I don’t see how that follows. Even without ties, SCOTUS refuses to rule on things and sends them back to lower courts to resolve on their own all the time.
If the court is meant for people to look to for guidance, and be above politics, then they would need to have unanimous decisions, as a dissent specifically says that they should not be looking to the court for guidance on this issue.
Most cases that come before SCOTUS are resolved unanimously. If a case has a dissent, however, that means that 3 or 4 of the highest judges in the land don’t agree with the other 5 or 6.
You say, that people feel let down when it’s close and comes down political lines, so wouldn’t that mean that people were let down by Bush v Gore, as it was close and came down along political lines?
But what about times when laws are passed, the legislature does define “how it ought to be”, and SCOTUS strikes down those laws?
I wouldn’t say that the legislature has done anything like absolving themselves of responsibility for their role. Conservatives, maybe, when they have been in power, but I don’t see how the court striking down the voting rights act, or key provisions of the ACA, or ruling on the outcomes of presidential elections is anything as you describe.
Hol’ up. Online speech? Where in the text of the First Amendment does it say anything about online anything? It says speech, which to the Founders meant the literal act of speaking. I think some activist judges must have injected their liberal agenda by redefining speech to be any expression of an idea.
I disagree. I don’t see why it would make a difference.
But then, if SCOTUS had not made that ruling to select the next president, then the voters would have instead. So, I not only do not see the existential failure that comes about due to a tie, I also disagree with the outcome of the ruling that did prevail.
Did you feel the same way in 2016, that we needed to have 9 justices on SCOTUS in case of a contested election?
I’m not particularly interested in relitigating the entire case, at least not in this topic. Let’s just agree to disagree, yes?
While I thought it was spectacularly irresponsible to keep Garland’s nomination waiting, I do not remember being concerned about a contested election at the time.
I have to challenge that on purely logical grounds. You can’t be “qualified” to serve on SCOTUS if a Republican thinks you’re fit to do so. Especially when the Republican in question is the America-hating fuckstick.
Right–that’s one reason why the argument (that ACB was, supposedly, properly demurring from answering questions about the constitutionality of voter intimidation, on the grounds that she might have to rule on it) failed.
The other reason the argument failed is the more general principle: the excuse ‘I might have to rule on a case concerning the constitutionality of this’ applies only to actions that might, no matter how tenuously, be constitutional. The question Barrett was asked was about armed men blocking legitimate voters from legitimately casting their ballots. There is no remote chance that such conduct would be ruled constitutional–and Barrett should have known that, and said so.
Instead she appeared to be angling for ‘Fascist Poster-Jurist of the Month’ status. Not a becoming stance for a SCOTUS nominee.
No, I don’t think that’s the principle. The deal is, the nominee doesn’t want to answer a hypothetical that might actually come before the court. It’s not fair to the parties to prejudge their case. Senator Klobuchar was referring to something actually happening in her state, and conceivably litigation over the “special forces” -trained poll watchers could end up before the Supreme Court. She could conceivably see voter intimidation cases even on the Seventh Circuit, coming out of Michigan/Illinois/Wisconsin (if, by some off-chance, she remains on that court).
Unconstitutional is not the same as illegal and you seem to conflate the two repeatedly.
Are armed men showing up at the polls with the stated intent of intimidating black voters into not voting doing something illegal? Hell yes! And it’s illegal because all sorts of laws have been passed stating such. Max_S provided the cite to the 1884 SCOTUS ruling uphold laws banning voter intimidation.
But is such an act of voter intimidation itself unconstitutional? What part of the constitution bans such activity? The 15th Amendment would seem to ban such actions if taken “by the United States or by any State” but what if it is a group of civilians carrying out such acts of voter intimidation? Illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional.
Ex parte Yarbrough cited by Max_S ruled on the constitutionality of the laws banning voter intimidation. It did not rule on whether voter intimidation itself was unconstitutional.
But as a general rule courts aren’t supposed to address a constitutional challenge if a claim can be dealt with otherwise. If the statutes banning voter intimidation are constitutional as already stated, then any appeal would be decided under those statutes without ever reaching whether voter intimidation itself is unconstitutional.
I’m sorry, but now we’re getting silly. Roberts, Scalia, and Rehnquist were/are excellent judges even if I don’t always agree with them. It’s early but I have reasonable expectations that Gorsuch will join them. Thomas and (possibly) Kavanaugh are lesser lights but I don’t think Kagan and Sotomayer are exceptional, either.
Constitutionally, there are no requirements to be a Supreme Court justice. Historically, in the 18th and 19th centuries, a justice needed to have legal training and political connections. In modern times, the expectation is that a nominated justice would have held a prior position as a judge, generally on an appellate court, have an intellectual pedigree shown by published papers or positions within government, and be free of criminal convictions.
What’s your point? Barrett easily meets the modern standard, never mind the historical or constitutional ones.
I despise Bernie Sanders socialist viewpoint, but I don’t find him repugnant. If I was seated next to him on a train, or ran into him on a Vermont hiking trail, I’d have no problem being friendly to him or having a conversation with him. For a comparable British example, I feel the same way about Jeremy Corbyn. Someone I find repugnant, I don’t want to be in the same room with, and never want to encounter unless absolutely necessary. Someone with a different political viewpoint just doesn’t meet that standard for me. And absolutely someone with a different religion, or even no religion, doesn’t get that kind of reaction. Actually what gives me a bit of an “icky” feeling is when someone makes character judgements about someone else based on their religion. I’ll also note the hypocrisy of the Handmaid’s Tale protestors, and the lack of leftist outrage at that protest. If Barrett was a Jewish or Muslim liberal and there had been been a similar protest, the left would have exploded with denunciations of racism. But Roman Catholic - I guess for the leftists, that’s a fair target. It makes no sense at all and shows how little they actually believe in equality.
You’re obviously not reading her statement. She explicitly commits to following the law regarding recusing herself, and asserts that she will avoid appearances of unfairness.
[quote=“Wrenching_Spanners, post:253, topic:921092”]
“I commit to you to fully and faithfully apply the law of recusal and part of that law is to consider any ‘appearances’ questions” — as in, even whether it might look to outsiders as though the judge couldn’t be fair, Barrett said.[/quote]
But I suppose you’re upset about this part:
Somehow I think you’re looking for things to be outraged about, having long ago made a partisan decision not to support any Trump nominee, rather than actually considering what was said.