Anthony Kennedy Retires From SCOTUS

  • Backyard Commandos INC, HMFIC


    I disagree but I respect your right to be stupid.


    Winners focus on winning, losers focus on winners.


    It's hard for liberals with mental disorders to think that other people don't also have the same mental disorders. - Danneskjold 2018

  • If you consistently get it wrong, why should you keep your job? 9th Circuit comes to mind...do you think they should still have their jobs?

    Until they are recalled by the voters yes, they should keep their jobs. Their job is to interpret. I don't want that conflict of what is just vs. what is personally expedient due to threat of review- I want my judges to make honest decisions formed by their interpretation of the law, not how it might effect their future.

  • Until they are recalled by the voters yes, they should keep their jobs. Their job is to interpret. I don't want that conflict of what is just vs. what is personally expedient due to threat of review- I want my judges to make honest decisions formed by their interpretation of the law, not how it might effect their future.

    They are all free to do just that, until they get overturned by a higher court 3 times.


    Their interpretation of the law should be just that, an interpretation of the law and neither public opinion nor their personal political beliefs should ever play a part in their interpretations. And yet all to often we see exactly that happening. How is Justice supposed to be blind if we let judges get away with letting public opinion and their personal beliefs sway their judgments?


    Every single judge that ruled against Trump's travel ban should have been disbarred immediately because that was nothing more than political activism from the bench.


    *Edit* In regards to your last phrase, every decision you and I make is made based on how it might affect our futures so why should a sitting judge be any different?

  • I agree that if they are not doing their duties properly they should be removed.. but just being overturned?


    Let us just say that hitlery would have won ( I know scary) .. say she appointed 3 SC judges.. EVERY conservative lower court decision would get overturned.


    Now... is that because they were wrong or politics? and.........more importantly.....who decides? in your scenario.. no one decides.. the decision makes no difference. the only thing that matters is if it got overturned or not.


    If in the hillary SC example for instance.... how would conservative originalist judges rule on cases where 3 strikes and they were out?


    lazs

    "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."



    Pancho Villa, last words (1877 - 1923)

  • But ruling on your interpretation of the law is exactly what judges do, and there should be no outside influences involved in a jurist's decision. Like Lazs said- We're seeing decisions being overturned after every election, depending on politics and political appointments. Not to mention, judges offer opinions every day. What, three and done? Damn man- I've been wrong three times today, and it's not even 2:30 yet.


    Anyway interesting points- but it's all academic since to establish a judicial review process with real teeth it'd have to be approved by the very people it'd effect, judges. Good luck- that'll be harder than convincing Beetle the Canary Islands aren't in Spain.

  • But ruling on your interpretation of the law is exactly what judges do, and there should be no outside influences involved in a jurist's decision. Like Lazs said- We're seeing decisions being overturned after every election, depending on politics and political appointments. Not to mention, judges offer opinions every day. What, three and done? Damn man- I've been wrong three times today, and it's not even 2:30 yet.


    Anyway interesting points- but it's all academic since to establish a judicial review process with real teeth it'd have to be approved by the very people it'd effect, judges. Good luck- that'll be harder than convincing Beetle the Canary Islands aren't in Spain.


    You're missing the point.



    Let's say that tomorrow the Supreme Court Judges rule that anyone on the internet by the moniker of "Airhead" must be executed. What recourse do YOU, and the rest of the Airheads have against this blatantly unconstitutional ruling?



    This isn't a rhetorical question, either. I want you to answer as to the actual recourse you and the country has against a Supreme Court gone rogue in this hypothetical case.

  • But ruling on your interpretation of the law is exactly what judges do, and there should be no outside influences involved in a jurist's decision. Like Lazs said- We're seeing decisions being overturned after every election, depending on politics and political appointments. Not to mention, judges offer opinions every day. What, three and done? Damn man- I've been wrong three times today, and it's not even 2:30 yet.


    Anyway interesting points- but it's all academic since to establish a judicial review process with real teeth it'd have to be approved by the very people it'd effect, judges. Good luck- that'll be harder than convincing Beetle the Canary Islands aren't in Spain.



    It's not "YOUR" interpretation of the law. THAT is where your problem is. It's "does it follow the Constitution, as written?", no other interpretation or opinions matter. The Constitution. As written. By the original authors.

  • CVH is correct. Whether or not any court rulings have actually been made, or will be made that way is the issue.


    The left is up in arms about Trumps' picks because he's going to have enough of them that when they try to murder them the way that they did Scalia, it's gonna look obvious as to what's going on; to them, their surefire way to advance their agenda is to stack all the Kagans, Sotomayors and Ginsburgs in the SC to okay all of the perversions that they wish to inflict on the constitution as they possibly can.

  • Damn phone abbreviated my post above. I was going to add, you could really tell when leftist judges started taking over seats in the SC. It was easy to then see the impact that politics were having on rulings. It forced the traditional, conservative judges to swing the other way to try to keep things in check.

  • That's why they've got to abolish the electoral college.

    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis