That’s definitely the popular perception, and it might even be accurate. Everyone has bias, including judges. The problem for me is Vance’s statement basically implying that the judiciary should bend to popular opinion. That’s not how it works.
How about “No, Vance isn’t attacking the basis of our federal system?” That would seem to work as well as saying he is without defining our federal system or how Vance’s statements are attacking it.
I explained my position in my post. We have elected representatives, the electoral college, and a judiciary to prevent mob rule. But Vance stated that judicial decisions should reflect current popular opinion as reflected by the most recent election. Do you agree?
I don’t know that I have an ideal system. I do see his point. It is a myth that judges aren’t political, they are just biased towards the view of the party that appointed them. Would it be better if their bias was more in favor of the most recent administration? Hmmmm…
A good question. Not an attack on the federal system as I see it, but a good question.
1 Like
Thank you for this response. Bias in the judiciary is real, no doubt. But I disagree with Vance on this one. Judges should do their best to make decisions based on the law, not on the most recent election results. That should always be the goal. Trump-appointed judges shouldn’t abandon their convictions and legal opinions if a Democrat wins the next election.
I followed up with the following:
Radical LW judges have nothing to do with adjudicating the law. They need to be reined in. Best if you don’t attempt to cherry pick Vance’s comments, thereby creating a strawman argument.
You created a strawman argument by cherry picking Vance’s comments. My one-word response was appropriate within that context.
1 Like
Yes.
…
It would be nice if judges would uphold the Constitution instead of being partisan political hacks.
1 Like
Yeah. Well, that is not the trend. I am sticking with reality.
All I ask is the judiciary do their job in an un-biased manner. If they are supposed to collect a bond, they should do it. Boasberg should not open his chambers after hours on a week end to accept a case that isnt even in his district.
2 Likes
Try addressing what Vance said instead of your knee-jerk “LW judges” deflection. Vance’s words are clear, he thinks judges should go along with Trump’s agenda simply because Trump won the election. Something tells me he won’t feel the same way when a Democrat is in office.
Absolutely. And all I ask is that people not assume every ruling they disagree with is biased and unconstitutional. And I wish the VP understood the role of the judiciary.
Actually, Vance said nothing of the kind.
He does.
Here’s the quote again.
It’s clear that Vance is saying the courts should approve the administration’s immigration policies because those policies are what the people “voted for.” His statement is quite straightforward. Now explain what he really meant.
lol. like 1% of the time.
SCOTUS allows many, many, many cases to stand as is.
Allan
No, it’s not clear that is what Vance is saying. That is what you are saying.
Lower courts are overturned about 70% of the time.
2 Likes
Explain why you think he’s not saying what he’s plainly saying. What did he really mean?
of the cases heard by SCOTUS which is 1%
most cases never see SCOTUS and thus the lowers court opinions are affirmed at that level.
Allan
