Today we also have a fractured political sphere. I’d say the Senate choices are a symptom, not a cause.
But they are not “unprecedented,” or “once, a long time ago.”
Keep saying that.
And I’ll keep cheering for new textualist appointments to the federal bench. I get the judges; you get the pithy rejoinders! It’s win, win!
Kavanaugh well-off but not filthy fucking rich.
The article has more detail, if you’re interested.
Dammit! If only we hadn’t made “unprecedented” the central point of our arguments! Now all we got left are slimy, disgusting and corrupt!
More documents dropped that allegedly support the allegations of perjury against Kavanaugh.
It takes a special breed of person to applaud the appointment of Justices who can’t make a decision without genuflecting to the obsolete wisdom of men a century or more dead, as opposed to actually interpreting the current extant situation and thinking for themselves.
I got your pithy rejoinder. So, pith off. 
I get it too - this Federalist Society is a historical re-enactment club, focusing on the 1850’s. At their functions, they probably wear waistcoats and dip snuff, while the darkie servants bring more glasses of port, while they denounce the perfidy of the abolitionists.
Maybe, in a generation or two, they’ll be debating bimetallism, tariffs, and the Yellow Peril.
Then why did you just make what you consider a “pity rejoinder”? More projection? Huffing that short term thinking again? Sure feels good don’t it? Good luck in November(s, all of them from now on. You could burn your whole party down after all. Why not?).
NO!
That’s not the job of judges. Judges are here to interpret the law, not impose their own ideas about wisdom. If we are a democratic republic that vests sovereign power in the people, then we must change the law by way of the legislature, the elected leaders, not by way of the unelected, lifetime appointed judges.
My goodness, I’m so happy your view is on the decline. We aren’t supposed to enshrine wise philosopher kings on the bench.
And yet that’s what the Supreme Court is for, dispensing justice and, inevitably, making law. Don’t like it, take it up with Mr. Marbury.
“On the decline”? The past is yours, Counselor. The rear guard defense, the stubborn refusal, these are yours, be content, gloat while you still can.
The constitution is so quaint.
No, this is bullshit. Simply discussing a judicial candidate in an email is not the same thing as being the one who handles the nomination.
Tell that to Miguel Estrada.
It’s Captain Obvious and his faithful sidekick, Platitude!
Yes, interpretation of the law is their job. You and I disagree fundamentally on what “interpret” means. I define it, at least partially, on how laws impact the modern world as opposed to how it was done in days of powdered wigs and buttoned shoes.
That’s what you took from my statement? :smack:
Uh, no.
If a law that worked fine for wigs and carriages doesn’t work for mohawks and Teslas, CHANGE THE LAW with the legislature.
Your plaintive complaint is simple: you want the laws changed but can’t garner the necessary popular support.
Women can’t vote! Do we (a) decide that the language of the Constitution, which was passed with everyone agreeing it did not mean that women have the right to vote, now suddenly is revealed to mean that women have a right to vote? Or (b) amend the Constitution to correct what is now seen as an injustice?
I know which one is the proper choice for a representative democracy, and I know which choice is the proper choice for a nation governed by philosopher-kings.
I imagine you do, also.
“Establish justice”
Who did get his hearing but, as an extremist, could not get enough votes to be confirmed, right?
Where do all these names of irrelevantly failed Republican nominations come from - does Hannity have a researcher working on it?
And if a pure interest in representative democracy does not sway you, then this thought experiment should:
Trump is, like it or not, the President. Which judge should he appoint?
(1) A judge that says, “I dispense justice as I see it. I’m not concerned about the opinions of dead men in wigs. I will deliver results that make this country better!” And remember: Trump picked this judge.
(2) A judge that says, “My ideas about wise legislative choices and policies have no place in my opinions. I deliver a reading of the law as written, applied to the facts before me.”
I know that you WANT Judge 1 picked by Obama. But that’s not an option right now. So are your interests better served by Trump-picked Judge 1 or Trump-picked Judge 2?
Why does the concept of justice annoy you so?
I only read the Wiki, I must have missed the part of how exemplary was the behavior of the Republican Party. Though I was impressed that Justice Kagan thought so highly of him, not quite so impressed by the approval of “Anne of Green Goebbels” Coulter.
And we would be wise not to forget that his took place before the rise of the Republican Party 2.0 and the Great Tea Party Purification. An event I suspect you regret almost as much as I do.
Door #1, obviously. We need justices that will Make America Great Again. Hey, that’s kind of a snappy catch-phrase!