Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 26, 2021

Robert Barnes and Seung Min Kim: The Supreme Court's approval rating is plummeting, its critics are more caustic and justices are feeling compelled to plead the case to the public that they are judicial philosophers, not politicians in robes.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I disagree with their premise.

The fact that their approval rating is plummeting does not make them politicians, in spite of their attempted deflection to hide behind such an appellation. It makes them disliked Judges.


Why might the popularity of the Supreme Court Justices be plummeting? Well, many of them were appointed by a party that loses the nationwide popular vote.

Maybe the Supreme Court needs to reflect more upon how they represent the people they are judging.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-26 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Amy Coney Barrett Doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

She was put in the judicial system by McConnell in 2017 instead of an Obama nominee that was more qualified to be there. Then forced into the Supreme Court in 2020, days before Trump lost the election, for a second time.

Republicans are a cancer in thus nation.

Trying their best to turn America into Saudi Arabia.

Bunch of regressives.

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-26 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#1. The Supreme Court doesn't represent anyone. Their job is to apply the Constitution to the cases before them.

If they focus on doing that they will be viewed less as a political institution and more as an arbiter.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-26 05:24 PM | Reply

@#3 ... The Supreme Court doesn't represent anyone. Their job is to apply the Constitution to the cases before them. ...

In applying the Constitution, they often look to the Constitution and earlier decisions and apply them as they see fit.

That is the point where they insert their opinions into the process.

Lawyers can proffer contrary opinions based upon applying the same Constitution.

Which opinion they choose to go with is how they choose to represent the people they are judging.



#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-26 05:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Why might the popularity of the Supreme Court Justices be plummeting? Well, many of them were appointed by a party that loses the nationwide popular vote." - Lamplighter

Sadly, you don't know much when it comes to SCOTUS history.

The GOP has had an advantage for decades in regards to SCOTUS appointments.

However Democrats have a great opportunity but as a student of history, I suspect they aren't going to capitalize on it.

#5 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2021-09-26 05:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

@#5 ... The GOP has had an advantage for decades in regards to SCOTUS appointments. ...

So you seem to agree with my opinion, then.



#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-26 06:06 PM | Reply

Trump politicized the SCOTUS while he was in office by constantly bringing them up while discussing the Big Lie, and now his lackeys are continuing the process:

Nicolle Wallace
@NicolleDWallace
SCOTUS is name checked in the coup plot. Will be interesting to see if they react publicly to this or if 1/6 select committee wants to learn more.

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

This new interview by Powell is interesting. It suggests that the purpose of the insurrection was to DELAY the electoral college certification to give Alito time to intervene on this legal challenge. But, Powell says they didn't anticipate Pelosi reconvening Congress that day.

twitter.com

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-09-26 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Thanks, Mitch McConnell!

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Which opinion they choose to go with is how they choose to represent the people they are judging.

#4 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2021-09-26 05:46 PM |

*Faceplant*

They aren't supposed to represent anyone. Do you not have even a rudimentary understanding of how the judicial branch is supposed to operate?

#9 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-26 11:08 PM | Reply

It suggests that the purpose of the insurrection was to DELAY the electoral college certification

1000%

If this had gone to the courts, Trump would have remained President.

This is what people who keep down playing 1/6 don't understand.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-26 11:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#10 Under no circumstances would Trump ever have remained President. See: Al Gore. That DID go to the courts and he lost. Trump's court challenges lost too.

#11 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-27 12:02 AM | Reply

Partisan hacks.

#12 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-27 09:48 AM | Reply

Thanks, Mitch McConnell!

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-26 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Moscow Mitch hasn't cared about what the public, including his voters, thinks for the last forty years.

He only acts in his own self interest doing the work of the 1% that finance his corrupt ass.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-27 10:58 AM | Reply

I suspect they aren't going to capitalize on it.

#5 | POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT

The best thing they could do now is fix the filibuster and stack the courts.

