thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Do you really believe that at least some of the "conservative" appointees aren't "activists?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

With all of your faults why do you want to take on someone else's as well. I'm pretty sure he is smarter than to take on yours.

Tex-s

Interesting question, since I never suggested the activist judges were of any particular ilk. I just said, "activist, government-expanding". Granted, the left tend to see government expansion as a goal, so it's certainly not illogical to assume that was my intent. However, I'm distinctly Libertarian in my views, as I find that generally speaking, the Libertarian view is the only view that avoids abject hypocrisy in policy.

(For example, both the left and the right have a blatant logical break in the death penalty / a******n debate, as, again generally, one group deems it OK to cause the death of another in one case but deems the other case to be a crime against humanity. )

Being Libertarian (i.e. the individual should be the architect of his own life in all arenas, all the time) I deem it social engineering and 'activism' to appoint judges based on politics, period. Sure the right-leaning judges are activists, usually seeking to reverse course on policy either permitted or mandated by their left-leaning counterparts, so to me these are more 'de-activists' but activists none the less, when they serve to effectively write new law.

As a Libertarian thinker, I'd like to see a SCOTUS that is actually dev**ed to serving the actual content of the Constitution and preserving the autonomy of the individual, which was clearly the intent of the document and of those who wrote, amended, and ratified it back in the 1700's. (The personal writings of Madison, Jefferson, etc also clearly show this individual-liberty-first viewpoint.) So, looking at it from both angles, I see it as overreach for the government to install and defend statutes that prevent gay marriage AND I deem it overreach to mandate bakers, florist, etc to participate in ceremonies of others. I see it overreach to attempt to ban a******n, but I see a******n as 98% equal to murder, so I could never be a party to the procedure. I see all forms or racial discrimination as an a*********n, as all individuals merit their own evaluation, but I see all forms of quotas, diversity percentage goals, and affirmative action as nothing more than s******c r****m. These lower access for one group, despite competency, and lower both accountability and credibility of another group because the competency standard is frequently lowered. (Purely as an aside here, looking at data from California .... recent but I forget the authors... the dropout rate in AA college placements for minorities is about 3 times higher than non-AA admissions, meaning that many of the highest academic achievers of minority staus, by virtue of being mis-matched to systems above their preparedness, are becoming dropouts. That would be the exact opposite of the intent of AA.)

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Last year, when Senate Republicans refused to v**e on anyone President Barack Obama nominated to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia,
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-stolen-supreme-court-seats-180962589/#YSVD6P3D6sQZsfjX.99

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Anything smarter than you. Are you just an outright liar or not

EyeSawYou

LOLOLOLOL Dirtspout smarter than someone else? LOLOLOLOL

EyeSawYou

The Republicans reduced the size of the Supreme Court during Obama's last year in office? lol really? Could have sworn there were 9 Justices before Obama and after Obama.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

During most of that last year, there were only 8.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I’m not sure how to respond without getting personal and appearing to be no better than you, so continue on in your happy place.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

The competition was Tommy.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

There were 9 seats, one was vacant.

Garland should have received a v**e.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I don’t believe that to be the case. But let’s assume it is. You don’t know how smart I am, and you don’t know how smart he is, so how do you make a comparison. Some on here give major clues.

For all I know, you could be pretty smart, even thiugh you have never demonstrated it here. I do know that you are much better at circular speak than I am. I have no idea what the value if that could be.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I’m smart enough to know that Dirt made the comparison and not I, all I did was acknowledge that this is what he did.

Might I suggest a class in remedial English?

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

T***slated that means: I am a lib f*****t socialist dem. my name is little tommie, I claimed Trump colluded with Russia for years, turns out it was all democrat lies, but I am sticking with it and saying they "let Trump off".

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa