Trump admits the Supreme Court is just another political branch of government

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Saying the quiet part loudly. Since this is the case (and has been for some time) I think SC judges should not get a lifetime appointment and should be elected like every other politician.

     
  2. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #2
    He’s a moron.. we know this. This guy ***** the bed daily and his base gladly whiffs it in. They love his idiocy.
     
  3. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #3
    The problem might be the illusion that we can have judges who are not political. At a minimum they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, and the way the system exists, it’s the President who nominates, and the Congress that confirms. So right now it’s a double whammy against liberals.

    However note, that Obama’s pick Garland was a moderate judge, so it’s the Democrats who still display principles, while the Republicans are going for the throats of this who oppose them. It’s the primary way backwards principles can still prevail in a modern world.

    How can incentive be made to pick moderate judges? It’s what we need desperately, unless you want the ideological war to continue.

    As far as lifetime appointments, I suppose there is an argument for stability in the court versus being churned over every election cycle, but the thought of a conservative court with their heads up theirs asses does make me a bit nauseous. Corporations are people, freedom of religion is putting people under your big theist thumb, B ******* S.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 7, 2018 ---
    11B2F1A9-2410-47C4-80FA-72D80089C5C6.jpeg
     
  4. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #4
    We've reached a point where Trump not saying something stupid would be a shock.
     
  5. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    In terms of the long-term damage to this country and its institutions, history will end up concluding that November 8, 2016 was, along with a handful of other dates like December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001, the worst day in American history.
     
  6. bambooshots macrumors 65816

    bambooshots

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #6
    You know, I was plenty disappointed and incensed when Obama was elected and then re-elected, but I never became unhinged.

    Wow.
     
  7. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    When I see these sorts of comments, I have to wonder what sort of reality you live in. You may not have agreed with Obama’s policy positions, but it is not rational to question his intelligence, ethics or morals. Similarly, I do not think it possible to rationally believe that Trump is morally or intellectually qualified or capable of being president. You clearly have fundamental objections to Democratic Party policy positions. That doesn’t, in any way, support any sort of equivalence to my objections to Trump.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #8
    The problem with the “return to normalcy” is that if the Dems insist on just getting back to the status quo we’re just going to be right back here sooner rather than later.

    The current Democratic Party is to the right of the New Deal. If they insist on staying there then resentment politics is here to stay.

    We need to admit there’s a class war waging in this country (guess who’s losing). Trying to pretend this isn’t happening just ensures the same corporate powers running both parties will remain thoroughly in charge.
     
  9. bambooshots macrumors 65816

    bambooshots

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #9
    You took my comments, directed more towards other posts in this thread, and then proceeded to make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

    Way to go.

    In addition, I could argue that Trump is actually better qualified to be President seeing as he has minimal background in politics and therefore minimal prejudice. Sometimes looking at something from a different perceptive can be beneficial.

    Come November 6th we will see what percentage of the American people think about him.
     
  10. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Reports are as the angry old white men die off, their grip on the electoral process will lesson, that is if the other demographics in this country, get off their asses and vote. Texas is scheduled to turn blue any day now. :);)
     
  11. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #11
    I agree that the lifetime appointment is not relevant to a politicized/partisan Court.

    Our government reflects our society. We are extremely divided, so the Court is as well. A lifetime appointment to a partisan Court doesn't make sense anymore. That's the reality of it.
     
  12. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #12
    Considering there was only 5 other posts before you first one claiming others are unhinged, Im curious as to what specific post or comment equates to being unhinged and how it equates as such?




    For the longest time we heard that Obama was unqualified because he had so little experience in politics. And that was with Obama actually having experience in politics. Before this Trump had ZERO experience in politics, but yet you seem to think that somehow equates a leg up. It seems rather silly to claim that even less experience than Obama somehow equates being better off when you look at how ignorant Trump has shown he is of how Washington even works. This is the same man that questioned as to why we don't use nukes to address handling our enemies. The same man that stated "who knew healthcare was this complicated" and has needed things explained to him via flash cards. So a statement that he is somehow better qualified is nothing more than a ludicrous statement made out of either pure ignorance or deniability of the reality we are living in.
     
  13. Jason Honer Suspended

    Jason Honer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #13
    You’re equating the will of the American people to the attacks on Pearl Harbor and New York City? Wow.
     
  14. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #14
    Trump’s idea of a Supreme Court is not the same of anyone else’s. He is an idiot..
     
  15. Jason Honer Suspended

    Jason Honer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #15
    Maybe take it easy on the hyperbole.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #16
    Sure. But who in the Democratic leadership doesn’t fully embrace corporatism? What good are they if they get the same result as the GOP but in slow motion? Social issues don’t mean squat if everyone is still impoverished. Wages haven’t increased for the vast majority of Americans since the 60’s and 40% of the country doesn’t make enough to scrounge together $400 in an emergency. Electing democrats as they currently stand is t going to change that, they truly believe everything is fine as long as an ******* isn’t in the White House.
     
  17. bambooshots macrumors 65816

    bambooshots

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #17
    Can you really not tell which of the five posts seems extreme, no matter what context it’s used in?

    How Washington works? You do realize that many Americans disapprove on “how Washington works.” It doesn’t. That’s why the phrase “drain the swamp” was coined.

    Ha, I’ll admit I forgot that Obama used to be chastised for a lack of experience. Oh how time changes things....
     
  18. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502a

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #18
    Yeah, got those reports too...... dated 1995, 1968 and 1924:eek:
     
  19. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    Yes, I am. And that’s what makes this catastrophe so devastating. It was self-inflicted.
     
  20. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    Obama only appointed Garland because he knew a liberal would never get confirmed. Democrats would take a moderate on the hope he or she would become more liberal over time. McConnell didn’t take the bait.

    Still I wish the White House and some Republicans in Congress would stop gloating about a conservative court. The more they do that the more they make it likely that Roberts or Kavanaugh (or others) will make decisions to prove they’re an independent court not a conservative one.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 7, 2018 ---
    We need to get rid of the notion that the court isn’t partisan. In fact since the country is basically equally divided let the court be permanently 4 right, 4 left and one independent swing vote.
     
  21. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21
    Was Garland so different than Kavanaugh?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/5/kavanaugh-garland-voted-together-93-pct-time/
     
  22. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #22
    this sort of journalism annoys me. It leverages the observation that most judgements are unanimous into a willful blindness towards ideological differences.

    "I've done the hard (cf Feist) work of assembling a data set that supports my position-- and I'm not going to show it to you. Nyah Nyah Nyah!"

    Here's an article that comes to a rather different conclusion.

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/supreme-court-picks-disagreements-show-stakes-of-confirmation

    And most importantly, the reporter provided citations:

    Wesby v. District of Columbia, Docket No. 12-7127.
    Garza v. Hargan, Docket No. 17-5236.
    NLRB v. CNN, Docket No. 15-1112, and Midwest Division-MMC v. NLRB, Docket No. 15-1312.
    United States v. Brown, Docket No. 15-3056.
     
  23. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #23
    Democratic leadership fully endorse corporatism? Is it possible to work both the corporate and social issues sides of the street? I think it is possible cause Corporation are not going away any time soon.
     
  24. NT1440, Oct 7, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018

    NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #24
    No one needs them to go away, we just need a party that doesn’t wholly embrace policies that exclusively help corporations over human beings and the environment. We don’t have that. Banks get bailouts and people get fraudulently thrown out of their homes while workers don’t see a real raise for 40+ years.

    The democrats work the social issues *exclusively* (and thank god they at least do that god knows we’d be an official Christian theocracy if they didn’t give the crazies that make up the GOP a bit of a fight), *when in power*.
     
  25. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #25

    Again extreme how?

    Disapproving of how it works does not change how it works. And as for "drain the swamp" Trump hasn't done anything of the sort. If anything he's made it worse by adding and surrounding himself so many people who don't actually belong, no other POTUS in modern history, if at all, has had so many scandals in their first term.
     

Share This Page

38 October 7, 2018