It’s a different issue. If that’s the actual reason why he can’t/won’t answer my question as to where he would draw the line, I’m sure he’ll tell me.
What % of the US population would you say had looked “in depth” into those court cases? I thought his answer was clear enough: From what he knows, he disagrees with those rulings. But he doesn’t know about the overall judicial philosophy of those justices back in the day to make a general statement about them.
It’s part of the same issue, and illustrative of the difficulty in parsing left and right politics into so-called left and right judicial philosophies. It is also many of orders of magnitude simpler to answer than the the question you have posed. We’re several posts into this and no answer on your part, so perhaps that might illustrate what’s going on here.
But I’ll let Señor Ditka answer for himself. I see this going round in circles, and I’ve said all I care to say on the subject.
The fact that you seem to have difficulty in differentiating between judges that lean right and those that lean left isn’t my problem nor does it have much to do with what is going on here, in my opinion.
Nice try, though.
Too late to add: If your actual difficulty is that telling right-wing judges from left-wing judges can’t realistically be done, why did you wait until my post to bring it up? From the OP:
You have a talent for muddying the waters. Your original question was:
What do you mean by “any”? Any current Supreme Court justices? Any past SCOTUS justices? Any judges (at any level)? Any elected official? Any public figure? Any person? Whats the pool I’m supposed to select from?
Let’s make it easy and say any judge or any elected official of note(use your own judgement as to what “of note” means).
If by “in depth” you mean “in enough depth for a person to be 100% sure of which side was in the right”, then that’s something that’s part of my basic expectations of all citizens. Now, I’m sure that there are a distressingly-large number of citizens who don’t even know that much, in which case I’ll reiterate that any such person has no business participating in political discussion.
First, you may be disappointed to learn that your thoughts on which such persons have business participating in political discussions or not counts for very little. Secondly, John Mace did such a good job of answering this back in post #62, that I didn’t think a follow-up was necessary. I think I’ll just quote him here:
John Mace nailed it.
OK, there are probably quite a few that are too far right for me. I haven’t cataloged and ranked all judges, or all elected officials, but off the top of my head I think Rodrigo Duterte is too far right wing for me to be comfortable supporting his (hypothetical) nomination to the Supreme Court.
Is he even eligible for the job? I sort of assumed you would stick to people that could actually take the job(y’know-U.S. citizen/resident, alive etc.) Got another serious candidate to offer up?
Yes, he is eligible for the job.
Uh… there is no legal limit on citizenship to be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. There are age requirements for the House, the Senate, or the presidency, but not for the court. There are citizenship and residency requirements for the PotUS but not SCotUS. The only actual constitutional qualification of a member of SCotUS would seem to be that a nominee has not been previously impeached and removed from office with a sanction barring holding future office.
It may be unlikely to place a foreign leader on the SCotUS, but Duterte is, in theory, eligible. And **HurricaneDitka ** says this is an example of someone he could not support on the high court.
Apologies to HurricaneDitka and thanks to Iggy- I did not know that the qualifications for the job was that wide open. I’m shocked.
As far as “serious” candidates, it’s probably going to depend on how we define “serious”, but, for example, of the 20 or so remaining names that Trump offered during the campaign, I don’t know all that much about all of them, but from what I do know, none of them are “too far right” for my tastes.
That has not been the case as the Dems are 0-4 in house elections despite spedning record amounts.
5% of middle-class white Americans have abandoned the Democratic party.
Trump’s pro-USA union like message to bring jobs back here and lighter taxes both personal and for business to the many former Democratic fence jumpers is a powerful message.
These service oriented jobs just don’t pay as well as the old-time manufacturing type of jobs.
Historical speaking, Democrats do poorly in midterm elections. The protests in Washington DC ( 90% Democratic ) mean little. If they start happening in red states, then maybe the tides will turn against Trump.
I don’t expect all citizens to know the details of the judicial philosophies of the judges behind Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sandford. But you don’t need to know the details of their philosophies to judge those men, because the outcomes of those cases should be sufficient evidence that whatever philosophies those judges had, they were bad ones.
Now, knowing the details of their judicial philosophies is of value, in that it enables you to make judgements on other judges who hold those same philosophies. Like, say, the current right-wingers that HurricaneDitka approves of, who hold the same judicial philosophy that led Justice Taney to decide against Scott.
A Supreme Court justice doesn’t even have to be a lawyer.
It feels like this should’ve been a movie by now.
I think I’m more worried that a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t have to pass any sort of security check, be a non-felon, have to be a citizen of the United States, or even reside in the United States for a minimum amount of time.
“There’s no rule that says a Justice cant’t be a dog!”