was a grand scheme or conspiracy coming from our universities or elite legal institutions, but you are naive if you don't think that these institutions have a significant role in shaping our future leaders including those in the legal profession.

5- Multiple sources caused me to submit the OP.Some to the considerable Right and some to the considerable Left.

6-The Right holds significantly less sway in academia than the Left. One without a lot of effort can prove that. I'll leave that to you. People with less education, without necessarily being less intelligent, do not hold the power or influence that the educated class does and hence I think is potentially more dangerous. However, that does not make me anti education, quite the contrary.

7-The Ivy League Law schools that 8 of the justices attended and Notre Dame where Amy Coney Barrett graduated are likely much more liberal than they were when the justices graduated. I can't prove that conclusively, but I do know that YLS, where one of my kids graduated is incredibly liberal, I suspect much more so than when any of the current judges finished.

Lastly, I don't recall a conservative Senator pulling a Schumer. I don't recall a Republican President disrespecting the SCOTUS in a SOTU address. I don't recall some Pubs advocating for stacking the Court as some Dems have done so.

It is dangerous when it is becoming acceptable to denigrate the Court, a body with equal standing to Congress and the President.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

The reason many - I'm not going to say "all", since there's some clear whack jobs masquerading as university professors - folks are trying to get Sotomayor to step down is because right now the Dems have both the Senate and the Presidency and that may not happen again for awhile, and she's 69, with significant health problems. What happened with Ginsberg still haunts them. It's exactly why Stephen Breyer was pressured to retire.

Turning the Supreme Court into a politicized office - as McConnell did when he cynically manipulated Senate rules to essentially steal not one but two seats from the Dems - was stupid, dangerous, and has led to a massive, often capricious, and legally questionable set of highly controversial decisions that the majority - often as much as 65%+, as in the abortion issue - of the US do not agree with.

The absolute last thing you want is a Supreme Court justice being so overtly political they're literally doing public speeches for actual lobbies like Heritage Foundation, or hanging out with highly political active billionaires like Leonard Leo who have regular business before the very court that then judges interests tied directly to those billionaires fortunes. But members of our court are now doing exactly that.

But the real problem with the Court isn't its ideology, the problem is that it's been bought, and by the same people that now also own our politicians. I'm particularly suspicious of the People vs. Citizens United decision that effectively changed the US from an ailing democracy into an outright oligarchy when they legalized dark money. And hardly coincidentally, right after that 2011 decision, Congress's dysfunction kicked into overdrive, as in a single stroke politicians then took their marching orders directly from moneyed interests the public does not even know those politicians are beholden to...and doing increasingly performative public theater - often culture-war based - as red meat to the masses to distract from what they were actually doing. I mentioned on a number of occasions well before all these revelations about Thomas, Alito, and Roberts that there was zero chance that the billionaire backers of a lot of these lobbies that Citizens United gave immense unaccountable power to just had sat passively on their hands and let the Court come to its own decision. I thought - actually, I was morally certain - that they had bought the Court, and now we know they did. And they did it right out in the open and in the plain light of day, as it happened. And now the Court is telling us: "what the #$%& can you do about it, losers? We have lifetime appointments. So sukk it."

And the answer basically is: We The People can't do a bloody thing. Politicians would have to pass laws changing accountability for Supreme Court justices, and thanks to Citizens United, politicians are now almost wholly owned by their dark-money donors. Until We The People break that hold, we're essentially in a death spiral. But who's even talking about that with all this culture-war BS raging to distract us?

In any rational system, we'd have three left-leaning judges appointed by the Dems, three right-leaning judges appointed by the GOP, and three centrist judges appointed by a third party, by either the bar itself or some sort of consensus of the Federal judiciary. And those judges would be governed by a code of conduct that would instantly disbar them (as it would any other judge who is not on the Supreme Court) if it's broken.

We don't have that. At all. And there is no viable path I see to achieving a balanced, independent court. Our system had a hole in it, that hole was exploited by moneyed interests, and now here we are.

The Best and the Brightest

Re: The Best and the Brightest

Has there been a Robert's court ruling that wasn't finely tailored?***

Re: Has there been a Robert's court ruling that wasn't finely tailored?***

Gotta save democracy.***

Vs. The Worst and the Stupidest?

Re: Vs. The Worst and the Stupidest?

A few places

Re: A few places

You seem to have missed the complete point of my post

Re: A few places

I think you hit mostly correct statements about the Dems/left here

Re: Vs. The Worst and the Stupidest?

Why the fear mongering? This is the most conservative court

Re: Why the fear mongering? This is the most conservative court

Re: Why the fear mongering? This is the most conservative court

100% on the higher confirmation votes. When you get the 51-49s, that does

Every once in awhile...***

Yep, both parties have made the court a stupid political battle***

I don't think all of the threat to our democracy is from the right...

Re: I don't think all of the threat to our democracy is from the right...

Was the interruption to the electoral count on J6 a threat to democracy?

Re: Was the interruption to the electoral count on J6 a threat to democracy?

Re: Was the interruption to the electoral count on J6 a threat to democracy?

I would also add that too many folks buy into the term "democracy"

Re: Was the interruption to the electoral count on J6 a threat to democracy?

You don't think the fact that the POTUS...

Re: You don't think the fact that the POTUS...

Do you agree that he needs to be removed if found guilty?***

Re: Do you agree that he needs to be removed if found guilty?***

Very well said, and spot on.***

Re: The Best and the Brightest

And what's the treasonous part here?

Times have changed.

TigerBoard POTD