ADVERTISEMENT

...'Then they came for me'

irwinn

SuperCane
Gold Member
Sep 26, 2009
2,616
2,301
113
With each day that passes my concern grows. The Left, with it's henchmen in the media and Google, Facebook and Twitter, are attacking the very core of our existence and our voices can't be heard.

Now they want to stack the Supreme Court with 4 more justices in order to control the only branch that remains to protect the country, as we know it.

We Conservatives seem to be at a loss for a method to face this challenge. Now is the time to face it. Although we're quite capable at this time, to face this challenge when our backs are to the wall...we'd rather have a voice with which to push back at the underhanded attempts to push the Left's destructive agenda without digging in our heels and saying 'come and take it', if you get my drift, I don't want to be saying, 'thank G-d for Amendment 2'.

I'd like to hear from some attorneys amongst us as to how we might fight these extreme measures being foisted upon us by the left. Can this be fought in the courts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: doerunn and mahb
With each day that passes my concern grows. The Left, with it's henchmen in the media and Google, Facebook and Twitter, are attacking the very core of our existence and our voices can't be heard.

Now they want to stack the Supreme Court with 4 more justices in order to control the only branch that remains to protect the country, as we know it.

We Conservatives seem to be at a loss for a method to face this challenge. Now is the time to face it. Although we're quite capable at this time, to face this challenge when our backs are to the wall...we'd rather have a voice with which to push back at the underhanded attempts to push the Left's destructive agenda without digging in our heels and saying 'come and take it', if you get my drift, I don't want to be saying, 'thank G-d for Amendment 2'.

I'd like to hear from some attorneys amongst us as to how we might fight these extreme measures being foisted upon us by the left. Can this be fought in the courts?

I'm an attorney. You don't want opinions; you want your position confirmed. If you expressed outrage at the disparate treatment of Garland versus Barret then you are not a hypocrite. Statement of fact: the Court has been expanded in the past, the Constitution doesn't ascribe a fixed number.

Adding four seats, though equitable from the Left's perspective after the stunt pulled with Garland, is the worst idea this Centrist can imagine. The SCOTUS should not be beholden to the body politic. The fact that you believe that there are SCOTUS judges that are less interested in jurisprudence than political motive is the problem. Adding four more partisan judges is not the solution. Its a nightmare, not because they would "balance" the Court but because when ideology supplants jurisprudence we no longer have justice.

Your fear is that the ideological approach you desire could be undermined, I find that grotesque. The fear should be that justice, blind justice, might not occur.

The default to a not even thinly veiled reference to gun violence is perturbing but that's a distraction from my point.

Expanding the Court for political purposes erodes the fabric of the Court, already badly damaged. The Courts should not be subject to political whims, even if it is a 40 year cycle. I don't think Clarence Thomas is a worthy justice. I don't find him scholarly or particularly insightful. I rarely agree with his opinions, quite rarely. I think that he applies the law through the academic lens he views it in (limited as it may be) and does so impartially and consistently. I respect Judges enough to believe that. Perhaps you, and the left, should give that a try. They are not "your" judges, they are not the "left" or "rights" judges, they are the peoples, all of the peoples, arbiters of Constitutional rights and limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zackbear
I'm an attorney. You don't want opinions; you want your position confirmed. If you expressed outrage at the disparate treatment of Garland versus Barret then you are not a hypocrite. Statement of fact: the Court has been expanded in the past, the Constitution doesn't ascribe a fixed number.

Adding four seats, though equitable from the Left's perspective after the stunt pulled with Garland, is the worst idea this Centrist can imagine. The SCOTUS should not be beholden to the body politic. The fact that you believe that there are SCOTUS judges that are less interested in jurisprudence than political motive is the problem. Adding four more partisan judges is not the solution. Its a nightmare, not because they would "balance" the Court but because when ideology supplants jurisprudence we no longer have justice.

Your fear is that the ideological approach you desire could be undermined, I find that grotesque. The fear should be that justice, blind justice, might not occur.

The default to a not even thinly veiled reference to gun violence is perturbing but that's a distraction from my point.

Expanding the Court for political purposes erodes the fabric of the Court, already badly damaged. The Courts should not be subject to political whims, even if it is a 40 year cycle. I don't think Clarence Thomas is a worthy justice. I don't find him scholarly or particularly insightful. I rarely agree with his opinions, quite rarely. I think that he applies the law through the academic lens he views it in (limited as it may be) and does so impartially and consistently. I respect Judges enough to believe that. Perhaps you, and the left, should give that a try. They are not "your" judges, they are not the "left" or "rights" judges, they are the peoples, all of the peoples, arbiters of Constitutional rights and limits.
Garland vs Barret mean nothing to me without your input.

Thank you for entering this discussion. I'm not on the left, nor do I wish my position(s) confirmed by the courts. I want us on the right to have our concerns heard, heard and considered. We are being silenced, minimized and our democracy is being threatened.

Why aren't we on the right bringing more of our challenges before the courts. Public opinion is being polluted by the left and the most powerful communication forces are fully supporting the left and steamrolling us.

I want us to push back before this divide grows into what you called a 'veiled threat'. Not a threat, it's my greatest fear.
 
I'm an attorney. You don't want opinions; you want your position confirmed. If you expressed outrage at the disparate treatment of Garland versus Barret then you are not a hypocrite. Statement of fact: the Court has been expanded in the past, the Constitution doesn't ascribe a fixed number.

Adding four seats, though equitable from the Left's perspective after the stunt pulled with Garland, is the worst idea this Centrist can imagine. The SCOTUS should not be beholden to the body politic. The fact that you believe that there are SCOTUS judges that are less interested in jurisprudence than political motive is the problem. Adding four more partisan judges is not the solution. Its a nightmare, not because they would "balance" the Court but because when ideology supplants jurisprudence we no longer have justice.

Your fear is that the ideological approach you desire could be undermined, I find that grotesque. The fear should be that justice, blind justice, might not occur.

The default to a not even thinly veiled reference to gun violence is perturbing but that's a distraction from my point.

Expanding the Court for political purposes erodes the fabric of the Court, already badly damaged. The Courts should not be subject to political whims, even if it is a 40 year cycle. I don't think Clarence Thomas is a worthy justice. I don't find him scholarly or particularly insightful. I rarely agree with his opinions, quite rarely. I think that he applies the law through the academic lens he views it in (limited as it may be) and does so impartially and consistently. I respect Judges enough to believe that. Perhaps you, and the left, should give that a try. They are not "your" judges, they are not the "left" or "rights" judges, they are the peoples, all of the peoples, arbiters of Constitutional rights and limits.
While I dont agree with it, Garland was a response to a previous bad decision changing rules, using the new rule to prevent the nomination.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT