Stranger
Heās vaccinated and would get all the latest care in his own big, private room while the riffraff fill the hospitals and lie on the floor or canāt even get admitted. Another POS.
You forgot the private bar with a bespoke Samual Adams brew: āThe Kavā, with hints of hypocrisy, a whiff of cortisol, and a soupƧon of Aqua Velva.
Stranger
I just wan to say that if it will help Brett Kavanaugh get better sooner then he can have my share of Ivermectin and Cloraclean!
I just wish that heād left the country ( like Ted Cruz ) to do it.
An opinion piece I read a while ago suggested the public opinion of the Supreme Court going downwards is actually not a bad thing. The idea is for too long this set of nine people have been able to go about as if they have some sort of sacred wisdom that sets them apart and ought to be respected no matter what. They are a branch of government - not above government. And with that being under scrutiny and having their institutional norms challenged is part of that.
Whether you agree with ideas such as packing the court or impeaching a current Justice is another topic and obviously I am not particularly in favor of all the reforms being put out there however changing attitude towards the Court whereby they are not put on a pedestal is something I do agree with. For example Justice Scalia was held up as some kind of bastion of legal thought when he was alive and yet he didnāt take a position that some conservative commentator writing for the Washington Examiner would not have advocated. And to balance it out Justice Ginsburg didnāt take positions that the readership of Mother Jones would not do. Thatās not to say both these two people were partisan hacks and the Court should be apolitical but actually making the point that it is impossible for the Court to be not divided. They have their own preconceptions and world views and no amount of legal scholarly writing is going to put them above the fray.
Going downwards it seems to be, at least in the usual suspects in the media:
I see a problem everywhere, not just in the USA: Jurists, like policemen and soldiers, tend to lean to the right. In general, in any given country, there are more conservative judges than liberal judges, just as there are more conservative or even far right extremist volunteers for the armed forces and for the police academies. Itās in their mindset, they like following orders, hierarchies and a leader. In troubled times this can become a problem.
[The thing with the soldiers has been put forward in some countries as an argument in favour of conscription. Me, who has never had to serve and never has touched a gun, I am not in favour of conscription, but this argument got me thinking]
On top of that one has to admit that the assault on the Supreme Court by conservative forces has been well planed, well executed and a long time in the making.
Ya think?
Donāt you?
Itās American vernacular for, āThat is so blindingly obvious that it doesnāt bear stating.ā
Internet and irony donāt mix. Sorry.
I donāt think thatās entirely true. I think it depends on the specific issues being adjudicated. The Supreme Court of Canada has made rulings on social issues that have been very liberal, such as overturning all abortion laws many decades ago, and being one of the first jurisdictions in the world to rule in favour of same-sex civil rights and same-sex marriage.
They do, however, seem to hew to a law-and-order line where one could argue that they sometimes appear to place the ability to bring criminals to justice as a higher priority than an absolutist adherence to personal freedoms. But I just see this as mostly conforming to the social cohesiveness implicit in the foundational Canadian values of āa peaceful and just societyā rather than the largely individualistic American ideal.
I believe we are not talking about the same thing. That Canadian Supreme Court judges have been selected in a certain way does not invalidate my statement that people who study law tend to have a world view that leans conservative. You can see that when you go to a law department (or a police academy or a military formation centre) in any university and compare the people studying law with the people studying, for instance, engineering or philosophy or political sciences. They are all different, and often recognizable. You can see that in the way they dress, the newspapers they read (websites today, I guess), the values they have. With a big margin for error and subjectivity, granted, but I am talking about leaning and averages.
Being in a minority, left leaning judges may have a career advantage when left leaning political parties are in power. There are fewer to select from. Supreme Court judges are not selected at randow out of the available judges, not even by coƶptation by the other judges. They are selected politically. They are not representative of the average lawyer.
I endorse this pitting.
More is the shame that some of the less learned on SCOTUS havenāt been well mixed with pewter.
( I hear that plates and such might make one humbleā¦ )
Thought this was an interesting piece.
Big Crybaby feels intimidated by criticism!
During Chief Justice John Robertsā tenure, the Court has issued more than 80 partisan decisions, by either a 5-4 or 6-3 vote, involving big interests important to Republican Party major donors.
Thatās one thing I donāt get - these guys have a job for life. Theyāll never need anyoneās patronage ever again. Why are they still sucking up to donors?
I guess they have to promise they will give donors whatever they want before they get nominated, and THEN they will be set for life. But donāt criticize them for their grifting! The proletariat are supposed to stay QUIET while they get bulldozed!
Thatās what Iām trying to figure out. Why would they keep any promises?
If I was ever elected to the Supreme Court, the first thing Iād do was lose the number of anyone who thought I owed them something. Fuck you, Iām on the Supreme Court!
I mean, they were selected for nomination, precisely because they believe this shit.