Let us discuss why Republicans are so terrible at picking Supreme Court justices

[OriginalGatorHator]

Trump is 0-3 so far. The only two consistent justices are Alito and Clarence Thomas (GOAT). Bush gave us John Roberts (worst judge since Warren).

Reagan was awful


But the all time worst was Eisenhower.

Is it because (a) the Republican Party is controlled opposition? (b) the federalist society is completely useless? (c) republicans are losers? Or (d) all of the above?

My great grandfather was illiterate but would have been a better selection than Amy Coney Barrett.

And yet the democrats never miss.

 

[MillDawg]

because they are on the same side as the democrats

 

[The Original SLC Dawg]

Check your stats

 

[oldmandawg]

I would call Trump 2/3 at this point. But I get your point, repubs picking justices is a 50/50 proposition at best. And yes, dims never miss. Dims always look through a political lens in everything they do, and putting radical Dims on the court is all apart of their political playbook. And repubs generally roll over and let em.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

I think it is more of an indictment on the recent liberal judges. Conservative judges actually use their interpretation of the law to inform decision-making.

Based on some of the laughable dissents provided by newer liberal justices, they may have well just put AOC in there. They just toe the democrat line.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I think it is more of an indictment on the recent liberal judges. Conservative judges actually use their interpretation of the law to inform decision-making.

Based on some of the laughable dissents provided by newer liberal justices, they may have well just put AOC in there. They just toe the democrat line.

Yep, Kagan was literally an Obama legal advisor and worked on the ACA and refused to recuse herself as a SCOTUS justice. Kagan, Sotomeyer and Brown-Jackson might as well not show up and vote remotely from the beach because their vote is known before a case is presented. I guess the same can be said of Thomas but he at least does a decent job of defending his decisions.

 

[Georgia Knight]

Trump is 0-3 so far. The only two consistent justices are Alito and Clarence Thomas (GOAT). Bush gave us John Roberts (worst judge since Warren).

Reagan was awful


But the all time worst was Eisenhower.

Is it because (a) the Republican Party is controlled opposition? (b) the federalist society is completely useless? (c) republicans are losers? Or (d) all of the above?

My great grandfather was illiterate but would have been a better selection than Amy Coney Barrett.

And yet the democrats never miss.

Intellectual conservatism was entirely unserious for 50+ years, and so it's not surprising that the position that is most shaped by the institutional pedigree results is dull warriors.

I do think Gorsuch is a win though, and Kavanaugh isn't as bad as I feared to date.

 

[Two if by Sea]

I don’t think they have necessarily made bad picks. They tend to pick justices based in n objectivity and ability to interpret the law without prejudice. They don’t always agree with the rep point of view but that’s what they’re supposed to do. Some
Worse than others obviously.

Now the dem appointments are the ones that are
Absolute disasters. Activists wearing black robes pretty much sums up their existence.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

Trump is 0-3 so far. The only two consistent justices are Alito and Clarence Thomas (GOAT). Bush gave us John Roberts (worst judge since Warren).

Reagan was awful


But the all time worst was Eisenhower.

Is it because (a) the Republican Party is controlled opposition? (b) the federalist society is completely useless? (c) republicans are losers? Or (d) all of the above?

My great grandfather was illiterate but would have been a better selection than Amy Coney Barrett.

And yet the democrats never miss.

This entire thread has forgotten that Roe v. Wade has been overturned thanks to this Court. Probably the single biggest win by the Right, in what, 50 years? 75?

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

This entire thread has forgotten that Roe v. Wade has been overturned thanks to this Court. Probably the single biggest win by the Right, in what, 50 years? 75?

Win? I would call it the biggest unforced political error in history. The number of actual abortions hasn't gone down. It has gone up. Meanwhile, it became the single most effective political weapon republican opponents have. Trump may have gotten 60% of the popular vote had this not been an issue.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

Win? I would call it the biggest unforced political error in history. The number of actual abortions hasn't gone down. It has gone up. Meanwhile, it became the single most effective political weapon republican opponents have. Trump may have gotten 60% of the popular vote had this not been an issue.

Interesting. I have to say this isn't a take I've heard before.

 

[zingerdawg]

Win? I would call it the biggest unforced political error in history. The number of actual abortions hasn't gone down. It has gone up. Meanwhile, it became the single most effective political weapon republican opponents have. Trump may have gotten 60% of the popular vote had this not been an issue.

Totally agree. It was a complete loss. Outside of 1-6 it was the only bullet they had in their gun. When you look at polling numbers right now on certain issues, and the amount of people who supported trumps speech, 60 percent may not be that far off.

It didn’t change anything. The numbers are worse. The Dems also got to use the invitro argument against the right as well. Even though eliminating this was never really on the table. They ran commercials claiming this would be the result. They even ran a commercial claiming this decision caused a death. Their most effective commercial imo.

 

[Georgia Knight]

Win? I would call it the biggest unforced political error in history. The number of actual abortions hasn't gone down. It has gone up. Meanwhile, it became the single most effective political weapon republican opponents have. Trump may have gotten 60% of the popular vote had this not been an issue.

It was still a win, the accomplishment of a stated desired legal change.

Another example of a win would be the affirmative action rulings a few years ago, which had significant ramifications.

The damage done to Chevron Deference in last year's Supreme Court case is also another major victory.

But all of those are outcomes that should be expected with a 6-3 court. Looking at this stuff, it can be helpful to think about the concept of "wins above replacement rate" - how does ACB performance compared to what one expects a generic conservative jurist to provide. By that measure, she's probably a negative (though we've certainly had worse.)

 

[MaitlandFloridaDawg]

I think it is more of an indictment on the recent liberal judges. Conservative judges actually use their interpretation of the law to inform decision-making.

Based on some of the laughable dissents provided by newer liberal justices, they may have well just put AOC in there. They just toe the democrat line.

Agree. Conservative judges tend to enforce judicial restraint, meaning they follow the intent of the law. Progressive judges tend to enforce judicial activism meaning, legislation from the bench. Conservative judges don’t always make decisions that make conservatives happy, nor should they. They simply enforce the law as it is.

 

[zingerdawg]

Agree. Conservative judges tend to enforce judicial restraint, meaning they follow the intent of the law. Progressive judges tend to enforce judicial activism meaning, legislation from the bench. Conservative judges don’t always make decisions that make conservatives happy, nor should they. They simply enforce the law as it is.

Yep. If this weren’t happening, the judges would have no real purpose at all. Which is what will eventually happen one day when there is a majority of left leaning judges appointed. The court will not be effective and just become a mouthpiece for all of their party’s ideas. Whatever decision they come to is what it is. It should always not be political

 

[dawgfood0612]

Win? I would call it the biggest unforced political error in history. The number of actual abortions hasn't gone down. It has gone up. Meanwhile, it became the single most effective political weapon republican opponents have. Trump may have gotten 60% of the popular vote had this not been an issue.

You are not wrong here, young women turnout prevented an absolute blowout.

Not sure what other issue the Dems have right now, but a lot can happen in two years, and Trump is going at things in a very different way.

 

[washdog]

Trump is 0-3 so far. The only two consistent justices are Alito and Clarence Thomas (GOAT). Bush gave us John Roberts (worst judge since Warren).

Reagan was awful


But the all time worst was Eisenhower.

Is it because (a) the Republican Party is controlled opposition? (b) the federalist society is completely useless? (c) republicans are losers? Or (d) all of the above?

My great grandfather was illiterate but would have been a better selection than Amy Coney Barrett.

And yet the democrats never miss.

Roberts has been a real disappointment to me

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Trump is 0-3 so far. The only two consistent justices are Alito and Clarence Thomas (GOAT). Bush gave us John Roberts (worst judge since Warren).

Reagan was awful


But the all time worst was Eisenhower.

Is it because (a) the Republican Party is controlled opposition? (b) the federalist society is completely useless? (c) republicans are losers? Or (d) all of the above?

My great grandfather was illiterate but would have been a better selection than Amy Coney Barrett.

And yet the democrats never miss.

She has been a great disappointment. She has turned into an idiot lib.

 

[ClydeDawg]

I think it is more of an indictment on the recent liberal judges. Conservative judges actually use their interpretation of the law to inform decision-making.

Based on some of the laughable dissents provided by newer liberal justices, they may have well just put AOC in there. They just toe the democrat line.

This right here.

 

[jdeal 13]

You offer no argument, just assertion. What is your criteria?

 

[TivoliDawg]

Trump is 0-3 so far. The only two consistent justices are Alito and Clarence Thomas (GOAT). Bush gave us John Roberts (worst judge since Warren).

Reagan was awful


But the all time worst was Eisenhower.

Is it because (a) the Republican Party is controlled opposition? (b) the federalist society is completely useless? (c) republicans are losers? Or (d) all of the above?

My great grandfather was illiterate but would have been a better selection than Amy Coney Barrett.

And yet the democrats never miss.

How are you judging this?

 

[TivoliDawg]

Roberts has been a real disappointment to me

In what way?

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

In what way?

His ACA decision and his reasoning were mind boggling. Instead of sending the legislation back to congress for clarification of the language, he simply decided tax/penalty was the same thing.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

His ACA decision and his reasoning were mind boggling. Instead of sending the legislation back to congress for clarification of the language, he simply decided tax/penalty was the same thing.

Roberts is the poster child of Republicans sucking at this.

Yes, John Roberts is one of, if not the smartest, legal minds on the bench during the last 70 years. But what does that matter if that mind is used to legislate from the bench and in every decision that matters he always rules for the left?

It means jack shit. As dumb as she is Kentanji Jackson is a way way way better Supreme Court pick than Coney Barrett because unlike Barrett, Jackson will always rule for her side.

Trump now must either ignore the Court or his presidency is over. If he cannot actually rule the executive branch as the head executor we don’t have three equal branches of government.

 

[TivoliDawg]

His ACA decision and his reasoning were mind boggling. Instead of sending the legislation back to congress for clarification of the language, he simply decided tax/penalty was the same thing.

I don’t remember his ruling on the matter, but Obama waffling back and forth publicly was pathetic.

 

[jdeal 13]

Roberts is the poster child of Republicans sucking at this.

Yes, John Roberts is one of, if not the smartest, legal minds on the bench during the last 70 years. But what does that matter if that mind is used to legislate from the bench and in every decision that matters he always rules for the left?

It means jack shit. As dumb as she is Kentanji Jackson is a way way way better Supreme Court pick than Coney Barrett because unlike Barrett, Jackson will always rule for her side.

Trump now must either ignore the Court or his presidency is over. If he cannot actually rule the executive branch as the head executor we don’t have three equal branches of government.

I would argue that Republican picks use judicial prudence rather than politics to decide cases. I agree Robert’s decision on ACA has been costly and I didn’t agree with his decision, but the 3 liberal women justices just fall in line and their written decisions are not scholarly. Oh well.

 

[oldmandawg]

Win? I would call it the biggest unforced political error in history. The number of actual abortions hasn't gone down. It has gone up. Meanwhile, it became the single most effective political weapon republican opponents have. Trump may have gotten 60% of the popular vote had this not been an issue.

The intent of the ruling wasn't to increase or decrease abortions. It was to follow the law, irregardless of the consequences it may have.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

I would argue that Republican picks use judicial prudence rather than politics to decide cases. I agree Robert’s decision on ACA has been costly and I didn’t agree with his decision, but the 3 liberal women justices just fall in line and their written decisions are not scholarly. Oh well.

And this is why the judges suck. Regardless of what the Supreme Court is supposed to be, what it is, is a lawmaking body. You don’t put people on there who won’t make laws in your favor.

I also disagree that “judicial prudence” leads to the decisions of the courts over the last 100 years.

 

[Georgia Knight]

I would argue that Republican picks use judicial prudence rather than politics to decide cases. I agree Robert’s decision on ACA has been costly and I didn’t agree with his decision, but the 3 liberal women justices just fall in line and their written decisions are not scholarly. Oh well.

Roberts absolutely uses politics to frame his decisions, but his politics isn't partisan - it is institutional. He takes public perception of the court being political into account, which was certainly a factor in his ACA ruling, he didn't want to be the swing vote which killed a major Democrat policy goal.

He also joined the 5 conservative on Dobbs to help give more institutional credibility to that decision, while providing a more limited opinion.

There is an understable rational to this view, but it completely ignores the times as are living in.