Interersting observations, considering the current POTUS....and the times in general

Jun 2013
18,911
16,986
Here
In my lifetime, I do not remember the Supreme Court being considered to be so partisan, especially openly in public discourse and most especially regarding those who the Constitution points to as the selector of the nominees.

It's not a one political side thing, but considering the make up of the court for the last several decades and some of the decisions that have down and with the recent barring of even giving the former President's nominee a hearing and the point made by the current President as he was campaigning, about choosing a SCOTUS Justice that would reflect a certain partisanship, one has to wonder if our SC can maintain impartiality and present America and Americans, with what any legitimate court in any free and honorable nation has a duty to provide, with that impartiality.

No one can force any one else to think a certain way, without concerted brainwashing. We all develop our sense of what is right, in a political sense, by our experiences and by observing others and making conclusions about how people act affect others in positive or negative ways and coming to some sort of group consensus about those observations and working to promote those that most agree are positive for humanity, discourage or bar those that are not. The deepening partisanship in this nation, that now seems to encompass the SCOTUS perhaps more than it ever has, is disturbing and should be troubling to all Americans.

While there seems nothing wrong with the thought that some positive "Traditional values" might be diminished in this day and age, the irony of a SC Justice assigning blame for that loss or decrease to a specific group of people called "liberals", is that in doing so, he is partaking in what he is criticizing, an attack on the traditional values that the the justices of the SC are appointed to be impartial, not to do, what Alito did in the following. On top of that, to such a thing, when the current President of the United States is an admitted adulterer, greedy, a bearer of false witness, gluttonous and otherwise a walking talking example of a loss of "traditional values", it appears as if Alito, as a SC Justice, could NOT possibly be impartial if he cannot even observe that Trump was NOT elected by liberals, but backed by many "Christians"! How could a SC Justice be so un observant and partisan as Alito demonstrated in a recent speech?



"Speaking to graduating Catholic seminarians last month, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an urgent message: America's "traditional values," he warned, are under attack, and the assault on Christianity is coming from the left."

"For most of my life, American people have been united in their strong respect for religious liberty. But recently, things have started to change," Alito told the Class of '17 at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, a Catholic institution in Wynnewood, New Jersey. "The idea that speech can be banned if it expresses an idea that is offensive is spreading around the country."

"The moralizing nature of the speech wasn't surprising: Alito, a devout Catholic and member of the court's conservative bloc, is known for his distaste of liberal social positions. He often quotes from his own scathing dissent in a 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage, as he did at St. Borromeo:"

"I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes. But if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

"But some Supreme Court observers question whether Alito violated a cardinal rule – that judges should maintain a public image of impartiality – particularly since the justices could soon rule on a marquee Supreme Court case that could redraw the line between church and state."


https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-06-02/supreme-court-justices-blur-lines-with-political-speeches


As mentioned, it is not all one sided, but I'm not sure what religious "conservatives" would define Christ to be, if they were required to categorize him as they have categorized their fellow Americans, as Alito has done on passing blame on a loss of "traditional values" on to "liberals". What about Christ would define him politically as a "conservative" and if he wasn't considered a "conservative" what would be be considered?

The very reasons the founders of this nation wanted to separate their personal churches (religions) from the "state" was because they were honorable, wise and truthful to themselves enough to recognize not ALL Americans would be their same denomination of Christianity, but may not even be Christian or have a belief in any sort of organized religion. There is evidence of this throughout the documents and letters of this nations founders. It is quite disturbing that a SC Justice could make such a speech when their entire raison d'etre in their position as a Supreme Court Justice is to be impartial and uphold the Constitution and Amendment I says Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion.......

Barring practices, references and items of a specific establishment of religion in public places is ACTUALLY MORE Constitutional than less, unless, every religion (characteristic of any American's religious belief is given equal time and recognition. In addition, barring such practices, references (but for teaching about them and their existence) and items in public places, does NOT bar people from practicing their religions, in their own home and at their places of worship. No one is barred from kneeling on their own and saying prayers to their God and the Bible even suggests that people pray in private, rather than on display of others. One's religion is not about their country, but about their personal relationship with their God. Trying to force others to say your Christian religious prayers, also seems to defy the religion of Christ, rather than support it. I'm not sure why people should not live their lives according to what they believe in taking their clues and actions from their religion, but not require others to live by the same.

Teaching by example, for Christians, something Christ did, and for all others, seems to be more effective than forcing people to practice a religion that is NOT theirs.


