US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

[SmokeyDan]

Why not ignore all that? None of that is even Constitutional to consider. And what slip-slide are you on to think the top experts in Law are supposed to be Representative of the People.
They are representative of Law, not people.

This is not the Legislature. This is another branch of govt that is for experienced legal experts that are clean enough to be considered at all.

It is well above everything but the Constitution itself. They alone preserve the Constitution the President is sworn to protect.

Take you UN-constitutianal "should" and stick it up your shood.

What are you anyway, a Canadian....or Irish?

What world do you live in where you think there are not upstanding members of the legal profession from all parts of this great land?

And if such concerns are unconstitutional, then why are there special considerations in favor of getting black and female justices?

 

[Red1966]

She is no kook. That is your partisan opinion, And you would not even know to parrot that had not some hate group dug up some comments and smeared it beyond proportion.

Or are you a guy that thinks women should not be represented along with too many Jews.

You are focusing on your hate, not reality.

She is clearly a fruit case. It is your defense of her that is partisan. But leave it to you to claim any any criticism is based in bigotry. Face it dude, the entire Democratic party is driven by and based on hate.

 

[Red1966]

You missed the memo.

SCOTUS keeps us from discrimination on race color or creed, as best they can, considering we are a bunch of mean and crazy sovereigns with the 9th Amendment at our backs.

The birth religions of these folks, don't matter. Kooks are not considered. Congress can block appointments. This is the rule of law.

The Supreme court has not only blessed discrimination, but enforced it.

 

[Doer]

"your lies and racists attacks."? Really? I challenge you to quote just one of these, you lying bastard. Just as you accused me of making personal attacks previously, you never responded with even one. Is your position so bankrupt you can only make up lies to defend it? If it was law and not people, every decision would be unanimous. The reason the court rules against the president so consistently is because even his liberal appointees can not stomach his lawless, dictatorial abuse of his office. He would have been impeached years ago if it were not for the majority of corrupt, lying Democrats in the Senate who behave, surprise, surprise, much like you.

Oh, lying bastard, huh? That's a racist, personal attack right there.

 

[Doer]

She is clearly a fruit case. It is your defense of her that is partisan. But leave it to you to claim any any criticism is based in bigotry. Face it dude, the entire Democratic party is driven by and based on hate.

uh....life's a mirror. You are.

 

[Doer]

What world do you live in where you think there are not upstanding members of the legal profession from all parts of this great land?

And if such concerns are unconstitutional, then why are there special considerations in favor of getting black and female justices?

Clean enough to get considered, don't forget.

I am just pointing out, you must be from Canada so ill-versed in our Process, you are.

 

[Doer]

The Supreme court has not only blessed discrimination, but enforced it.

You make bland statements exposing your hateful life and call it content.

 

[Red1966]

Oh, lying bastard, huh? That's a racist, personal attack right there.

What part of "lying bastard" is racist? You didn't deny its accuracy, I noticed. Note also it came AFTER you made that false claim. So you still failed to prove your false claim. Lying bastard.

 

[Red1966]

uh....life's a mirror. You are.

Third grade retort. You're improving.

 

[Red1966]

You make bland statements exposing your hateful life and call it content.

You seem to be the one full of hate here, not me. I didn't call it content, you did. I noticed you couldn't muster an argument to my statement, AGAIN.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Clean enough to get considered, don't forget.

I am just pointing out, you must be from Canada so ill-versed in our Process, you are.

In a perfect world, you're right, a persons race, and other personal details shouldn't be considered. But since we consider them when minorities are concerned, they should be considered to make sure the majority has a voice as well.

 

[UncleBuck]

they should be considered to make sure the majority has a voice as well.

if that's the case, then we need to get rid of scalia and alito and replace them with a white woman and a hispanic or asian of either sex. white males are currently overrepresented on the SCOTUS.

 

[SmokeyDan]

if that's the case, then we need to get rid of scalia and alito and replace them with a white woman and a hispanic or asian of either sex. white males are currently overrepresented on the SCOTUS.

Replace them as they die off.

Kennedy and Breyer need to go before Scalia (representing what used to be a minority nationality, now just another white guy), and Alito isn't fully white either.

 

[UncleBuck]

Replace them as they die off.

Kennedy and Breyer need to go before Scalia (representing what used to be a minority nationality, now just another white guy), and Alito isn't fully white either.

i'm pretty sure we need to evict the guy who calls voting a "racial entitlement" first, since his racist beliefs should be deader than dogshit.

and alito is fully white you fucking clown.

 

[SmokeyDan]

i'm pretty sure we need to evict the guy who calls voting a "racial entitlement" first, since his racist beliefs should be deader than dogshit.

and alito is fully white you fucking clown.

Scalia is sicilian, Alito is Itallian. Neither were considered "white enough" one hundred years ago.

That was my point.

Explain your racial entitlement point. Because I'm not getting it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Scalia is sicilian, Alito is Itallian. Neither were considered "white enough" one hundred years ago.

That was my point.

they were nominated recently, not 100 years ago.

Explain your racial entitlement point. Because I'm not getting it.

scalia said this about the voting rights act:

I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

 

[SmokeyDan]

they were nominated recently, not 100 years ago.



scalia said this about the voting rights act:

I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

What's untrue in anything he said there?

 

[UncleBuck]

What's untrue in anything he said there?

voting is a right, not a "racial entitlement".

retard.

 

[SmokeyDan]

voting is a right, not a "racial entitlement".

retard.

Voting is not, never was, and was never intended to be a right.

Read Bush v Gore (2000) US whatever, not looking up the citation for it, but it fully explains the vote.

Voting is something that can't be restricted based on race. But if a state decided not to hold a vote for the president, and just let the state legislature determine where to spend their electoral votes, that would be fine and no one's voting rights would be violated.

voting rights is a legal fiction. There are no such things.

I suspect Scalia's argument is just over your head.

 

[UncleBuck]

Voting is not, never was, and was never intended to be a right.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.