Both Sides Are Exaggerating the Importance of Trump's Supreme Court Picks

[countryboy]

They have and they're right.

Nah, complete mischaracterization.

[Sergeant Gleed]

For Democrats, Trump's appointments are an incredibly harsh blow. They are watching a beloved institution get stacked by someone they absolutely loath. They are terrified that this will usher in an era of Republican legal dominance throughout the court system

You mean they're terrified that the courts will go back to the Constitution.

no more activist judges declaring a legally defined fine is a "tax" and thus the Congress can mandate the people purchase products in a part of the economy over which the Congress has no authority, and, in the process, the court's unlawful ruling violated the originations clause of the Constitution, too.

Suddenly, if the Rodents can't pass things through the legislature, they won't be able to ram it through the courts and their pet fascist judges.

Oh, boo hoo hoo, having courts that obey the law finally. I can understand why people stupid enough to vote for Hillary would be unhappy about a legal system that started obeying the law.

Conversely, Republicans are treating this as some kind of epic victory that will secure their political agenda for decades to come.

Yes, it is, because the American political agenda is to restore the Constitution to it's place as the final arbiter of the law.

Neither of them are right.

Clearly wrong.

The reason for this is simple: The supreme court is by far the weakest branch of the federal government. All they can do is issue opinions. They have no way to enforce those opinions themselves, relying instead on the various branches and levels of government to do it for them. The congress controls the money, so if they decide to defund a court decision, it is effectively null. And the executive has massive discretion over how it prioritizes the enforcement of laws and court decisions, which means it can let those decisions wither on the metaphorical vine so long as political circumstances permit them to do so. And even if the federal government did want to enforce the court's decisions, they rely heavily on the cooperation of State and local governments to give said enforcement body and soul. Probably the best example of this is the legalization of cannabis by American States. Without cooperation from State and local law enforcement, the federal government would be stretched too thin to make a real difference. Generally speaking, the court's decisions only extend so far as present political conditions, which can and do change from year-to-year and sometimes week to week. If the Democrats were to take control of the congress and the presidency at some point in the future, they could easily neuter Trump's supreme court.

Oh, suddenly, now that the courts are becoming cleaner (which means fewer Rodents and more Constitutional), they courts don't have any power...

...amazing.

So....when the USSC rules that the premise behind Roe V Wade is completely false and vacates the decision, what "defunding" with the Rodents do to "enforce" the ruling?

You DO know what the effect of the USSC throwing out that flawed decision will be, don't you?

I know you don't.

Prove I'm wrong.

Show me how the Rodents will "defund" that decision.

This will be good.

[Sergeant Gleed]

You are very wrong. That's what they're suppose to do and have done historically, but with Obama's appointments, the SC has been drifting into making law via their rulings.

I think Scalia's death should be reexamined because he was not part of that liberal $#@!-the-constitution cabal.

The muslim Marxist from Nairobi?

No, this crap started long long ago. Hie back to the fake case used to construct the Rodent's dream of American Apartheid aka "Jim Crow". There was no constitutional support for "separate but equal". The Rodents got pet judges to make law.

Then there was the Millar decision that started the Twentieth Century Gun Grabbing Frenzy. Took an activist judge to make up the $#@! arguments in that one.

That communist FDR was going to pack the court with as many extra judges as needed to get his communist Alphabet Soup scams declared valid. So the judges caved.

Busing in the sixties. No valid Constitutional argument can get the federal government to intervene in education, because the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority.

Roe v Wade. A pure trash decision, worse even than Dred Scott. Not one bit of Constitutional foundation there.

But the problems with the courts accelerated in the 60's and continue to the present.

That traitor Kenya made things worse, but he didn't build that. He never built anything. THAT is his legacy.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Yes, it does matter. How you van say it doesn't is beyond belief. Do you really believe a conservative court would have ruled the same in Row v Wade? Do you think gay marriage would have been legal in ever state with conservative court?

No. the liberals are right to be afraid. They should have a doctor within 3 feet of the old lady. She dies while Trump is President the liberals can fold their tents and leave the country.

You're the one fooling yourself.

I hear Michael Jackson's old doctor needs a job....

[Captdon]

Nah, complete mischaracterization.

Go talk to some Trump voters and see what they want. Read this forum and see what they want. We are not going for the status quo at all. We want rollbacks and that is what scares the liberals.


I don't know what Republicans want.

[Ethereal]

You mean they're terrified that the courts will go back to the Constitution.

I have no idea why they would be terrified of such. Republicans and their supreme court appointees routinely crap on the constitution.

no more activist judges declaring a legally defined fine is a "tax" and thus the Congress can mandate the people purchase products in a part of the economy over which the Congress has no authority, and, in the process, the court's unlawful ruling violated the originations clause of the Constitution, too.

Suddenly, if the Rodents can't pass things through the legislature, they won't be able to ram it through the courts and their pet fascist judges.

Oh, boo hoo hoo, having courts that obey the law finally. I can understand why people stupid enough to vote for Hillary would be unhappy about a legal system that started obeying the law.



Yes, it is, because the American political agenda is to restore the Constitution to it's place as the final arbiter of the law.



Clearly wrong.


Oh, suddenly, now that the courts are becoming cleaner (which means fewer Rodents and more Constitutional), they courts don't have any power...

...amazing.

So....when the USSC rules that the premise behind Roe V Wade is completely false and vacates the decision, what "defunding" with the Rodents do to "enforce" the ruling?

You DO know what the effect of the USSC throwing out that flawed decision will be, don't you?

I know you don't.

Prove I'm wrong.

Show me how the Rodents will "defund" that decision.

This will be good.

Why will it be good? The supreme court is the weakest branch of government. If the Democrats take control of the executive and legislative branches, the ones with all the power, what actual difference will the SCOTUS make?

[Chris]

Chris, most of us non-Liberals want a court that rolls back the liberal agenda as much as possible and doesn't go farther than it has already has.

We do want what you said but we want more than that. Trump voters are obviously not getting through to you if you believe that's all we want.

We in no way want to leave things the way they are and go no farther.

I think that will be a long, hard road. Liberals got away with pushing social justice from the 60s before anyone realized just what judicial activism meant.