4 ms·

Republican presidents placed 11 supreme court justices in a row, from Nixon through GH Bush. Clinton placed two, and republicans have been whining about needing

Republican presidents placed 11 supreme court justices in a row, from Nixon through GH Bush. Clinton placed two, and republicans have been whining about needing to fix the liberal supreme court ever since. GW Bush placed two, Obama placed two, and it looks like Trump will place three. You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing.

rubyist5eva 6y ago
It's not about having a "liberal" justice or a "conservative" justice. It's about having a court that does what is supposed to do - _interpret_ the law, not create it. Republican Presidents have been very bad at choosing justices that do this as well, David Souter being probably the worst example.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  Pick a case where you believe they created law, then cite the bill that they wrote.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
> You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade but see it as an example of legislating from the bench.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  There's also nothing wrong with that. The distinction between the different branches creating law is pretty vague. If congress makes a law and the court strikes it down, are they "legislating from the bench"? Or are they merely pointing out that the new law is incompatible with the rest of the laws? The quote is right, law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide.
  - rubyist5eva 6y ago
    > law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide That's what it should be and was intended to be by the Founding Fathers. When the judiciary strikes down an unconstitutional law, it is supposed to exactly be because it is not compatible with existing laws or the constitution. 100%. “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

rubyist5eva 6y ago

It's not about having a "liberal" justice or a "conservative" justice. It's about having a court that does what is supposed to do - _interpret_ the law, not create it. Republican Presidents have been very bad at choosing justices that do this as well, David Souter being probably the worst example.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
Pick a case where you believe they created law, then cite the bill that they wrote.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

> You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade but see it as an example of legislating from the bench.

lordnacho 6y ago
There's also nothing wrong with that. The distinction between the different branches creating law is pretty vague. If congress makes a law and the court strikes it down, are they "legislating from the bench"? Or are they merely pointing out that the new law is incompatible with the rest of the laws? The quote is right, law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide.
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  > law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide That's what it should be and was intended to be by the Founding Fathers. When the judiciary strikes down an unconstitutional law, it is supposed to exactly be because it is not compatible with existing laws or the constitution. 100%. “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)