• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

In true hedging fashion, SCOTUS itself is more politicized than a lot of attorneys are willing to admit but is also less politicized than a lot of people who follow politics are willing to admit.

The confirmation process is arguably the most politicized aspect of America besides voting.
 
I'm going to enjoy the mental gymnastics the court goes through to try and stop a Democrat president from using an XO to declare a crisis concerning gun control.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
That’s stupid.

RBG came out this week and specifically praised Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and stated that expanding the Court would only politicize what is supposed to be a non-political position.
Click to expand...

When has a Justice said that his/her fellow justices is partisan hack to the press?

The reality is the concept of the Supreme Court being non-partisan was on life support for decades and the plug was pulled by McConnell.
 
lol no. judges are people with biases just like everybody else and always have been.
 
Junebug said:
That’s a non-sequitur. Of course they do. But they didn’t start wading into the culture wars until Griswold, which led to Roe.
Click to expand...

What? Brown was a pretty significant wade into culture wars that your people didn’t approve at the time.
 
PhDeac said:
What? Brown was a pretty significant wade into culture wars that your people didn’t approve at the time.
Click to expand...

And heavily used social science as justification. Conservatives disagreed with the decision legally as judicial activism and from a social perspective.
 
Junebug said:
That’s a non-sequitur. Of course they do. But they didn’t start wading into the culture wars until Griswold, which led to Roe.
Click to expand...

That’s a mischaracterization of what Griswold was about if I ever saw one. That wasn’t about “culture wars”. And again you ignore the countless decisions that were pro-conservatives that didn’t make any sense (Heller, Citizens United, Bush, basically every labor case under Rehnquist) that show how the court is political both ways.
 
If anything you should be adamantly pro-Griswold as it reduced government’s ability to tell people how to live their lives. But I guess because it’s about the sex stuff the government should have more say.
 
Junebug said:
I don’t think the government should tell people they can’t use contraceptives, but I don’t think the U.S. Constitution speaks to the issue.
Click to expand...

Good thing the right to contraceptives wasn’t the issue in Griswold then.
 
Junebug said:
This really is the difference in conservative and liberal judges. Liberals try to enshrine their policy preferences in the constitution. For the most part, conservatives want to leave the issues to the people. Nobody in Lawrence thought a law prohibiting consenting men from having butt sex was a good idea, but conservatives recognized that the constitution didn’t speak to the issue, while liberals created a right that didn’t previously exist. When you are dealing with that kind of mindset, of course the court is going to be politicized.
Click to expand...

False again, no right was created by the Lawrence decision.
 
Junebug said:
This really is the difference in conservative and liberal judges. Liberals try to enshrine their policy preferences in the constitution. For the most part, conservatives want to leave the issues to the people. Nobody in Lawrence thought a law prohibiting consenting men from having butt sex was a good idea, but conservatives recognized that the constitution didn’t speak to the issue, while liberals created a right that didn’t previously exist. When you are dealing with that kind of mindset, of course the court is going to be politicized.
Click to expand...

The constitution didn’t speak directly to butt sex? You sure about that?
 
junebug is a master troll or a total idiot

which is it junebug? you trolling?
 
Junebug said:
Sure it was: regardless of how narrowly you read Lawrence, at the very least, it created the right of consenting adults to be free from laws regulating private sexual activity on the basis of morality.
Click to expand...

See, you're tattling on yourself here. That is not what the holding of Lawrence said. I recommend you go back and read the Lawrence opinion; it will surely open your eyes. In Bowers, the majority scoffed at the argument you are making, that there is no constitutional right to sodomy. But that wasn't what was being argued, and in Lawrence the Court correctly found that the issue wasn't about sodomy, but about the discriminatory application of laws against one subset of society. The Court even allowed that a sodomy law that was applied against both straight and gay couples would probably stand constitutional scrutiny, but the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow facially neutral laws to be applied discriminatorily. Scalia and Rehnquist and all the rest can shake their fists at "constitutional gay sex" but that couldn't be further from the what the holding actually was.

I'd buy your argument more if you went full Thomas and said the Constitution essentially doesn't have any rights at all therefore the case is a moot point, but that's kookoo land and no one should be there.
 
Junebug said:
This really is the difference in conservative and liberal judges. Liberals try to enshrine their policy preferences in the constitution. For the most part, conservatives want to leave the issues to the people. Nobody in Lawrence thought a law prohibiting consenting men from having butt sex was a good idea, but conservatives recognized that the constitution didn’t speak to the issue, while liberals created a right that didn’t previously exist. When you are dealing with that kind of mindset, of course the court is going to be politicized.
Click to expand...

Well yeah the court is going to be politicized if conservatives believe “the people” should be able to regulate what individuals do with their bodies and liberals believe individuals should decide for themselves.
 
Plenty of people in Lawrence believed preventing butt stuff was a good idea just like millions of Americans still do.
 
There were amicus briefs arguing that homosexuals were disease prone and promiscuous while several states (including South Carolina) argued that gay sodomy had religious and physical consequences in comparison to heterosexual sodomy.
 
What's wrong with new rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top