Election Day 2016

[Kung Wu]

The general public doesn't care because it has too little respect for what the Supreme Court does.

According to this article, there isn't really a problem. Only 6.9% of the decisions this year have resulted in a tie. That's like 4 or 5 decisions out of 60ish. And at least one those went the liberal way and found in favor of the unions due to the tie -- so his absence isn't just benefiting one side.

[MoValley John]

I'll be done on this subject after this post. I get that you think my questions were as irrelevant as yours. Mine show if a person has actually considered the ramifications of their beliefs, though. It's a test of whether you believe what you say you do only because it worked out well for you this time or if you have actually considered the limits of your stance.

Your responses reveal which applies to you.

I think what the republicans did was fine. It would also be fine if the roles were reversed. You speak of checks and balances, but having both the President nominate and the Senate confirm justices is a great check on the makeup of the Supreme Court. What the repubs did wrong was say that they wouldn't approve anyone, when they should have dictated to Obama the type of justice they would find palatable. At that point, it would have been on Obama to nominate an acceptable candidate. Obama, nor would any other liberal president, ever nominate a conservative. A conservative president, in the same situation wouldn't nominate a liberal, so all of your bellyaching is moot.

Then there's judge Bork......

[MoValley John]

If you want to get sanctimonious about the Senate and their meddling in the nomination process of the Supreme Court, look no further than Joe Biden, and his character assasination of Robert Bork. The dems are now paying the price for that debacle. Suck it.

[wufan]

The fact that the Republicans kept the majority just depresses me greatly since it means the majority of America thinks abortion is the only thing that matters as a voting issue.

I think you missed this election. An evangelical was NOT elected. The people didn't come out to vote against abortion, they came out to vote against (the perception of) liberal elitists that:

believe the best solution for our country is to create jobs through government

take from the business owner and give to the person that chooses not to work

shout down those that disagree as bigots, and privledged

[MoValley John]

I think you missed this election. An evangelical was NOT elected. The people didn't come out to vote against abortion, they came out to vote against (the perception of) liberal elitists that:

believe the best solution for our country is to create jobs through government

take from the business owner and give to the person that chooses not to work

shout down those that disagree as bigots, and privledged

Don't forget xenophobes, uneducated,dumb, racist, homophobic, anti LGBT, sheet wearing, mouth breathing, angry white male, narrow minded, angry science deniers.

[CBB_Fan]

I think you missed this election. An evangelical was NOT elected. The people didn't come out to vote against abortion, they came out to vote against (the perception of) liberal elitists that:

believe the best solution for our country is to create jobs through government

take from the business owner and give to the person that chooses not to work

shout down those that disagree as bigots, and privledged

Dozens of evangelicals were elected, and the defacto head of our country's policies is Mike "Condoms Are Too Modern and Liberal" Pence. This is the evangelicals dream government. Trump may not be an evangelical, but he'll sign their laws.

[MoValley John]

So.........
Liberals are upset that Trump won...... And their recourse is to take to the streets, protest and in some cases vandalize.

Sounds about right. Keep it classy.

[Wuchalk]

I think I'm about the only Obama supporter around these parts, so I imagine I'm the condescending shockernetter to whom you refer

No, you're not.

[ShockingButTrue]

[wufan]

Dozens of evangelicals were elected, and the defacto head of our country's policies is Mike "Condoms Are Too Modern and Liberal" Pence. This is the evangelicals dream government. Trump may not be an evangelical, but he'll sign their laws.

Electing Trump was not about abortion.

[Kung Wu]

Electing Trump was not about abortion.

Not entirely true. For the blue collars that he won over it was certainly about jobs, but for the conservative base it absolutely included expectations of conservative supreme court nominations with anti-abortion being a near litmus test. For both of those groups it was about fixing the disaster of Obamacare and protesting Hillary with the loudest message they could possibly send: voting for Trump.

[jdshock]

Electing Trump was not about abortion.

I've talked to many people who voted for Trump because of the abortion issue.

That's not really the premise of my complaint, though. People didn't kick the Republican Senators that did this out of office because they don't care. They believe the only thing the Supreme Court is useful for is determining the abortion issue. My issue is that Republican Senators were able to keep the seat vacant to use as a political tool to get reelected, and it worked.

[jdshock]

I think what the republicans did was fine. It would also be fine if the roles were reversed. You speak of checks and balances, but having both the President nominate and the Senate confirm justices is a great check on the makeup of the Supreme Court. What the repubs did wrong was say that they wouldn't approve anyone, when they should have dictated to Obama the type of justice they would find palatable. At that point, it would have been on Obama to nominate an acceptable candidate. Obama, nor would any other liberal president, ever nominate a conservative. A conservative president, in the same situation wouldn't nominate a liberal, so all of your bellyaching is moot.

Then there's judge Bork......

Right. Merrick Garland is the candidate that was nominated because the Senate has power. Prior to the nomination, people like Orrinn Hatch said "Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election."

But then the Republicans decided they wouldn't confirm anyone. I don't care if they hold hearings and debate and throw Garland under the bus and then ultimately vote no. That's not what happened. Here, they asked for Garland. Obama called their bluff. Then they said they wouldn't do it because of the principles of democracy.

And it's all lies. They did it so they could have an open seat that they could campaign with, and the American public rewarded them by reelecting a Republican majority.

[shockmonster]

These issues are about Federalism and allowing the people more rights. The federal government and 9 men on a court should not be deciding my religious freedom rights. These are local and states rights issues. The 9 man court should not be God and write laws.

[Play Angry]

SCOTUS provides the floor for constitutional rights (including religious liberty) that states cannot abrogate. States may provide for rights and protections beyond that floor so long as they do not impinge on other constitutionally protected rights, but they cannot provide less than the minimum.

It is a very necessary function and the founders were wise to design it that way. Disagreeing with their rulings is one thing, but disagreeing with the architecture is another entirely.