So, Republicans were justified in pushing Kavanaugh through, despite serious questions, because they feared that the Democrats what the Repubs themselves had done in the Garland case. And what they did in the Garland case was fine, because it was within the rules and there was an obscure precedent. But it would be terrible for the Dems to expand the court, despite this having happened repeatedly in the past, because that would be politicisation.
How about some examples where the current justices not named Roberts or Kagan arrived at a decision contrary to their perceived political preferences because the other side was right on the law?
It is unsurprising that a George Mason Republican would see this court as "fair and balanced" (as he probably also sees Fox News). But for people in the real world, a court that has overturned centuries or decades of precedent (guns, campaign finance, separation of church and state, FDA) or that ignores the constitutional requirements on standing to achieve purely political goals is not a "fair" court -- it is a hyper partisan political court. And the U.S. will suffer for many decades due to the destruction of the Constitution and legal system that this court is wreaking on the country -- to the cheers of people like
So, Republicans were justified in pushing Kavanaugh through, despite serious questions, because they feared that the Democrats what the Repubs themselves had done in the Garland case. And what they did in the Garland case was fine, because it was within the rules and there was an obscure precedent. But it would be terrible for the Dems to expand the court, despite this having happened repeatedly in the past, because that would be politicisation.
I believe the word is "lawyerly"
How about some examples where the current justices not named Roberts or Kagan arrived at a decision contrary to their perceived political preferences because the other side was right on the law?
It is unsurprising that a George Mason Republican would see this court as "fair and balanced" (as he probably also sees Fox News). But for people in the real world, a court that has overturned centuries or decades of precedent (guns, campaign finance, separation of church and state, FDA) or that ignores the constitutional requirements on standing to achieve purely political goals is not a "fair" court -- it is a hyper partisan political court. And the U.S. will suffer for many decades due to the destruction of the Constitution and legal system that this court is wreaking on the country -- to the cheers of people like
Ilya Somin. Sad.