But I actually agree. The Dems will never do it and I will never understand why. It seems like the obvious thing to do.

"Amy Coney Barrett Doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. "

The Republicans broke with tradition to get her on the bench. In other words they cheated.

It does not say in the constitution how many justices are to be on the Supreme Court. Maybe it is time to add a few justices to restore the balance of power there since republicans had to "cheat" to muck things up.

Turn about is fair play.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-27 12:57 PM | Reply

" The best thing they could do now is fix the filibuster and stack the courts. "

Right. And when the GOP has a senate majority and the WH they will do the same thing. Before we know it SCOTUS will have 27 justices and zero legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Short sighted idiot.

I get the consternation over Garland. However it was not the only time that POTUS nominated a justice during an election year and have the opposition party block it in the senate.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-27 01:06 PM | Reply

"I get the consternation over Garland."

However, you still excuse it.

Two wrongs make a right -- especially when your side does wrong last.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 01:09 PM | Reply

I don't excuse it you simplistic moron. I point out that it has precedence.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-27 01:15 PM | Reply

@#9 ... They aren't supposed to represent anyone. ...

I agree 100%. The Justices on the Supreme Court are not supposed to represent anyone.

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-27 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#11 ... Under no circumstances would Trump ever have remained President. See: Al Gore. ...

Right. because fmr Pres Trump and his supporters so far have handled his losing the election so well.

Fmr VP Gore handled the loss as a mature adult.

Do you really see fmr Pres Trump acting as a mature adult in a similar situation? Really?

Fmr Pres Trump might not have remained President, but what further damage would his supporters have done to the Country?




#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-27 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Supremes used to be legendary legal giants. These days, we get drunks and rapists when the Republicans find replacements.

#20 | Posted by john47 at 2021-09-27 03:24 PM | Reply

The claims of "drunks and racists' pretty much fall on deaf ears when the party uttering them fail to acknowledge the drunks and rapists in their own party. Selective outrage is pathetic.

#21 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-27 03:29 PM | Reply

"The Supremes used to be legendary legal giants. "

They were musical giants, too.

#22 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-27 03:30 PM | Reply

I'll bite.

Which drunks and rapists did Democrats put on the Supreme Court?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 03:35 PM | Reply

Which drunks and rapists did Democrats put on the Supreme Court?

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The same number as Dems have put on the court. Zero.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-27 03:53 PM | Reply

What Supreme Court nominee behaved like a baby live before Congress?

Judge Keg failed his job interview. Maybe after you get to a certain place in life basic issues of competence no longer matter?

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-27 03:57 PM | Reply

Which drunks and rapists did Democrats put on the Supreme Court?

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
The same number as Dems have put on the court. Zero.

#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2021-09-27 03:53 PM | REPLY

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

#26 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-27 05:04 PM | Reply

#21 | POSTED BY JAKESTER AT 2021-09-27 03:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG SO-CALLED LIBERAL. SO-CALLED.

You suck, fool.

#27 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-27 05:05 PM | Reply

"Pulic Approval of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Erodes"

As it should, when they fail to assert their authority to protect Roe.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 09:12 PM | Reply

Protect Roe by doing what?

#29 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-27 09:23 PM | Reply

Doing the thing that 4 Justices wanted to do.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 09:30 PM | Reply

None of whom proposed doing anything specific. They just complained of lack of action.

Iow, none of them said do this.

#31 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-27 09:39 PM | Reply

This = hear the case.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 09:51 PM | Reply

"Hearing the case" was not before the court. The only thing before the court was an application for an injunction.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-27 10:22 PM | Reply

There you go. There's your "this."

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 10:28 PM | Reply

What "this?"

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-27 10:34 PM | Reply

Protect Roe by doing what?

By acting on the only thing before the court. It was an application for an injunction, I have learned.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 10:36 PM | Reply

The four dissents could only complain, like you, but couldn't come up with the specifics of an injunction so what is it you want done to protect Roe?

