What is the fight over appointing a Supreme Court Justice really about?

.
From where I stand, I see the forces of good and evil in a raging confrontation and our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” hanging in the balance.

Is this not what the fight is really about with regard to nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices?

On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as “the rule of law” regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

On the one hand we have a system of government controlled and regulated by a written constitution which the people have agreed to, and may be altered only be its Amendment Process, which requires the people’s consent as prescribed therein. On the other hand the constitution becomes a meaningless document, perverted by appointed figure heads to accomplish nefarious goals which the people, through their Constitution, have forbidden.

So, when all is said and done, is this fight not about preserving and protecting our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and defending it against those who would use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as “the rule of law”?

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

1 Like

“Forces of good and evil”.

That this is believed is precisely what’s wrong with politics today.

Ideologues are the main blocker to getting anything of note done.

11 Likes

The left has now passed the point where the next time they are in power will be permanent. Pack the court, add states favorable to them, legalize millions and I assume import as many more as it takes to remain in power permanently.

1 Like

And now the existential argument.

Excellent…you have been trained well…

4 Likes

Which one of those aren’t they threatening to do? Keeping in mind any one of them is pretty despicable.

The fight is really about removing/controlling obstacles to the power to impose an agenda.

3 Likes

We are talking about the motives and hysteria exhibited by some of our politicians with regard to appointing a Supreme Court Justice, e.g.,

.

.
JWK

Those who promote democracy, as opposed to our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, are, in general, advocates of mob rule government, and they despise rights associated with property ownership in addition to fearing the liberty of all being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

As mentioned by those above, it is about power.

I believe the democrats have turned a corner in that they no longer wish to work with anyone unless it suits and promotes their agenda.

2 Likes

And don’t forget they want to eliminate the Electoral College too…

2 Likes

No we are talking about turning ordinary politics, with all its faults and foibles, into some titanic moral confrontation…lazy “white hats v black hats” thinking.

Which is why ideologues are a scourge…because ideologues are utterly detached from the reality of how the world actually works.

3 Likes

It’s about marginal tax rates, eminent domain and information management. It’s always about who gets taxed, what for, and how.

The whole purpose of government is to capture and apply the surplus.

1 Like

What is the fight over appointing a Supreme Court Justice really about?

Abortion

2 Likes

While distracting people by boiling politics down to an episode of the Lone Ranger…

1 Like

We do! But that’s not really a SC thing is it?

Yes it is, the state compact they are pushing will end up there if they ever get enough states to implement it.

State compacts have precedent.

There are more legal issues with it than it being a state compact, which is allowable with the consent of congress.

The move toward tolerance the last twenty years shows an embrace of demographic and earning shifts, yes; but it was following the money.

This Trumpian social backlash was predictable, and it can do tremendous harm, but it doesn’t follow the wealth here or among traditional allies. Probably why it has sought new associates among recent foes, and why its handlers are so desperate to change the arbiters of value, with those new associates’ assistance, here

1 Like

States can assign their electors, with latitude. And State compacts have precedent.

BINGO!!