My point was that it doesnât take partisanship to smell Trump as a âfaker.â But I understand how someone on the right wouldnât get that. :kiss4you:SCOTUS is not supposed to do this. They are supposed to remain free of partisan politics. I understand how someone on the left would not get that, though.
The New York Times editorial board (no less) would beg to differ here:
Must say I am quite surprised at this, though I see it as an abundance of caution. In essence the board is saying to Ginsberg: âPlease, donât show your/our hand so obviously, crassly. It could very well backfire. We need the pretense of objectivity, remember.â
But most of them who are really Democrats will likely vote for Clinton anyway, because sheâs the only abortion-on-demand candidate left.
And some accuse others of âsmearingâ?
He didnât write it. He linked to it, but I thought it was very good.
Last I checked, abortion on demand isnât the ONE ISSUE that everyone cares about.
Ronald Reagan, who actually was conservative and had great faith and was prolife appointed Scalia, OâConnor and Kennedy. Scalia seems to have been the only conservative.
We have very few politicians today who are really committed to larger moral and economic issues, such as Reagan was. Perhaps Sanders, perhaps Cruz. But the current presidential candidates: not really IMO. They are pragmatists, for better or worse, and committed primarily to empowering themselves.
What larger economic issues was Reagan committed to besides âtrickle downâ economics that favored the rich?
And G.W. Bush appointed Roberts and Alito, who are indisputably prolife. Itâs sometimes difficult to predict. But we already know both Obama appointees to the Court are pro-abortion, and Hillary Clinton promises to appoint more of that sort.
Reagan was committed to small government. I may not agree with his economic policies but there is no doubt in my mind he held to certain commitments and had a definite vision for the country and the world.
Was he really committed to small government?
thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/
motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/ronald-reagan-big-government-legacy
You hope.
Some liberals have no liking for precedent (unless it forwards their âprogressiveâ agenda). SC justices are supposed to be neutral and judge cases according to the law. We can hardly hope that Ginsburg will do so, or has done so in the past. Besides, it is just plain ânot classyâ.SCOTUS is not supposed to do this. They are supposed to remain free of partisan politics. I understand how someone on the left would not get that, though.
I agree, but admit to kind of enjoying it. I would much rather have it all out in the open. She doesnât come off much better than Trump in their escalating Twitter / media war. Unseemly, yes, but we are so past worrying about that, my God. Decorum, objectivity are not even feigned anymore. (Obama is the same way - doesnât matter where - police funeral.)
Broad sweeping generalizations much? Do you have any basis for saying that liberals donât like precedent? I note that it is very popular on CA Forums to propose that Roe v. Wade be overturned, despite its precedential value. Hardly a liberal position.
And Trump basically calls her old and senile. Probably just take her anger out on the next conservative law.
Ah, but has he finally met his match here?
One nutty loose cannon against another.Probably why they want her quiet on the left [just address liberal favored law donât talk] donât âhelpâ them or Donald.Ah, but has he finally met his match here?
