Brilliant plan, or abandonment of principles?

Posted by $ rainman0720 2 months ago to Government
16 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

At times, I think I’m directly related to Hippy from The Abyss.

Bud: Hippy, you think everything is a conspiracy.
Hippy: Everything is.

In several recent cases decided by SCOTUS, I’ve noticed that often one (or occasionally two) of the conservative justices will side with the libtards. Most of the reactions in The Gulch (including from yours truly) have been, well, less than cordial or congenial. But I’m beginning to think that maybe there’s a method to this madness.

What if decision after decision comes down 6-3? Wouldn’t that give the lefties more ammunition in their quest to pack the court, or to impose term limits, or whatever else they want to do because they’re a bunch of crybabies in the middle of a huge temper tantrum?

So maybe the conservatives got together (unofficially, of course) and decided that on occasion, one of them will side with the idiots on the left to make that particular decision 5-4 instead of 6-3. And on rare cases (perhaps where the outcome isn’t as critical to the country), two of them would temporarily go to the dark side to give the libs a 5-4 decision.

By doing this, they preemptively steal the thunder of the lefties and their media allies, in that they won’t be able to hammer us with story after story about the tyranny of the conservatives.

Is this even conceivable, or am I being naïve beyond belief?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
    If they had any principles, they wouldn't be SCOTUS judges.
    They'd have sacrificed them long ago to rise in the woke JustUS hierarchy to be "judges" considered for the SCOTUS based on their reliability toward increasing government power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mhubb 2 months ago
    put nothing past those in power, to keep their power

    but it does not matter in the least what the votes are
    dems will still pack the court if able
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months ago
      I have thought that while a Supreme Court Justice should not live in fear of public opinion, but go by principle instead (look what a majority of the population might have done to have kept Jim Crow in place in *Brown
      vs. Board of Education, for instance) I think that a long term, about as long as several Presidential terms,( like 12 years, for instance) might be a reasonable way to work it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mhubb 2 months ago
        the basic problem is that for a good long time the Constitution has not been followed

        that gave us welfare, medicare, medicaid and a whole host of other things that are clearly unconstitutional

        and the Court ignoring cases that they just do not want to deal with, sometimes saying people lack standing (how a parent can lack standing on a issue effecting their child i will never understand, how a tax payer can lack standing on how funds are spent, how a voter can lack standing on how votes are counted are just several exampled if lies from courts to avoid cases)

        how to fix these problems? no real idea as people just suck and cannot be trusted to keep to principles. i look at doctors that now push gender crap on children to make money. i look to the whole medical industry that jumped in bed with government and now is stuck with them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
          "for a good long time the Constitution has not been followed" 👍👍👍👍
          The competition between 3 branches of government ceased and all 3 branches
          ignore constitutional limits in order to get more and more power and wealth.
          There should be a way for the people to directly and peacefully override that
          evil alliance between the branches and impose constitutional limits again.
          If that doesn't happen then the government deserves a real armed insurrection.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 2 months ago
            The pessimist in me would see history repeating itself. An armed insurrection tosses the current bums out, but eventually, the replacements will turn into the same people they replaced. I'm honestly not sure how you'd break the cycle.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
              We must learn from past mistakes.
              "There should be a way for the people to directly and peacefully override that
              evil alliance between the branches and impose constitutional limits again."
              No government or representative deserves trust of the people.
              Betrayal must be punished promptly and severely.
              No slap on the wrist decided and applied by other betrayers.
              Take away the power from the national government or there will be no peace
              and no freedom.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mhubb 2 months ago
            Convention of States was supposed to be the safety valve

            that has not worked out well.

            there is a possibility of one being called now
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
              The power of the states was removed in 1861 by force in violation of the constitution
              by Abe the Betrayer, Abe the War Criminal, Abe the Tyrant, Abe the Mass Murderer,
              Abe the Enslaver.
              Any such attempt to demand justice would be met by the media convicting the
              patriots of individual liberty as domestic terrorists and the FBI, SS, CIA
              arranging convenient accidents and Arkancides.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 2 months ago
    Rainman...read the Constitution. we already have 'term limits on the Supremes...they are not elected for life...they are allowed to serve 'during times of good behavior'..We. the people decide when their behavior is bad. The problem is in the selection of who is fit to serve on the court.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
      Exactly what is the practical procedure where we, the people, can oust a SCOTUS judge?
      If you say impeachment, then we, the people, have no recourse at all because we can't impeach anyone.
      (If we did then most SCOTUS judges would have been impeached already for violating the Constitution.)
      The corrupt con-gress has that power, and they do not represent we, the people.
      We didn't select them; the Deep state did.
      The con-gress are selected based on the degree that the Deep State can control them,
      which history shows is near absolute control.
      The SCOTUS would only be considered to be outside of 'good behavior'
      if they acted to thwart the goals of the Deep State repeatedly.
      Then the worst offender would probably die in an "accident" or of "natural causes" as defined
      by the Deep State's pet coroner.
      The rest of the SCOTUS would then never disobey again.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 2 months ago
      I agree with your facts, but not your interpretation. A president can only be elected to two four-year terms. That's a true term limit. While yes, the process is there to remove a justice from the Supreme Court, if he/she remains '...of good behavior...', then he/she can serve for life. To me, true term limits means that one can serve in an office for X number of years; that "expiration date" doesn't exist for a Supreme Court justice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mhubb 2 months ago
        should there be term limits for a judge?

        i know that in general no one is irreplaceable
        but without someone like Thomas we'd be screwed

        there is no perfect solution
        because one on the court, people become unpredictable and the Constitution suffers
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month, 3 weeks ago
          Agreed that we'd be toast without someone like Justice Thomas. But then, think how much better off we'd potentially be knowing that that idiot who can't even define a woman would also be limited. Depending on who does the appointing, I think it could be a wash.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo