Sotomayor accuses Supreme Court of bias in favor of Trump administration

And their decisions should be based upon the Constitution and the laws of our land and not on the political and social whims of an individual judge.

 

Agreed. But the composition of the current Supreme Court doesn't comply with your post, & everything Mitch McConnell is doing now regarding judges, fails that same test. I am just as concerned as you.

 

It seems to me that Mitch is doing what he can to ensure that those are exactly the kind of judges that are sitting on the bench as opposed to political hacks like Sotomayor.

 

Your absolutely correct, but both sides just use the constitution as a tool to spin their partisan views.

 

From my perspective, the judges seated by McConnell are those with extreme conservative prejudices, not in tune with the vast majority of Americans. Such judges block all sorts of progressive improvements in our country & effectively keep us stuck in the dark ages of outmoded values from past generations that neither fit, nor work, in today's society.

 

Yes and then she goes on to say it essentially in public-confirming her own bias.

Not a good look for any SCOTUS Justice.

 

Except for Trump's Rubber Stamp STOOGES (Bart/Neil/Sam/Clarence)?

Got it.

 

They aren't rubber stampers and sadly one of the few remaining lefties on the court basically just admitted she's biased against Trump.

Maybe she's retiring soon.

 

WRONG.

They ARE Trump's "Rubber Stampers".

^And Everybody KNOWS It.

Sotomayer isn't going anywhere.

However, if Trump were to be defeated, I would be in favor of Clarence, Sam, Bart, and Neil Making a Mass Resignation.

Does that sound good?

 

AJ, say goodbye to the lefties on SCOTUS-because there is a good chance there won't be anymore there for the next several decades.

 

It seems you're all over the place. I believe what you mean is constitutional prejudices. It is their job to limit progressives within the bounds of our Constitution. If progressives want these "improvements" they have to accomplish them via legal means and not use things such as judicial fiat to promote their agenda.

 

#thankyoubernie

 

But isn't "judicial fiat" precisely what McConnell is using by packing the courts?

 

Nope, McConnell is a politician and not a judge, thus he is expected to do political things. It is his political responsibility to get as many judges that abide by the constitution and not the whims of political agendas into our courts.

 

Packing the courts means adding additional judges beyond the number of open slots specifically to change the makeup of the court. An example would be changing the number of SCOTUS justices to 15 specifically so that the makeup was more leftist-FDR did this.

McConnell and Trump have been filling OPEN seats, vacancies that in most cases were left open by Obama.

These appointments were unopposed by Dems-for example during the Kavanaugh confirmation McConnell helped fill vacancies while neither the media, and certainly not Dem politicians made a peep about it.

Circuit courts, like the 9th had a high number of activist (leftist) judges-and that is why it was the most overturned court by SCOTUS-because they were trying to legislate from the bench-which is not what the courts role.

 

The problem with your explanation is that judges seated by McConnell also have political agendas that they promote from the bench. You make it sound like they are innocent Constitutionalists with no political agenda, but that's nonsense.

 

1. Thank you for clarifying the meaning of "packing the court." I wasn't aware.
2. Those weren't "left open by Obama." Those were frozen by McConnell until Obama was out of office.
3. You criticize "leftist" judges for legislating from the bench, but isn't that precisely what conservatives are trying to get the SCOTUS to do with the abortion issue--kill Roe vs Wade from the bench?

 

Can you name some of them?

 

2) why didn’t obama and the dems fill them during the 6 years he and Reid had the senate?

 

McConnell is doing what he was elected to do. Elections have consequences.

 

Obama's ineptitude is why he didn't appoint those judges-he squandered his political capital with Obamacare. Since he had his pen and phone-Republicans invited him to use them.

Roe v Wade, regardless of your personal views was a crap ruling. It may very well be overturned in which case abortion issues revert to the states.

 

Those are the stated positions of those he tries to seat. Progressives on the other hand use expressions like the Constitution is a living document and they use this as a means to ignore the original intent. Justice Sotomayor admits she is not an originalist and talks about adapting the law to her social views and empathies. I do not believe that is the role of a Supreme Court justice.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/what-is-sonia-sotomayors-judicial-philosophy.html

 

I could post the times they voted along with the Liberal judges but you would just ignore it...

 

Our turn will come. But I don't like the "Tit for Tat" approach to politics, & would like to see that moderated & have us return to some semblance of civilized behavior within & between all branches of government. Republican policies since Newt Gingrich's term of office has divided & polarized the country far too much. Historically, the U.S. has always been a nation of competing ideas & ideals, but we've always found ways to compromise & move forward together except during the Civil War. We need to rediscover that ability & put it to good use.

 

Having 50 different solutions to the abortion question is NOT a remedy. Having one precise national answer is better, simply because every citizen who happens to be a woman, is affected, & her rights must be recognized & adhered to by every state regardless of where she happens to reside. I strongly disagree with your conclusion regarding the Roe vs Wade ruling. I regard it as one of the finest & most important one ever made by the SCOTUS. The vast majority of Americans agree with me.