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-27 11:00 PM | Reply

Well, imagine there had been five, not four.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 11:35 PM | Reply

The plaintiffs and the five in the majority couldn't come up with one either because "it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention."

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-27 11:42 PM | Reply

Okay.

It's pretty clear that abortion is functionally illegal in Texas now, and it's pretty clear why that erodes the public's faith in the Supreme Court too.

Maybe it's unclear to you, like it is to five Justices.

But it's clear to the public.

Not that you care.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-27 11:46 PM | Reply

It is hard to approve of a bunch of political hacks many of whom the GOP cheated by hook or by crook to get onto the Supreme Court in the first place. They are a joke.

#41 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-27 11:49 PM | Reply

#40 That Texas law can still be struck down. My uderstanding is that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue.

SCOTUS did not codify this Texas law - it can be undone legislatively and possibly by other legal means.

Abortion is barbaric. It's truly hideous. Nevertheless, it is so ingrained into our culture that it really does need to be legal (coat hangers, back alleys, etc).

6 weeks is ridiculous. Many women might not even notice if they are 2 weeks overdue, especially young women who aren't yet in tune with their menstrual cycle. Further, it's not unheard of for a woman (I will use the word "woman" BTW) to be a couple weeks late on her period.

This Texas law is garbage.

#42 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-27 11:55 PM | Reply

It's pretty clear that abortion is functionally illegal in Texas now, and it's pretty clear why that erodes the public's faith in the Supreme Court too.

The public's faith in the Court erodes because the public does not understand why the Court does or does not do what it does. The public only sees a result, "the Court did not protect Roe." If that result does not fit the public's desired political outcome then they lazily blame the Court ("bunch of political hacks") instead of trying to figure out why the Court does what it does. The public doesn't do that because the "why" can't be wrapped up in a 30 second sound bite.

The Court not issuing an injunction in the Texas abortion law case is a perfect example. The Court didn't "protect Roe" in that case because procedurally and precedentially it couldn't. Who would they enjoin? One state district court judge, one district court clerk, one anti-abortion activist--the only defendant's before the Court. Neither the judge nor the clerk enforce the law and the activist said he had no intent to enforce the law. Entering an injunction against those persons would have accomplished nothing. There would still be hundreds of judges, clerks and activists that would not be bound by such an injunction. Does that make sense--do something politically appeasing and accomplish nothing--just to make it look good to an ignorant public. Would that instill confidence in the Court?

In this thread I argue that the authors of this law created a work of art that has succeeded, so far, in stymieing some 50 years of abortion law and procedure. I don't agree with it but in terms of draftsmanship it's genius. Snoofy participated in the thread but obviously learned nothing.

If you really want to know why this statute is a burr under the saddle for not just the Supreme Court but any court faced with litigating the law see this series of six posts on how (or not) to challenge the law. https://reason.com/people/howard-wasserman/

Iow, instead of b****ing about the undesired political result go learn why. Then do it with the next case, the next case, the next case ...

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-28 12:51 AM | Reply

Try again.

reason.com

#44 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-28 12:55 AM | Reply

"The public's faith in the Court erodes because the public does not understand why the Court does or does not do what it does."

Clearly.

"The public only sees a result, "the Court did not protect Roe."

As stipulated.

"If that result does not fit the public's desired political outcome then they lazily blame the Court ("bunch of political hacks") instead of trying to figure out why the Court does what it does."

False dichotomy.

"The public doesn't do that because the "why" can't be wrapped up in a 30 second sound bite."

You have all the time in the world to type, as your response has made clear. Thank you for responding.

"The Court not issuing an injunction in the Texas abortion law case is a perfect example."

Sure, why not.

"The Court didn't "protect Roe" in that case because procedurally and precedentially it couldn't."

People hear this and lose faith in the Court.

"Who would they enjoin?"

