The Supreme Court is not driven by political considerations

The "liberals" and "conservatives" (they aren't really that) have agreed once again on the meaning of a federal law:

(CNN)The Supreme Court threw out fraud convictions on Thursday against two New Jersey officials involved in the "Bridgegate" political scandal, the George Washington Bridge traffic jam that rocked the administration of then-Gov. Chris Christie.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan said that "for no reason" other than "political payback" the aides "used deception" to cut access lanes from Fort Lee, New Jersey, to the bridge. The move "jeopardized the safety of the town's residents," Kagan wrote, but concluded that "not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime."

If you are dug in on the notion that supreme court justices are mere puppets who do the bidding of the political parties they come from (if they really have one), I can give you other examples.

 

I don't think that Justices rule according to political parties per se, but many rule according to their own personal beliefs or politics rather than according to the law. And most of those justices happen to have political beliefs that coincidentally coincide with the Democrat party.

 

Exactly the reason we need to get Trump another term. RBG and Breyer have gone past their expiration dates and there are something like a hundred or so federal life-tenured judicial positions and the Republicans still own the senate. After that we could lose the White House and still be protected from the crazoids.

 

Congress can rotate the court at any time — they can also increase the number of seats.

The only way you will be “protected from the crazoids” is to have a party that represents the nation and doesn't seek to force control through the courts. Maybe more moderate and logical positions are needed?

 

And that would be who? Certainly not the Democrats who invented legislating from the bench.

 

I don’t know who invented it but I know who is currently cheering it on because they cannot win elections on idea without cheating, manipulation of the system or flukes in the process.

 

Here's an idea: let's appoint them for life but raise the minimum age to 85.

 

The Supreme Court is not driven by political considerations
Yes, on occasion.

 

it is not possible to legislate from the bench. The court has no mechanism to create law.

 

Then explain why decisions from lower courts get overturned by higher courts.

 

Sometimes the lower court misinterprets or reads too much into precedent, like suppose a lower court decides that Roe v. Wade means a woman has a right to government funded abortion. The supreme court might reverse that for reading too much into Roe.

Other times of course a supreme court justice's upbringing and personality make him read more or less into the ambiguities of a constitutional provision than a lower court judge.

That's life.

 

That’s what the court does. They have no ability or mechanism to create legislation.

 

You’re right, they don’t. But, that doesn’t stop judges from overstepping their bounds, dose it?

 

Since the court has the power to interpret what a law means, they certainly have the power to perform the action which is often called "legislating from the bench" Yes, they cannot formally pass laws, but interpreting said laws gives much power to the courts. The executive branch and enforcement departments can do something similar, by determining how and whether or not the law will be enforced. Of course, that could end up right back in a court.

 

In my opinion, yes, they go too far sometimes. In the opinion of others, not far enough. Everyone is outraged all the time.

This is why i am so disillusioned with constitutional law. My opinion is that supreme court opinion has to be respected, even if I don't like it. Otherwise we might as well have another civil war.

 

In what way?

 

Then why the hell are they appointed by political leadership based on their perceived political leanings??

 

when judges decide cases based on their personal preferences and in spite of the text of the Constitution, statutes and applicable precedent

 

CNN is not a reliable source

 

Honestly, you think they made it up? You can go to the supreme court website and read the unanimous opinion.

 

so what?

 

That explain a president's hopes. It does not explain the majority of the opinions that are unanimous.

 

So? So there is no reason to cite CNN's general unreliability as a source in this instance. I can't read your previous post without thinking that you don't trust the substance of the story due to CNN's unreliability. So what is your point? Go read the story on Breitbart, the Washington Examiner or whatever source you like. You'll get the same thing.

Here's the original. What else do you want??

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1059_e2p3.pdf

 

Kagan and Soto are the 2 biggest dummies in history and only received this high honor because of their politics and sex
Both are lifetime hacks

 

The core of the issue is the disconnect between meaning and language. That means we need to interpret the meaning and that is a big gaping hole for personal beliefs to enter through.

There simply is no substitute for an informed populace that doesn't take **** from their government.