Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
What you seem to fail to grasp is that every member of the SCOTUS is patently politically biased, which is reflected in all their decisions. They're not unbiased justices, they're Democrats and Republicans in robes. This is why I take issue with the idea of Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice. It'd be more of the same problem if she were appointed.
|
What you fail to grasp is that telling judges and potential judges that they cannot be a member of a political party is an outrageous abridgement of free speach. Every single member of the Supreme Court going all the way back to John Jay was a member of a party, whether they were Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist or whatever. Any Federal judge is almost certainly going to be as well.
Is this just about tilting at windmills and thinking about the way it should be in a perfect world? Or do you actually have anything to contribute that would matter one iota in the real world? Up to this point, I've seen you say that nominating someone to SCOTUS with no judicial experience is stupid, that Clinton would be corrupt, deny that checks and balances exist and that political parties are a method of overiding checks and balances - which don't exist. I've seen nothing beyond incorrect facts, outrageous assumptions and an overarching failure to recognize the realities of the political system that has been in place for 226 years. So, do you have anything - anything at all - to add that can redeem yourself in what I can only hope is the worst series of posts you've ever made.