While the disturbing partisanship is NOT all about religion, Alito's speech illustrates the interjection of political partisanship into those whose "revered" and "honorable" positions, one would expect to be all about impartiality. In addition, that a SC Justice does not appear to have the humility (a human and Christian VIRTUE) to observe their own partisanship, is disturbing. It also seems disturbing that Alito did not have the wisdom or the presence of mind to think in an impartial way with his allegations about banning free speech. As far as I know, speech is not banned entirely and Alito seems to insinuate that a right for people to bar things like hateful speech or forcing others to say prayers of a religion

The same with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her comments about Trump, but it could be discussed and debated that her comments were directed at a single individual, based on that individual's actions and aimed more at the actions, than any politics, connected to them. One could also argue she was being no less partisan than Alito. Regardless of what any of us might think, it seems as though it should be disturbing, not only that a body intended and established to be impartial, is so openly discussed and even used as a partisan political device, but has members of that body, demonstrating political partisanship and a lack of impartiality, in public.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
May 2012
70,513
14,300
By the wall
The Court is supposed to be partisan in their interpretations.

This is why they are appointed by the president.

The Court never goes too far left or too far right but always goes forward.

A Court that was always unanimous would be a very bad thing.
 
Jun 2013
18,911
16,986
Here
Citizens of Bizarro World continue to demonstrate their bizarre backwards behavior and mindset.

Meanwhile, here on earth:


The constitutional principles that bind our free society instruct that the
American people must "hold the judgeship in the highest esteem, that they regard
it as the symbol of impartial, fair, and equal justice under law."'1 Accordingly,
in contrast with the political branches, the Supreme Court's decisions
"are legitimate only when [the Court] seeks to dissociate itself from individual
or group interests, and to judge by disinterested and more objective standards." 2
As Justice Frankfurter said, "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. 3

Almost instinctively, once a President appoints a judge to sit on the Supreme
Court,4 the public earmarks the Justice as an incarnation of impartiality,
neutrality, and trustworthiness. Not surprisingly then, Presidents have looked to
the Court for appointments to high profile and important committees of
5 national concern. It is among members of the judiciary that a President can
find individuals certain to obtain the immediate respect of the American people,
and often the world community. It is a judge's neutrality, fair-mindedness, and
integrity that once again label him a person of impartiality and fairness, a person
who seeks justice, and a President's first choice to serve the nation. The
characteristics that led to a judge's initial appointment under our adversary system,
and which lend themselves to appearances of propriety and justice in our
courts, often carry over into extrajudicial activities as well. As Ralph K.
Winter, Jr., then a professor at the Yale Law School, stated:
[t]he appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court to head a governmental commission
or inquiry usually occurs because of the existence of a highly controversial
issue which calls for some kind of official or authoritative resolution .... And the
use of Supreme Court Justices, experience shows, is generally prompted by a presidential desire
to trade on the prestige of the Court in laying the matter to rest. 6
But there has been opposition to appointing Supreme Court Justices to extrajudicial
roles since the framing of the Constitution.7 This opposition argues
that preserving the neutrality and passivity of a Justice is necessary to uphold
the legitimacy of our adversary system. 8 These same arguments are, interestingly
enough, relied upon by the President when he appoints a Justice to such a
role. It is upon this paradox-that a President's rationale for the extrajudicial
appointments of Supreme Court Justices and an opponent's rationale for contesting
such appointments are based on the same idea, that "justice must satisfy
the appearance of justice"--that this Note will focus.

Part I will define and highlight the characteristics of the adversary system
employed by Anglo-American courts today. Once the reader understands a
judge's role in adversary theory as a neutral and passive fact-finder, and
nothing else, it becomes obvious why the public, and most importantly, the
President considers a Supreme Court Justice the embodiment of impartiality,
fairness, and justice. Part II will provide historical examples of Presidents who,
motivated by this perception, appointed Justices to extrajudicial positions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2003.
1. JOEL B. GROSSMAN, LAWYERS AND JUDGES 1 (1965) (internal citation omitted).
2. ARCHIBALD Cox, THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT 1N AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 108-09
(1976).
3. Jerold H. Israel, Cornerstones of the Judicial Process, KAN. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y, Spring 1993, at
5, 20 (quoting Offut v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954)).
4. This Note will focus exclusively on the activities of Supreme Court Justices for the purposes of
organization and expediency.
5. Robert B. McKay aggregates a selective yet substantial record of Supreme Court Justices' non- judicial activities beginning with Chief Justice John Jay and continuing through Chief Justice Warren
Burger. His work demonstrates the commonality and degree to which most Presidents rely upon and
look to the Court for political participation separate from the bench. Robert B. McKay, The Judiciary
andNonjudicial Activities, 35 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 9, 27-36 (1970).
Yale Law & Policy Review Vol. 21:501, 2003




"The President, in accord with the Constitution, presumably motivated by
some of these rationales, and dedicated to the adversary tradition, pursues a
candidate who embodies the characteristics that make for a neutral and passive
judge. There is no single characteristic or quality of an individual, however,
which assures neutrality and passivity. Many American Justices, unlike jurists
of continental Europe who are most often trained specifically for the bench,
have no judicial background. 16 Accordingly, Presidents must look to a candidate's
individual character to gauge the presence of "good judge" qualities such
as neutrality and passivity. Sheldon Goldman identifies qualities, characteristics,
or traits that are associated with the ideal type of "good judge," most notably:"

"1. Neutrality as to the Parties in Litigation. Nothing ill becomes a judge more than
a reputation for being biased or playing favorites among disputants."

"2. Fair-mindedness. A sensitivity to the requirements of procedural due process as a
means to a fair trial is the hallmark of a fair-minded judge."

[3.] "Personal Integrity. A judge must have high moral standards and be able to
withstand political and economic pressures and carry out the law to the best of his
or her ability."

[4.] "Ability to Handle Judicial Power Sensibly. Of course, this quality is defined differently
by those who differ as to what is the "sensible" or the "common sense" use
of judicial power. For example, some believe that a good judge is one who exercises
judicial power in support of civil rights and civil liberties, and with a particular sensitivity
to racial and sexual discrimination and the rights of the underdogs of society.
Others believe that a good judge will exercise judicial power modestly, with
great sensitivity to the limited capacity of judges to solve society's problems, and
make deference to the policymaking prerogatives of the democratic branches of
17 government."


"These "qualities" arguably hint at a passive and neutral judge-that is, a
judge who will sit comfortably in the seat of impartiality designated by our judicial
system. In order to maintain an "appearance of justice," so crucial to society's
belief in the validity of equal justice under law, a President's ideal appointee
will posses such qualities that contribute to neutrality and passivity.
And once the Justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, the nation and the
world at large will view him or her as possessing such characteristics."

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1462&context=ylpr

The court is NOT "supposed to be partisan". That paradoxes exist, which cause it to be, in some ways, has already been mentioned, but the intent is for neutrality and impartiality.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2007
11,730
5,825
NE Wisconsin
The Court is supposed to be partisan in their interpretations.

This is why they are appointed by the president.

The Court never goes too far left or too far right but always goes forward.

A Court that was always unanimous would be a very bad thing.
No, the United States Supreme Court is to avoid partisan politics and strictly adhere to the Constitutional application of the law.

Cheers,

Bourne
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Apr 2012
935
1,001
The Court is supposed to be partisan in their interpretations.

This is why they are appointed by the president.

The Court never goes too far left or too far right but always goes forward.

A Court that was always unanimous would be a very bad thing.
Do all those 5 to 4 right wing decisions mean the court is moving forward?

We now have a judge who wrote an opinion that an employee must obey the company even if it threatens his life or risk being fired. The Supremes are losing any respect they once had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
May 2012
70,513
14,300
By the wall
No, the United States Supreme Court is to avoid partisan politics and strictly adhere to the Constitutional application of the law.

Cheers,

Bourne
If the Constitution was clear we wouldn't need to interpret it would we?

Because we do have to interpret it you have people that can take varying positions.

This is where partisanship comes in. At times the court is left and interprets it one way then the right gets in power and takes our laws the other way.

This ensures it never goes too far in one direction.

That was the intent of the founders.
 
May 2012
70,513
14,300
By the wall
Do all those 5 to 4 right wing decisions mean the court is moving forward?

We now have a judge who wrote an opinion that an employee must obey the company even if it threatens his life or risk being fired. The Supremes are losing any respect they once had.
The court is right leaning at the moment and they should be implementing laws which reflect that.

In a couple of decades the court will probably lean left and they will do the same, this creates a balance in our system and prevents us from becoming too heavily invested in one ideology.

It's like a grandfather clock. The pendulum swings left and right but passes center more often.

When dumbshits like Kennedy vote with the other side he is undermining the system our founders created.
 
Nov 2007
11,730
5,825
NE Wisconsin
If the Constitution was clear we wouldn't need to interpret it would we?

Because we do have to interpret it you have people that can take varying positions.

This is where partisanship comes in. At times the court is left and interprets it one way then the right gets in power and takes our laws the other way.

This ensures it never goes too far in one direction.

That was the intent of the founders.
Interpretation of the Constitution by individual Justices is not by any stretch of the imagination being partisan.

Cheers,

Bourne
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Nov 2014
32,118
6,291
North Carolina
If the Constitution was clear we wouldn't need to interpret it would we?

Because we do have to interpret it you have people that can take varying positions.

This is where partisanship comes in. At times the court is left and interprets it one way then the right gets in power and takes our laws the other way.

This ensures it never goes too far in one direction.

That was the intent of the founders.
Not sure if it was the intent - but it's certainly the reality.

A independent judiciary is a pipe dream - a naive sentiment that isn't going to happen.

Not all of our founding fathers were fooled though. Jefferson - as an example - knew exactly what would happen.
 
May 2012
70,513
14,300
By the wall
Interpretation of the Constitution by individual Justices is not by any stretch of the imagination being partisan.

Cheers,

Bourne
That is why they are nominated by the president, he is supposed to choose people that reflect the party in powers ideology and will interpret accordingly.

Then after time it switches to the other side and this keeps happening always taking us left and right but never too far in one direction.

Its a safeguard the founders built in to prevent tyranny.