The Supremes (Justices)

From iGeek
(Redirected from Category:Supremes)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Supremes is my shorthand for the Supreme Court Justices. Here's a little background on them.

Background

If you were to order the current justices from most Constitutionalist (Conservative) to least (most Progressive/Political), the order would be Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Kegan, Sotomayor, RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsberg)... with Kennedy, Roberts and Breyer occasionally jumping to the other side on a few issues. While the Democrats (Breyer, Kegan, Sotomayor, RBG) tend to vote in a block on left-leaning cases.

Judicial Activism generally means legislating from the bench: inventing law, instead of just interpreting it... or coloring it based on what you think the law should have said, instead of what it actually said. This started with a turn of the 19th century invention by progressives (and the Harvard Law Review) that the Constitution should be imagined as a "living document", that can be changed over time -- and that precedent is more important than original intent. So you can "interpret" something to mean what you think it should have meant, then use that in the future.... which means your starting point in the future is not the original intent, but the revised intent (interpretation) invented by other judges, and you go from there, until the final interpretation of the law, looks nothing like the original.

This precedence above prudence and original intent empowers Judges to become oligarchs, twisting the law to fit their morals, and enforcing it on everyone else. (A progressive's wet dream). So while the right is occasionally activist (or at least makes poor or politically motivated decisions that deviate from actual law), this is the whole reason for being for Progressives. Their purpose in life is to push their ideas for progress, no matter what the law says. And so while there are valid complaints against all the Judges for not being legally consistent, no one can re-imagine what they think the law should have said like Progressives.

If there's an obviously wrong side (from an original intent PoV), you stand better than average odds that Sotomayor and RBG are going to be on it. Putting their personal agendas above the actual law, national interest, or consequences.

Background: Supremes : 4 items


Sonia Sotomayor - Obama SCOTUS Pick Sotomayor the "wise latina" picked for her identity and politics more than her accomplishments, seems to be plenty willing to politicize the court, and lower the tone. Not unlike Obama himself. Here's a few examples.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg -
InfamousRBG1.jpg
The infamous RBG. Single handedly dividing and polarizing us, and demonstrating how not to be a Supreme Court Justice. She's like the Rose Bird of the federal court, putting her own interests and political agenda above the law. At her confirmation she swore under oath that she was neither a Democrat or Republican, yet she has been the most consistently far-left DNC supporter once on the bench, proving the truism that Democrats lie. While I don't wish harm on anyone, when she dies, the Supreme Court will get a lot better.

Merrick Garland -
GarlandOrNot.jpg
Merrick Garland was a progressive judicial pick, that had the poor fortune of being picked by an unpopular President at an improper time: after his party had promised on multiple occasions that Supreme Court judges should not be placed during an election year. The Republicans force-fed the Democrats their wishes... and the Democrats went along because they thought their anointed Hillary would win the election, and they'd get to parlay into an even MORE leftist Judge (like Barack Obama, in exchange for his support of her). They lost, and had post-election meltdown that their gamble didn't work out the way they wanted, while ignoring that 30 of 113 appointments to the Supreme Court were never confirmed (25-30%). Despite the media's lies, no unpopular President's lame duck appointments has ever been approved while the opposition party controlled the Senate. Ever. In the 20th Century, the Republicans had never blocked a Democrat appointment, while the Democrats blocked 10 of the Republicans, 1 of their own, and tried to sabotage 2 others.

Brett Kavanaugh -
KevanaughPosters.jpg
The left has a rich history of politicizing and undermining the autonomy of the Supreme Court. Democrats put litmus tests on their sides appointments, and accuse the other side of doing the same -- but the truth is the right does not have to: their side fight for Constitutional originalism which limits federal power, while the left fights for activists who will invent laws from the bench (thus they need to know what those laws might be). This started with Samuel Chase and impeachment from the court in 1803 over judicial overreach and bad behavior. But in modern times the left invented slow rolling the other sides appointments, or outright blocking them on specious grounds. Then they invented the concept of "Borking" which is inventing lame excuses to slander justices to get them to withdraw, and undermine what is clearly a Presidential power. Ted Kennedy had actually tried it on Bill Rehnquist, immediately before Bork, but it had failed -- but the success of Bork'ing Bork, got them to repeated the effort with Douglas Ginsburg (successfully), and Clearance Thomas (unsuccessfully), and they still harass Thomas as a sexual deviant or Uncle Tom to this day. The latest was over Brett Kavanaugh. The far left had pre-printed posters to hate on whichever of the dozen Justices that Trump picked -- not for actual flaws in their character, or over bad rulings/behavior, but because they don't like constitutionalists on the court, and they were trying to get the Republicans back over their anger at not getting Merick Garland. They even leaked press releases with "{Insert Justice's Name Here}" in place of the actual justices name by accident. This wasn't about who was picked, it was that the far left (and their media) wasn't getting to stack the Supreme Court with anti-Constitutional radicals and so they found a far left activist to invent an unprovable claim of sexual harassment (back in the 10th grade: 36 years ago), and turned the process into a #metoo witch hunt.

GeekPirate.small.png

 
📚 References

Supreme Court

There are two truths about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS):
  1. That it was a great idea, and copied by many since.
  2. That Democrats have tried to alternately over-empower it, corrupt or undermine it (and the appointments), since it's creation; depending on whether SCOTUS was furthering or undermining their agenda of taking power away from the states and people, and giving it to the elites.