3 ms·
Well also, the party in power has spent the last 30 years specifically packing courts at all levels with friendly partisan judges. And openly talking about doi
by RajT88 2y ago
Well also, the party in power has spent the last 30 years specifically packing courts at all levels with friendly partisan judges. And openly talking about doing so while doing it.
- TimorousBestie 2y agoAnd still, somehow, they can’t find enough judges to cosign their malfeasance. One wonders what the point of packing the courts was, if they weren’t going to bother upholding them anyway.
- _bin_ 2y agoLeft-wingers appoint left-leaning judges; right-wingers appoint right-leaning ones. Are you somehow asserting that left-wing is a "ground truth" and that only the right is partisan? You can observe the same thing happening when the fifth circuit messes with democrats in power as when the ninth messes with republicans.
- exe34 2y agoright now the right winger courts are appalled at what the right winger executive is doing, so I don't think it's the right time to be "both sides"ing this.
- RajT88 2y agoYou are trying to put words in my mouth for partisan points. Don't. Mitch McConnell talking about "the judges project" is miles away from appointments under Democratic administrations. You can read about it: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and... The Democratic party did not and does not have the stomach for doing the same, even when their voters have called for it. If you think otherwise, prove it.
- _bin_ 2y agoThis is a direct response to what began as systematic abuse of the court system by left-wingers and is an attempt to restore the status quo. You can find probably the most prominent early example of this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_(Supreme_Court) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_(Supreme_Court) Nearly a century ago, FDR was already threatening to pack the court if the justices didn't quit striking down his blatantly unconstitutional legislation. It continued steadily from there with the Warren court bench-legislating at a historic scale. You are misrepresenting what the actual status quo is to make an attempt to restore it appear malicious or power-hungry.
- exe34 2y agoWhat status quo? They're sending innocents to a concentration camp against the wishes of the supreme court that they packed with their own allies.
- RajT88 2y agoRespectfully, talking about the Democratic party 100 years ago is an incredibly shaky basis for your argument. Packing courts with partisans is malicious and power hungry no matter how you spin it. "Restoring balance" is rhetoric used by all kinds of historical leaders you do not want to be compared to... Dig up.
- _bin_ 2y agoIt's not really, because courts move slowly. We're just now starting to see the repair of some things like chevron deference. Wickard v. Filburn still hasn't been overturned. It's just as inconsistent to say "we should leave things tilted forever" as it is to say "we should restore balance".
- exe34 2y agois sending innocents to a concentration camp in defiance of the supreme court restoring balance, in your opinion?
- giardini 2y agoSeems all major parties have been *>"packing courts at all levels with friendly partisan judges. And openly talking about doing so while doing it." <^ from the beginning.