Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
And my point is that tactics exist on both sides. E.g., the DEMs don't want certain judges, so they block a full vote.
My point with abortion was that the DEMs were unsuccessful in legislating it in certain states. So they took it to the courts and, low and behold, the court decided this right was fundemental. It's the same thing as what you are accusing the GOP of doing - gaming the system to get the desired outcome.*
*I am not suggesting that there are not certain rights that the court should find, especially those where majority is tormenting the minority.
|
Ah. OK, I understand your point now. Thanks.
Re: blocking judicial nominations, yes. It's unsavory, and as I recall, both sides have done it over the last dozen years without particular remorse or regret. Reading (say) Hatch's comments then and now is both amusing and depressing.
As for the rest of it, I don't agree with your point, though.
It's not the same thing -- with abortion, proponents did take it to the Court, where they would either win, or lose. That's the way courts are
supposed to work, and as a matter of process, I don't think it's gaming anything.
Today's GOP, by stripping away Fed Jur., wants to keep proponents from going to court AT ALL, and that strikes me as, you know, different.
I sense a riposte of something along the lines of "a-HA! But the liberals packed the courts with liberal, sissified judges! THAT's how they gamed it!" Well, not so much, no. See my prior post re: the realities of the new cliche of "judicial activism." Its sell-by date was circa 1969.
Gattigap
