Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

andym

(5,441 posts)
11. History says otherwise
Wed Apr 7, 2021, 04:24 PM
Apr 2021

History demonstrates the SC has always been political.
It's good to have idealistic people like Breyer on the Supreme Court. However, the history of the SC clearly points to the court as being strongly influenced by the politics of the era that justices lived. The biggest problem is that the Constitution itself is a political document, grounded in the conflicting ideas and political needs of the time of its creation, so long ago. Using it as the ultimate authority in different eras with the possibility of amending it being so difficult, has and will create problems. Of course, it's not like there is a practical alternative either. To some extent we are thralls to history and its consequences.

Based on the content of that speech NoRethugFriends Apr 2021 #1
LOL, indeed. He seems deeply out of touch and/or detached from reality. LymphocyteLover Apr 2021 #18
He needs to retire before the midterm in case we lost the senate. Demsrule86 Apr 2021 #28
I really wish these fools on the court would stop living in a goddamned bubble. Humanist_Activist Apr 2021 #2
it's insane-- and this from a relative liberal justice who we need LymphocyteLover Apr 2021 #20
Justice Breyer is full of $hit! Of course the Supreme NewDayOranges Apr 2021 #3
You must've missed the Scalia party here when he died. oldsoftie Apr 2021 #15
it depends on how the court acts in the next big cases. How can we tolerate it if they decide we LymphocyteLover Apr 2021 #21
Well, those laws would have to be PASSED first. EOs wont cut it. oldsoftie Apr 2021 #32
Doing nothing though will not address the problem with the current imbalance with SCOTUS cstanleytech Apr 2021 #25
Thats true, but then they could have done it two yrs ago too. oldsoftie Apr 2021 #47
They did it already though. They blocked Obamas choice and then changed the rules to ram through cstanleytech Apr 2021 #49
+infinity quaint Apr 2021 #59
Aww Bless your heart RandiFan1290 Apr 2021 #44
I think it was along the lines of "Wow, didnt see THAT coming" oldsoftie Apr 2021 #51
Dirty old Scalia died in 2016. You got here in 2019. I don't recall the Scalia party at all. Judi Lynn Apr 2021 #45
Oh please. "Attacking?" And maybe you could read these simple searches. oldsoftie Apr 2021 #46
I don't really care what you qualify as "small" news cases. LakeArenal Apr 2021 #60
Electoral-Vote.com Had A Suggestion GB_RN Apr 2021 #19
That'll certainly take a Constitutional Amendment Polybius Apr 2021 #40
Not Really GB_RN Apr 2021 #50
Forcing Justices to rotate on the new "Constitutional Court" is the part I'm sketchy with Polybius Apr 2021 #58
This Would Be Legal GB_RN Apr 2021 #61
Of course, but the catch is that the final say is still theirs Polybius Apr 2021 #62
SCOTUS can't be stripped of its original jurisdiction embedded in Article III. lastlib Apr 2021 #41
OF COURSE IT'S A CONSERVATIVE COURT! That is exactly what McTurtle has been doing since stealing.. usaf-vet Apr 2021 #24
LOL "would threaten public trust" That horse fled the barn a long time ago. PSPS Apr 2021 #4
He's unintentionally showing us why we need to expand the court. lagomorph777 Apr 2021 #5
ok Stevie, wrap it up and get out! time for your pudding anyway... bringthePaine Apr 2021 #6
that and I hoep he retires DonCoquixote Apr 2021 #7
I agree. Pres Obama really should've had that choice earlier on. oldsoftie Apr 2021 #17
If It's Not Political modrepub Apr 2021 #8
Sorry Justice Breyer, but that trust you're talking about, Butterflylady Apr 2021 #9
What a steaming pile of BS. Demnation Apr 2021 #10
History says otherwise andym Apr 2021 #11
To a LARGE extent, we are thralls to history and its consequences. LymphocyteLover Apr 2021 #22
trust that has been gradually built over the centuries ... ... "further eroding that trust" progree Apr 2021 #12
Good point nuxvomica Apr 2021 #13
He's not stepping down any time soon, is he? BradAllison Apr 2021 #14
It doesn't sound like it. He's got it too good... VarryOn Apr 2021 #39
Except that he can retire and keep almost all of that FBaggins Apr 2021 #55
Doesn't sound like it. Ace Rothstein Apr 2021 #53
13 Justices NOW! Term-limits NOW!! NurseJackie Apr 2021 #16
Okay I'll play the game why then was the Voting Rights Act attacked turbinetree Apr 2021 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author ExTex Apr 2021 #26
What would happen if a justice retired or died? Would it be three picks then? GregariousGroundhog Apr 2021 #27
Seems reasonable. oldsoftie Apr 2021 #48
SCOTUS is already packed (And it IS Conservative) aeromanKC Apr 2021 #29
This stuffmatters Apr 2021 #31
Time to go, Stephen speak easy Apr 2021 #30
Sounds pretty half-baked to me. milestogo Apr 2021 #33
Expand the court to 21 members on a rotating retirement schedule Dawson Leery Apr 2021 #34
You think we can get a constitutional amendment through? FBaggins Apr 2021 #36
Well... perhaps compared to the other branches FBaggins Apr 2021 #35
what a steaming heap that is! NewHendoLib Apr 2021 #37
He should have town halls with people other than MarcA Apr 2021 #38
So the court isn't political... Mawspam2 Apr 2021 #42
Raise your hand if soldierant Apr 2021 #43
I don't need to be lectured about the non-political nature Harker Apr 2021 #52
Yeah, Clarence Thomas would never let his politics affect his decisions. Mysterian Apr 2021 #54
"Impeach Earl Warren." dchill Apr 2021 #56
He breathes rarified air. From his vantage point, he doesn't see that Politicub Apr 2021 #57
Breyer is supposed to be an intelligent man, but he is ignorant of history in two important ways Janbdwl72 May 2021 #63
"Threaten Public Trust"?????????? maxrandb May 2021 #64
Nice excuse to hang onto your seat, Justice Breyer PlanetBev Jun 2021 #65
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Justice Breyer Insists SC...»Reply #11