General Discussion

kentuck

(111,052 posts) Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:35 PM Mar 2016

The Supreme Court has moved way too far to the right.

That is why we need a nominee that will bring the Court back to some semblance of balance.

It started its rightward drift with the nomination of Antonin Scalia during the Reagan Administration. He was the most partisan Justice in my lifetime, in my opinion. He moved the Court to the far right with many of his decisions. They were harmful to our nation and our political system.

Ideally, we want a court that is "balanced". In order to balance the present Court, we may need a very "liberal" Justice?

We do not need a Justice that will vote with the present conservatives on the Court. We need to over-ride many of the decisions of this Court.

In my opinion, this is how we should view any Supreme Court nominees.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court has moved way too far to the right. (Original Post) kentuck Mar 2016 OP

If you want a very "liberal" Justice then we will have to wait until after the election. Even Waldorf Mar 2016 #1

Democrats will probably take back the Senate. kentuck Mar 2016 #3

Ideally, you shouldn't be able to read a two line blurb about an upcomming case and know how any of hughee99 Mar 2016 #2

Agreed. I have a weird feeling about Obama's new pick. He's too old, middle politically, and has napi21 Mar 2016 #4

I would say that Scalia's death changed that. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2016 #5

It really doesn't matter how he is labeled by the media.... kentuck Mar 2016 #6

Waldorf

(654 posts)

1. If you want a very "liberal" Justice then we will have to wait until after the election. Even

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:41 PM

Mar 2016

if the Senate was not being obstructionist in Obama's final year there is no way they would confirm such a Justice.

kentuck

(111,052 posts)

3. Democrats will probably take back the Senate.

Reply to Waldorf (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:48 PM

Mar 2016

About two-dozen Republicans are up for re-election as to only ten Democrats. Especially if Trump is the nominee, in my opinion. It will look like 1964.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

2. Ideally, you shouldn't be able to read a two line blurb about an upcomming case and know how any of

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:46 PM

Mar 2016

the justices will rule until the arguments have been presented, but that's not the case.

napi21

(45,806 posts)

4. Agreed. I have a weird feeling about Obama's new pick. He's too old, middle politically, and has

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:52 PM

Mar 2016

apparently been in the running for SCOTUS the past. I think Obama recognized the Pubbies will not vote on ANY candidate he submits, so he chose to name someone who would make the Pubbies look really bad with their refusal to even give him a hearing. Obama's banking on the Dems winning the WH again, and the new Prez. can either present this candidate to the Senate AGAIN, or opt for one of their own choosing. Someone much younger, and more leftist to hold the left slant of the court for at least as long as Scalia did for the right.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)

5. I would say that Scalia's death changed that.

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:06 PM

Mar 2016

I don't think the new guy is a conservative, despite the hand ringing here.

kentuck

(111,052 posts)

6. It really doesn't matter how he is labeled by the media....

Reply to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:09 PM

Mar 2016

...so long as he doesn't vote with the present right-wingers on the Court.

Reply to this discussion