Blog powered by Typepad

« Farewell, Amber, but I don't think you will be missed | Main | Will somebody please infect the sun with acne! »

Monday, 30 April 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Skurkiss's argument is boilerplate for the upcoming midterm elections. It's meant to motivate more Republicans than those who belong to the Cult of Trump. The idea is to overcome the "enthusiasm gap" created by an historically unpopular president by breathlessly reminding Republican voters that a less conservative court would undoubtedly mean Armageddon. The NYT editorial is the other side of the same coin.

Not that everything is politics. There would no doubt be a difference between a court with 2 or more Trump appointees and one without. However, the costs and benefits to various groups of Americans would not necessarily work out along predictable lines.

The old saw about the SCOTUS "legislating from the bench" is nonsense. The way our system works the Congress can adjust laws to better achieve their desired effects by reintroducing versions compensating for past rulings. The Trump travel ban is a case in point.

Bob, you say: "The old saw about the SCOTUS "legislating from the bench" is nonsense."

Skurkiss says: "And the Democrats have long politicized the selection of justices with the aim of choosing people who will advance the progressive agenda no matter what the Constitution or written laws says. Mandating homosexual "marriage" and abortion for all 50 states makes for two of the most grievous examples of this overreach."

Well Bob,

"The way our system works the Congress can adjust laws to better"

You're familiar perhaps with Justice Gorsuch's observation in his dissent taking issue with Congress' vagueness over "the criminaliness" piece in the recent decision? The one in which Gorsuch implicitly accuses Congress of abdicating its Constitutional duties in handing over to the Executive powers that the document plainly assigns to the Congress?

I'd suggest Bob the insertion of "was designed to" and drop the "s" from Work.

You know Bob perfectly well how much a stickler I am as regards clarity!

David,

The Constitution guarantees "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." That means different things to different people. The whole point of democracy is to sort it all out.

-

JK,

Just because legal aims can take a long time and are part of ongoing social processes doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

Bob,

"...legal aims can take a long time and are part of ongoing social processes..."

I'm with you there. Except that, where the Congress is concerned there's that First Amendment conflict cake bakers for instance find themselves constantly at peril with, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which, at the lower Appeals Courts level (the ones confusing David apparently/maybe) oftentimes shuttered.

(I have noted no Queers have dared a SCOTUS review while for the Christians it's Open Season.)

That's the rub Bob.

JK,

Cake bakers who have nightmares about possibly having to write "Congratulations Fred and Larry" in icing and place two marzipan grooms on a cake are irretrievable snowflakes. Prospective customers should take their business elsewhere so as not to seem heartless.

Pleading against perceived persecution seems to be the actual heart of Christianity. All cake bakers might someday realize that baking a queer cake beats being nailed up every time. They'll probably be replaced by robots first, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.