Great question. Why does someone have to be enjoined to protect Roe? At what point is the fetus enjoined, as to whomsoever might enjoin it, has this been adjudicated yet?

"One state district court judge, one district court clerk, one anti-abortion activist--the only defendant's before the Court."

I'm sure this is relevant in ways that people who have lost faith in the Supreme Court don't understand.

"Neither the judge nor the clerk enforce the law and the activist said he had no intent to enforce the law."

People can change their minds. Newly appointed elected or appointed judges and clerks can tread a different path.

"Entering an injunction against those persons would have accomplished nothing."

As it would likewise have accomplished nothing when subsequent persons do intend to enforce the law.

"There would still be hundreds of judges, clerks and activists that would not be bound by such an injunction."

Then the Court is obliged to bind them as needed, barring their seeming inability to, what's that word, enjoin all such activity.

"Does that make sense--do something politically appeasing and accomplish nothing--just to make it look good to an ignorant public."

My legal instructor Et_Al informs me that the Court owes no ponderance whether something make sense politically -- provided the thoughts do not run afoul of the Constitution, which this author feels they do here.

"Would that instill confidence in the Court?"

Narratively, it would serve to erode confidence in the Court, by crafting a law so cleverly that the supreme legal authority is powerless to prevent or even forestall its clearly illegal application.

"In this thread..."

As stipulated.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-28 01:44 AM | Reply

"The Court didn't "protect Roe" in that case because procedurally and precedentially it couldn't."
People hear this and lose faith in the Court.

Thanks for conceding my point. The people don't have a clue, like you.

"Who would they enjoin?"
Great question. Why does someone have to be enjoined to protect Roe?

Thanks again for conceding my point. Your ignorance is not my problem. Try the link at page up.

As it would likewise have accomplished nothing when subsequent persons do intend to enforce the law.

Once again, the point completely eludes you. The "subsequent persons" were not before the Court. You would deny the "subsequent persons" due process?

Then the Court is obliged to bind them as needed...

How? Judicial activism?

Narratively, it would serve to erode confidence in the Court, by crafting a law so cleverly that the supreme legal authority is powerless to prevent or even forestall its clearly illegal application.

Narratively, I'm don't know where you're going. The Court crafted no law. The state legislature crafted a law that is a major pain in the a** for the courts. It's designed that way, so far it's worked as intended.

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2021-09-28 02:54 AM | Reply

The reason article was quite informative.

I think a blue state should volunteer to elevate the issue with SB8 by using it as a template to ban:
owning a gun
displaying confederate flags
saying trump won
saying vaccines contain microchips

This would cause chaos in the courts and force the finding of a solution or the collapse of the US judicial system.

#47 | Posted by bored at 2021-09-28 06:20 AM | Reply

Couldn't the court have said no court in Texas could hear any case regarding the Texas abortion law?
If for no other reason then the Texas law places enforcement of a law on private citizens?
There is your injunction

#48 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-09-28 07:27 AM | Reply

"And when the GOP has a senate majority and the WH they will do the same thing. Before we know it SCOTUS will have 27 justices and zero legitimacy in the eyes of the public."

So? The GOP are already breaking with tradition. We are the fools if we don't too.

Also:

Originally were only *65 members of the House of Representatives.

There are now 435 voting representatives. What? Are they idiots? No. It's according to the census required in the constitution.

And there is nothing in the constitution regarding how many justices are needed to be effective.

It's only been tradition.

And Republicans have already broke tradition so you can't blame democrats for starting it.

Dems need to use the law to their advantage just as Republicans have done and stop whining and wringing their hands about it.

Time to take the gloves off or forever accept that Republicans are allowed to cheat in elections and break traditions to gain power but Dems cannot.

*The Constitution set the number of Representatives at 65 from 1787 until the first enumeration in 1790. The first apportionment, based on the 1790 census, resulted in 105 members.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-28 11:20 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort