Why Are Republicans Running From Their Greatest Accomplishments

[MDC 7,484]

1 minute ago, Reality said:

They didn't, until last election when somebody filled it out for them. Keep up dumb dumb.

Muh fraud!   

[Reality 3,121]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Muh fraud!   

Biden, most popular president ever. 

[dogcows 1,030]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Back to the OP topic, I applaud having a conservative court because I think that high courts should lean conservative.  Changing the law of the land should not be done lightly, for instance just because it is a politically woke position du jour.  We have very tough rules to create a constitutional amendment for this purpose; the courts should have a similar stringency.  Our country has been successful in part because, independent of parties, SCOTUS has never been super progressive.  I'm not saying change is bad; in fact it's good.  I'm just saying that it should happen slowly.

Basically Chesterton's fence:  don't tear down a fence without knowing fully why it is there and what purpose it serves.

Anyway, my desire for a conservative court has never had anything to do with Roe, even though I oppose abortion as birth control or eugenics.  I believe that both sides in Dobbs argued that there was no middle ground; the court should stick with Roe or not.  They chose "not".

I could be wrong but I don't think Dobbs was as much about sending it back to the states as it was saying it should be legislative, not judicial.  I wouldn't mind a federal statute protecting some of the edge cases (10 yr old rape victim, life of the mother or viability of the fetus, etc.).  Then let the states choose their limits for abortions of convenience.

Right now, the court is the most partisan I’ve ever seen. For decades, we’ve generally seen incremental change. Clearly, although the court had a conservative majority in the past few decades, they were judicious in what cases they took. They also tried to make their rulings narrow.

What we have now is a court willing to completely overturn precedents established for 50 years (or over 100 in the most recent gun case which also disregarded Scalia’s statements in Heller from 2008). One could argue that overturning Roe was overturning a prior court decision, so maybe? But this court is also overturning a lot of laws passed by Congress using very flimsy reasoning, and in stark departure from long-held precedent.

Another example of the clearly political turn they’ve taken was the football coach prayer case. The court disregarded the fact that the coach had not, in fact, been fired. He resigned. A decision can have political ramifications, but it cannot ignore basic facts of the case in order to procure a desire political outcome. That case in many ways was an even more obvious sign than the Roe decision that the court is aggressively pursuing a political agenda, and is positioning itself as a super-legislature.

Well, that’s how I see it anyway….

[Bill E. 703]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:11 PM, IGotWorms said:

I just think it’s odd, it’s your greatest accomplishment in decades—maybe ever—and you can’t even defend it? Seems weird. Why not say “hell yeah we’re gonna make abortion illegal and accomplish a bunch of other right wing stuff too!! ”

It is just like when Dems that were for de-funding the police or "re-imagining policing" are all the sudden coming across as all for law and order.  Or how they are now saying they want a secure border.  They are all trying to pick up the middle undecided vote. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,492]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

Right now, the court is the most partisan I’ve ever seen. For decades, we’ve generally seen incremental change. Clearly, although the court had a conservative majority in the past few decades, they were judicious in what cases they took. They also tried to make their rulings narrow.

What we have now is a court willing to completely overturn precedents established for 50 years (or over 100 in the most recent gun case which also disregarded Scalia’s statements in Heller from 2008). One could argue that overturning Roe was overturning a prior court decision, so maybe? But this court is also overturning a lot of laws passed by Congress using very flimsy reasoning, and in stark departure from long-held precedent.

Another example of the clearly political turn they’ve taken was the football coach prayer case. The court disregarded the fact that the coach had not, in fact, been fired. He resigned. A decision can have political ramifications, but it cannot ignore basic facts of the case in order to procure a desire political outcome. That case in many ways was an even more obvious sign than the Roe decision that the court is aggressively pursuing a political agenda, and is positioning itself as a super-legislature.

Well, that’s how I see it anyway….

Wowen and blacks Didn’t have the right to vote. That was a precedent, longer than 50 years. Do you have a problem with them overturning those ones, and so many other precedents? Roe/ Wade was a bad precedent.  Your girl RBG even said so.  

[Voltaire 5,317]

4 hours ago, dogcows said:

 But this court is also overturning a lot of laws passed by Congress using very flimsy reasoning, and in stark departure 

Which precedents are on your mind here? Not saying you’re wrong, I know the courts do this. This is how opponents of Obamacare tried to get it off the books after all. A few months ago, Michigan’s courts decided to toss out Michigan’s 1930s era abortion law for transparently partisan political  reasons on grounds fabricated entirely from their imagination. 
 

Although I am loving the direction of SCOTUS lately, I remain of the opinion that laws should be made by the legislative branch, not the courts, and so I wonder which cases you are thinking of here. 

I mean, ahead warp zillion on re-evaluating precedent based on incorrectly decided prior court cases or executive orders so far as I am concerned, but legislation… that was/is for the elected branches accountable to the people to decide, not for appointed court members to dictate by fiat.

It’s bullsh1t how that end-around has been abused in our lifetime and I am not going to change my mind on that just because its being done by a SCOTUS that makes decisions that I like better.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Regardless of which way you think the court should fall politically:

The Supreme Court (much like every political position in the country) should have term limits. We should not have career politicians like Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi or any of these people running around. For Supreme Court I would say you get maybe 10 years. Then you get replaced. Make it a hard and fast rule and that at least attempts to stop gaming the system of getting in the people you want or trying to play fast and loose with the rules about nominating people and when to nominate them.