Turning the Supreme Court into just another political institution

[pjohns]

Some people are now--believe it or not!--picketing Brett Kavanaugh, to try to persuade him to vote a certain way in an upcoming abortion case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).

But I suppose that I really should not be especially shocked. After all, those on the left frequently view the Supreme Court as just some sort of superlegislature (which is certainly not what the Founders had in mind)...

[Jeb!]

Whatever the picket signs say, I'm sure it's not "follow the Constitution!"

[Dr. Who]

Some people are now--believe it or not!--picketing Brett Kavanaugh, to try to persuade him to vote a certain way in an upcoming abortion case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).

But I suppose that I really should not be especially shocked. After all, those on the left frequently view the Supreme Court as just some sort of superlegislature (which is certainly not what the Founders had in mind)...

So long as drafting amendments to the Constitution is politically impossible due to polarization, SCOTUS will continue to have to deal with the hot potatoes and will continue to be politically stacked obviating its use as a neutral arbiter of Constitutional issues.

[DGUtley]

So long as drafting amendments to the Constitution is politically impossible due to polarization, SCOTUS will continue to have to deal with the hot potatoes and will continue to be politically stacked obviating its use as a neutral arbiter of Constitutional issues.

Isn’t that it’s role?

[carolina73]

Attempting to intimidate judges by going after their family is not a civil tactic and the snowflakes deserve some uncivil responses.

[RMNIXON]

Isn’t that it’s role?

Dr. Who is making excuses for the independent role of SCOTUS to no longer even exist. And why did that not shock me in the least?

[RMNIXON]

Attempting to intimidate judges by going after their family is not a civil tactic and the snowflakes deserve some uncivil responses.

This will be the trend of the future if we keep sliding into the Direction of Social Justice, or should I say MOB Rules Justice!

[pjohns]

So long as drafting amendments to the Constitution is politically impossible due to polarization, SCOTUS will continue to have to deal with the hot potatoes and will continue to be politically stacked obviating its use as a neutral arbiter of Constitutional issues.

Liberals complain of "polarization" when what they really mean is liberals' inability to get their own way, due to significant pushback.

[Dr. Who]

Isn’t that it’s role?

It's difficult to achieve neutrality when justices are being chosen based on their political leanings and that is because of the lack of clarity in the Constitution itself, which could be remedied by amendment, if politics were not so polarized. SCOTUS is being asked to do what the law makers are incapable of doing and then being accused of legislating from the bench.

[DGUtley]

It's difficult to achieve neutrality when justices are being chosen based on their political leanings and that is because of the lack of clarity in the Constitution itself, which could be remedied by amendment, if politics were not so polarized. SCOTUS is being asked to do what the law makers are incapable of doing and then being accused of legislating from the bench.

It’s actually not that complicated. I forget what the rate is but I believe it’s an extremely high rate that they have a great percentage of agreement. It is on the highly political cases that everybody screams about. Our constitution is a beautiful thing. With two schools of thought on how it should be interpreted. His arm wrestling is good for our country.