3 ms·
My comment never said otherwise. I just feel that it needs to be said that it is incorrect and inappropriate to blame the composition or the rulings of SCOTUS
by _mlbt 2y ago
My comment never said otherwise. I just feel that it needs to be said that it is incorrect and inappropriate to blame the composition or the rulings of SCOTUS on a specific President. The government was intentionally designed to prevent that.
- krapp 2y ago> I just feel that it needs to be said that it is incorrect and inappropriate to blame the composition or the rulings of SCOTUS on a specific President. Not when the President's party controls Congress, at which point their nominees are all but guaranteed rubber-stamp approval, barring token attempts at vetting. It's appropriate to assign responsibility for SCOTUS to the President when the appointment process is controlled by party loyalties that transcend the balance of powers.
- _mlbt 2y agoThis thread seems to be about the Citizens United ruling that happened during the George W. Bush administration. He nominated 2 justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Congress confirmed them. There were 7 other justices from previous administrations that he had zero influence on.
- heroprotagonist 2y agoYes, he had zero bearing on the Republican party or its policy. He and his family were just hapless figureheads with no impact. We can ignore anyone stating historical facts such as the Bushes directly nominated 3/5ths of the justices who voted in favor of Citizens' United and their ally for the previous few decades was responsible for nominating the other 2 who voted in favor.