The Supreme Court faces an existential crisis of legitimacy

[BidenPresident]

The constitution is silent on abortion.

As is the Bible. It is mostly coming from the Catholic Church. The one where priests rape little boys.

[Nordberg]

As is the Bible. It is mostly coming from the Catholic Church. The one where priests rape little boys.

They are experts on raping children. They are a good source.

[Nordberg]

The Supremes have always had some slant. They are putting people on the court. However, the court was not designed to deliberately have a far right, super Christian slant. This is not normal for the court. The Federalist Society and rightys are changing the court into a right wing body. They are directing it via selecting people with their own slants,

[McRocket]

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it better than any of the court’s external critics. "Will this institution survive the stench this creates in the public perception, that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked during oral arguments on Mississippi’s abortion law on Wednesday. “If people believe this is all politics, how will we survive? How will this court survive?”

This has been going on for a LOT longer than just Trump's Presidency.

The SCOTUS has been shifting to a political-based group of judges for decades.

Not only is this bad for the country?
It is against their oath(s) that they took.
They swore to follow and uphold the Constitution.

That means you make decisions NOT based on your feelings, your politics, what scholars say, what you think the Founding Fathers meant...ONLY on what the Constitution says (if applicable).
The SCOTUS is NOT doing that.
And has not for a LONG time.

It is the fault of BOTH parties.


As the abortion ruling coming up?
If you read the decision on Roe v. Wade?
It is not good law, IMO.

I am against all abortions (other than if the mother's life is at stake) after 21 weeks.
I am for them before that.
But nevertheless - no matter what the court decides?
I feel that Roe v. Wade needs to be changed to have stronger footing, IMO...one way or another.

Rotsa Ruck that this bunch of politicized 'judges' will do that now.
Which probably means we will have to go through this every decade or so.

[Truth Detector]

As is the Bible. It is mostly coming from the Catholic Church. The one where priests rape little boys.

They are experts on raping children. They are a good source.

Two low IQ dimwits who think that the acts of a few should be judged against an entire religion based on morality.

These are the morons our liberal educators are graduating.

[Truth Detector]

The Supremes have always had some slant. They are putting people on the court. However, the court was not designed to deliberately have a far right, super Christian slant. This is not normal for the court. The Federalist Society and rightys are changing the court into a right wing body. They are directing it via selecting people with their own slants,

[Truth Detector]

This has been going on for a LOT longer than just Trump's Presidency.

The SCOTUS has been shifting to a political-based group of judges for decades.

Not only is this bad for the country?
It is against their oath(s) that they took.
They swore to follow and uphold the Constitution.

That means you make decisions NOT based on your feelings, your politics, what scholars say, what you think the Founding Fathers meant...ONLY on what the Constitution says (if applicable).
The SCOTUS is NOT doing that.
And has not for a LONG time.

It is the fault of BOTH parties.


As the abortion ruling coming up?
If you read the decision on Roe v. Wade?
It is not good law, IMO.

I am against all abortions (other than if the mother's life is at stake) after 21 weeks.
I am for them before that.
But nevertheless - no matter what the court decides?
I feel that Roe v. Wade needs to be changed to have stronger footing, IMO...one way or another.

Rotsa Ruck that this bunch of politicized 'judges' will do that now.
Which probably means we will have to go through this every decade or so.

The politization is coming from the left and the Democratic Party of Lying Jackasses dimwit. Ever watch how they treat nominees Republican Presidents nominate? It's disgusting.

They see the Constitution as an outdated, living document that should bend with the times. We have watched Democrats erode that Constitution at the Federal level for more than five decades.

Conservative justices interpret the Constitution. Liberal Justices invent law out of it. Roe vs. Wade being one of many.

[anatta]

Sotomayor isnt qualified to be dog catcher much less SCOTUS -her "stench" remark shows just how the Dems view the courts - a political arm of government. It's not.

Roe is based on the implied power of privacy which ( I think) comes from the 4th Amendment
So there is nothing enumerated -it's inferred. Depending how one interprets the text the right is there or its not. There is not hard and fast "yes or no"

I would leave it as stare decisis. Besides the state legislatures would probably just codify the rights
It's not a hill cons need to die on -we have more important issues and it's a loser polically

[McRocket]

The politization is coming from the left and the Democratic Party of Lying Jackasses dimwit. Ever watch how they treat nominees Republican Presidents nominate? It's disgusting.

They see the Constitution as an outdated, living document that should bend with the times. We have watched Democrats erode that Constitution at the Federal level for more than five decades.

Conservative justices interpret the Constitution. Liberal Justices invent law out of it. Roe vs. Wade being one of many.

Sorry...it is not just the right.

There have been many decisions made by left-leaning judges that were not based on the Constitution.
But on other factors...which goes against their oath(s).

Both side ARE doing it.
Whether you wish to believe it or not.

[Wolverine]

Please tell me: What can the words “pro-life” possibly mean when the same people who want to constrain abortion are eager to make it easier for Americans to obtain and carry deadly weapons?

How is it “pro-life” for a nation to accept school shootings as a routine part of our daily news feeds? Can it possibly be “pro-life” to pretend that because no law will ever end all such shootings, it’s not worth trying to pass anything that might at least make them less likely?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-life-problem/

How can you want to prevent people acting in self defense, while not giving an unborn child the ability to exist by murdering it in the womb!

[BidenPresident]

Sorry...it is not just the right.

There have been many decisions made by left-leaning judges that were not based on the Constitution.
But on other factors...which goes against their oath(s).

Both side ARE doing it.
Whether you wish to believe it or not.

The Supreme Court is a political body by design.

[Matt Dillon]

The Supremes have always had some slant. They are putting people on the court. However, the court was not designed to deliberately have a far right, super Christian slant. This is not normal for the court. The Federalist Society and rightys are changing the court into a right wing body. They are directing it via selecting people with their own slants,

He's right! I see some slanting!

[McRocket]

The Supreme Court is a political body by design.

That does not change the fact that every SCOTUS judge takes an oath(s) to follow/honor the Constitution.
If they are not making their decisions based solely on it (assuming the law discussed is in the Constitution)?
Than they are breaking their vows and should be removed from the court immediately.

These are two of the oath(s) a SCOTUS justice MUST take.

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

'“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”'


OR

They may take just this one oath:

'“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”'
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/o...sofoffice.aspx


No matter which they take?
They swear to honor and support the Constitution.
And 'allegiance to the same'.

Thus.
If a ruling they are to make is covered by the Constitution?
They MUST follow WHATEVER the Constitution says.
Whether they like it or not.
Agree with it or not.

[BidenPresident]

That does not change the fact that every SCOTUS judge takes an oath(s) to follow/honor the Constitution.
If they are not making their decisions based solely on it (assuming the law discussed is in the Constit.

Why have a judge if everyone knows what the Constitution says?

[anatta]

The Supreme Court is a political body by design.

absolutely stupid.
They have life terms so it's NOT politicized.. the problem is partisans want every decision their way
so they scream "politics" when it goes the other way.

I recall the "mandate' for Obamacare.. it was an awful decision written by Roberts that mandated economic activity...But Roberts wrote it as a tax..It wasn't political- just bad law