That's a bit too "sunshine and lollipops". Astoundingly settled decisions continue to simply be ignored, anything about originalism and what the text meant (which is often nonsensical, but in the case of birthright citizenship seemed quite simple). And with the EXCEPTION of the Fed (without a very coherent explanation) this president can now dismiss ANY official of ANY agency, regardless of statues from the legislature about their responsibilities, until he gets one that does what he wants.
I see. So a column which claims that SCOTUS does not give Trump everything he wants, and lists about five things very important to Trump that was denied . . . this is "sunshine and lollipops"? Because the Court didn't stop him at every turn?
I find it impossible to talk to almost anyone about anything political today, because when I criticize just one thing Trump has done, MAGAns accuse me of being a Woke-Antifa-Marxist. And when I mention one policy of Trump's that I am sympathetic to, progressives accuse me of being a fascist.
FFS, the column was simply saying that the Court isn't completely in the tank for Trump, and it did a solid job of making its point. I'm not saying your points are not valid, Marvin, because they are, but how about taking a small portion of your intelligence and using it to demonstrate civility, acknowledging when someone says something true even if you think it's missing a larger point. I am so effing sick of EVERYONE wanting to take issue with anyone who doesn't share 100% of their opinions on every effing issue.
The Roberts court has sided with Democrat interests many times. But Democrats don't register those things. It is always the last time they didn't get their way.
It appears that the liberal justices voted together 14 out of 16 times. The conservatives 9 out of 16. This includes the 9-0 decisions. I pulled this from a WSJ article from yesterday. I didn’t take the time to go through the Justia or similar databases, so I won’t swear to it.
My observation is that this applies regardless of what philosophy dominates the court.
Let us examine the term "conservative". Conservative means different things to different people. Conservative according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary is - "Conservative" fundamentally means a preference for maintaining established traditions, institutions, and values, coupled with a general caution toward rapid social or political change. The term traces back to the Latin word conservare, meaning "to keep or guard". Today's iteration of the Republican Party claims to be conservative. The concept of the "Unitary Executive" they claim is part of their conservatism. Trump desperately wants the title of Unitary Executive. In acquiring that position he is tearing up everything in his path that came before and destroying norms that have been in place for decades if not a hundred years. Is Trump conservative? Or does he and his base want to burn it all down and recreate something akin to The Law of the Jungle. Power subjugates all and the strong take what they will while the weak suffer what they must. Conservatism formerly was aligned with individual rights and minimal government interference in one's life. In observing Trump's actions and those of his followers, one may easily conclude that they are not conservatives. Theirs is a quest for power that has nothing to do with conservatism, but everything to do with a Unitary Executive. Conservatism is nothing more than a convenient political label and lever for power.
"...as well as inject ugly partisanship into the nation’s top court." So, you are of the opinion that such partisanship hasn't already infected SCOTUS? The birthright vote should have been 9-0. Instead, three judges left the door ajar for future challenges to an absolutely clear constitutional guarantee. The lower courts were gobsmacked by the audacity of the challenge and made it very clear in their opinions. If congress wants to tackle "tourism births" as an exception, let them get started. I wouldn't object to the effort.
That's a bit too "sunshine and lollipops". Astoundingly settled decisions continue to simply be ignored, anything about originalism and what the text meant (which is often nonsensical, but in the case of birthright citizenship seemed quite simple). And with the EXCEPTION of the Fed (without a very coherent explanation) this president can now dismiss ANY official of ANY agency, regardless of statues from the legislature about their responsibilities, until he gets one that does what he wants.
I see. So a column which claims that SCOTUS does not give Trump everything he wants, and lists about five things very important to Trump that was denied . . . this is "sunshine and lollipops"? Because the Court didn't stop him at every turn?
I find it impossible to talk to almost anyone about anything political today, because when I criticize just one thing Trump has done, MAGAns accuse me of being a Woke-Antifa-Marxist. And when I mention one policy of Trump's that I am sympathetic to, progressives accuse me of being a fascist.
FFS, the column was simply saying that the Court isn't completely in the tank for Trump, and it did a solid job of making its point. I'm not saying your points are not valid, Marvin, because they are, but how about taking a small portion of your intelligence and using it to demonstrate civility, acknowledging when someone says something true even if you think it's missing a larger point. I am so effing sick of EVERYONE wanting to take issue with anyone who doesn't share 100% of their opinions on every effing issue.
The Roberts court has sided with Democrat interests many times. But Democrats don't register those things. It is always the last time they didn't get their way.
Data, Frank, we need data. "Many times" means what, exactly?
It appears that the liberal justices voted together 14 out of 16 times. The conservatives 9 out of 16. This includes the 9-0 decisions. I pulled this from a WSJ article from yesterday. I didn’t take the time to go through the Justia or similar databases, so I won’t swear to it.
My observation is that this applies regardless of what philosophy dominates the court.
Just a few...
The latest for refusing to block illegal immigrant and foreign visitors from dropping babies that get automatic citizenship.
Shelby County v. Holder
NFIB v. Sebelius
Connick v. Thompson
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
Hobby Lobby v. Burwell
And of course the big one... Roberts siding with the Obamacare Mandate.
I could go on and on and on and on.
Let us examine the term "conservative". Conservative means different things to different people. Conservative according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary is - "Conservative" fundamentally means a preference for maintaining established traditions, institutions, and values, coupled with a general caution toward rapid social or political change. The term traces back to the Latin word conservare, meaning "to keep or guard". Today's iteration of the Republican Party claims to be conservative. The concept of the "Unitary Executive" they claim is part of their conservatism. Trump desperately wants the title of Unitary Executive. In acquiring that position he is tearing up everything in his path that came before and destroying norms that have been in place for decades if not a hundred years. Is Trump conservative? Or does he and his base want to burn it all down and recreate something akin to The Law of the Jungle. Power subjugates all and the strong take what they will while the weak suffer what they must. Conservatism formerly was aligned with individual rights and minimal government interference in one's life. In observing Trump's actions and those of his followers, one may easily conclude that they are not conservatives. Theirs is a quest for power that has nothing to do with conservatism, but everything to do with a Unitary Executive. Conservatism is nothing more than a convenient political label and lever for power.
"...as well as inject ugly partisanship into the nation’s top court." So, you are of the opinion that such partisanship hasn't already infected SCOTUS? The birthright vote should have been 9-0. Instead, three judges left the door ajar for future challenges to an absolutely clear constitutional guarantee. The lower courts were gobsmacked by the audacity of the challenge and made it very clear in their opinions. If congress wants to tackle "tourism births" as an exception, let them get started. I wouldn't object to the effort.