Seems like the "hyper partisan / biased" supreme court has been ruling against conservatives.....

[-lowcountrydawg]

a lot lately. And that's exactly how it should be. Let the law govern decision-making.

Conversely, can anyone point to Biden's new appointee on the Court specifically ruling in favor of something that is clearly against Team Biden? I am specifically thinking about her dissent and interpretation that "color-blindness" is inappropriate in the area of college admissions, and torched the majority as taking a "let them eat cake" approach. A politician in a robe.

The whole supreme court media narrative is total bullshit. It is a combination of sour grapes that conservatives were able to appoint three new judges recently, and a concerted effort to thumb the scales in favor of Democrats.

 

[dawgfood0612]

Let me know when you find a picture of Brown-Jackson flying a flag supportive of overturning an election, or when her spouse actively works to overturn an election

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Let me know when you find a picture of Brown-Jackson flying a flag supportive of overturning an election, or when her spouse actively works to overturn an election

So highly debatable and open to interpretation shit that happens outside of the Court is more relevant to their actual rulings? You are proving my point. The left and media obsession with what's his name bullshit rape accusation, flying a flag, hanging with the Crow family, etc.....is better evidence than their actual behavior in Court?

These guys routinely rule against conservatives and Trump, and the far right bitches about it constantly. That is kind of the definition of not being "partisan conservatives," no? Just this week, they've been handing Biden admin victory after victory.

Again - please find me the KBJ ruling that pissed off the Biden admin.

 

[PotimusWillie]

a lot lately. And that's exactly how it should be. Let the law govern decision-making.

Conversely, can anyone point to Biden's new appointee on the Court specifically ruling in favor of something that is clearly against Team Biden? I am specifically thinking about her dissent and interpretation that "color-blindness" is inappropriate in the area of college admissions, and torched the majority as taking a "let them eat cake" approach. A politician in a robe.

The whole supreme court media narrative is total bullshit. It is a combination of sour grapes that conservatives were able to appoint three new judges recently, and a concerted effort to thumb the scales in favor of Democrats.

Voting against conservatives is exactly how it should be?

I understand your point, but confusing explanation.

Any ruling should be based on constitutional law and never on feelings, empathy, benevolence or agenda. Any any form.

When constitutional mandates are set and there is an attempt to rewrite, we lose our soul.

 

[zingerdawg]

So highly debatable and open to interpretation shit that happens outside of the Court is more relevant to their actual rulings? You are proving my point. The left and media obsession with what's his name bullshit rape accusation, flying a flag, hanging with the Crow family, etc.....is better evidence than their actual behavior in Court?

These guys routinely rule against conservatives and Trump, and the far right bitches about it constantly. That is kind of the definition of not being "partisan conservatives," no? Just this week, they've been handing Biden admin victory after victory.

Again - please find me the KBJ ruling that pissed off the Biden admin.

This is exactly right. The left never rules against the left. Ever. In any capacity. They outwardly admit not wanting to say anything negative about Joe in fear that it may help Trump. It isn’t a political opinion anymore. Just an agenda. Which is why the far, far left is now making up the rules as they go along. And also why the country is getting in worse shape financially and more dangerous by the day.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Voting against conservatives is exactly how it should be?

I understand your point, but confusing explanation.

Any ruling should be based on constitutional law and never on feelings, empathy, benevolence or agenda. Any any form.

When constitutional mandates are set and there is an attempt to rewrite, we lose our soul.

No. Voting on honest interpretation of the law is how it should be. If it favors conservatives, so be it. If it favors democrats, so be it. Side note: I have stopped using the term liberal in the same vain as democrats, because I don't see democrats as liberal in the traditional "live and let live" sense anymore.

The way I worded it was confusing. Point is that the court is not biased.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

How is this a good thing?

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

This is exactly right. The left never rules against the left. Ever. In any capacity. They outwardly admit not wanting to say anything negative about Joe in fear that it may help Trump. It isn’t a political opinion anymore. Just an agenda. Which is why the far, far left is now making up the rules as they go along. And also why the country is getting in worse shape financially and more dangerous by the day.

Because the left are much better politicians than the right. Every single left politician is either a lifetime politician or attorney, or both. They circle the wagons and think as a group. When you've worked in Government or as an academic your entire life, you know best, and the government is the answer to everything. Any legislation no matter how stupid is by definition "progress."

The right has its' share of long-time politicians and lawyers, but generally spattered in with folks who were successful in some other career and earned a position of leadership. You see more disagreement because they don't see everything through a political lens. And sometimes it is best for the government to not do anything at all. Let the country and its' people work.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

How is this a good thing?

Because it is evidence that the whole narrative of the court being overtly biased an political is total bullshit. My personal opinion is that is a good thing even if every decision doesn't go my way. And incidently, it is why the whole "threat to democracy" line is bullshit as well. There are separation of powers, checks and balances, etc.....and they work. Even if someone wanted to obstruct democracy, there is only so far they could go.

For example - you might be able to use local politically appointed DA's to enact legal warfare on a political opponent, but ultimately that thing is going to lose out on appeal, as it did this week with a municipal politician winning a Supreme appeal overturning her politically focused prosecution. Or in the ultimate outcome of the BS NYC cases charging Trump. Or in they hypothetical scenario where someone tries to remain in power after losing an election (hint that has never happened).

 

[agentorange70]

Their are daily hit jobs in the media and leftist congressional members right now against the 6 conservative justices to preemptively sour public opinion on any future ruling if the left does not like it,...in an election year.

The undercover activist recording justice alito as being a religious person (which I guess is controversial these days), justice barrets husband is a lawyer that worked for fox news on a case which the media became incensed, justice alitos wife flew a revolutionary war era flag years ago (which I believe patriotism is controversial these days), new revelations about justice thomas travelling as a guest on a yacht somewhere in the Caribbean,,...

their will be continued hit jobs on the only 6 conservative justices as the election grows nearer

Only one side tries to intimidate jurors, smear judges, threaten violence if they don't get a judgement they like, and carry through with violence in the streets when they disagree with a judgement

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

a lot lately. And that's exactly how it should be. Let the law govern decision-making.

Conversely, can anyone point to Biden's new appointee on the Court specifically ruling in favor of something that is clearly against Team Biden? I am specifically thinking about her dissent and interpretation that "color-blindness" is inappropriate in the area of college admissions, and torched the majority as taking a "let them eat cake" approach. A politician in a robe.

The whole supreme court media narrative is total bullshit. It is a combination of sour grapes that conservatives were able to appoint three new judges recently, and a concerted effort to thumb the scales in favor of Democrats.

Bump - the "compromised / politically biased" supreme court again sided with the Biden admin on issues relating to influencing social media companies.

Again - it is pretty clear to me that the Court acts in a non-political way. Again - can anyone please point to me any ruling or dissent made by Biden's appointee that didn't strongly adhere with Team Biden?

The whole Supreme Court is politically biased / corrupt argument is total bullshit. And a lot more dangerous to "democracy" than a dude with a Viking hat in the Capitol building.

 

[willdup]

Bump - the "compromised / politically biased" supreme court again sided with the Biden admin on issues relating to influencing social media companies.

Again - it is pretty clear to me that the Court acts in a non-political way. Again - can anyone please point to me any ruling or dissent made by Biden's appointee that didn't strongly adhere with Team Biden?

The whole Supreme Court is politically biased / corrupt argument is total bullshit. And a lot more dangerous to "democracy" than a dude with a Viking hat in the Capitol building.

I respectfully disagree. While the social media decision is a win for the Biden administration, in the future it empowers anyone in the WH, dem or republican.

More importantly, taking on the Presidential Immunity case at all was already a highly political act, sitting on it as long as they have is effectively rendering Trump immune prior to the election. SCOTUS can move quickly when they chose to, and the absolute immunity case is absurd on its face, as the DC Court of Appeals unanimously detailed in their very thorough ruling. There is no reason for them to fail to resolve this case earlier unless they are intentionally buying time for Trump.

Also, this isn't the only huge case they are saving for last. Let's see what happens in all of the remaining cases before rendering judgement on how political they are.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

I respectfully disagree. While the social media decision is a win for the Biden administration, in the future it empowers anyone in the WH, dem or republican.

More importantly, taking on the Presidential Immunity case at all was already a highly political act, sitting on it as long as they have is effectively rendering Trump immune prior to the election. SCOTUS can move quickly when they chose to, and the absolute immunity case is absurd on its face, as the DC Court of Appeals unanimously detailed in their very thorough ruling. There is no reason for them to fail to resolve this case earlier unless they are intentionally buying time for Trump.

Also, this isn't the only huge case they are saving for last. Let's see what happens in all of the remaining cases before rendering judgement on how political they are.

Again - all the arguments that the court is biased focus on anything but their actual rulings - the only thing that matters. The whole purpose of the Court. If anything using this as the appropriate sole criteria points to the liberals being the politicians in the court.

How do you know they are calling it honestly based on the law? They are pissing people off on both sides from time to time. This social media ruling is making the right go nuts.

And truth be told I doubt many republicans wanted them to rule on Roe the way they did. It was a specific interpretation of the law that did republicans no favors politically.

The court will not grant Trump blanket immunity.

But hey one of them flew a flag a certain way. Or hung out w the Crows a lot on their dime. That’s more important than actual rulings.

 

[Chopdawg75]

The court will not grant Trump blanket immunity.

Then when are they going to say so?