US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

[DonAlejandroVega]

I can take or leave the clergy.

I'd be equally fine with a priest, rabbi or imam.

I also think it should have an ardent atheist or two.

Broad representation and balance is my point.

Right now 3 jews and 6 catholics from the north east is too narrow and unbalanced to represent such a diverse nation.

NO atheists, though......lol. where's MY representation? when a clergyman sits on SCOTUS......I will become an Icelander.

 

[Red1966]

NO atheists, though......lol. where's MY representation? when a clergyman sits on SCOTUS......I will become an Icelander.

I think you're exaggerating there. Would you really leave the land of your birth?

 

[UncleBuck]

My father was born a Jew, but did not practice it. My mother was not a Jew. So, not a Jew. Not a member of any religion, for that matter.

that's not what you've said before.

To call a Jew "Herr Red" is racist and offensive.

lying retard.

 

[UncleBuck]

Not at all. It certainly does matter. At present too few regions of the nation are represented. The US Supreme Court should not be dominated by North eastern catholics and jews.

but their jurisprudence and thus their decisions wouldn't change, so it is pointless.

this thread is pointless race trolling by a racist shithead with an incest fascination.

 

[desert dude]

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I think I've seen Buck on Youtube. on Russian dash-cams.

 

[Glaucoma]

I'll never understand the fascination people have with dash cams, especially the Russians.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I'll never understand the fascination people have with dash cams, especially the Russians.

I love them!
all the crazy shit that happens on Russian roads? I'd have a Google Earth cam atop my car, for a 360 degree view...lol

 

[Doer]

So Obama appointing Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan never happened?....lol.....

Same SCOTUS. Same voting. Same outcomes.

Read the article I posted about outcomes. Beyond that is just your lies and racists attacks.

This court has ruled against this President unanimously, more that any other President.

It is Law not people. People are just people and that is why the Constitution is written as a balance of power.

 

[SmokeyDan]

but their jurisprudence and thus their decisions wouldn't change, so it is pointless.

this thread is pointless race trolling by a racist shithead with an incest fascination.

Because they are deciding major things for us all, we should all have someone who talks and worships like us there.

Where one is from and what they believe in should not have any bearing on decisions on most things, yet we know it does to some degree.

Why is it okay for minorities and women to want to be represented on the court but not the majority?

Women and minorities are represented on the court, some more than their numbers warrant. Yet the majority remains unrepresented.

 

[Doer]

You missed the memo.

SCOTUS keeps us from discrimination on race color or creed, as best they can, considering we are a bunch of mean and crazy sovereigns with the 9th Amendment at our backs.

The birth religions of these folks, don't matter. Kooks are not considered. Congress can block appointments. This is the rule of law.

 

[tightpockt]

Apparently people seem to think it is important to have blacks on the court, and women, oh and Hispanics also, only if they're liberal enough though.

There are three jews when they make up 1.7 percent of the nation.

Constitutional laws and principals aren't difficult, but sometimes the medical or technological issues they are deciding can be.

There are plenty of people who have both a JD and a MD or an advanced business degree and other qualifications as well. Clergy spend their life interpreting laws, so there is nothing strange about this. Many there too have a JD.

If justices representing groups of people within the nation is irrelevant, you wouldn't care if Ginsburgs seat was given to a white Methodist from Georgia?

As long as it isnt a dirty jew!!

 

[SmokeyDan]

You missed the memo.

SCOTUS keeps us from discrimination on race color or creed, as best they can, considering we are a bunch of mean and crazy sovereigns with the 9th Amendment at our backs.

The birth religions of these folks, don't matter. Kooks are not considered. Congress can block appointments. This is the rule of law.

If kooks aren't considered how do you explain Sotomayor?

 

[Wilksey]

If kooks aren't considered how do you explain Sotomayor?

Fair enough.

She IS a sexist racist cunt.

However, I don't want any g'damn bible thumping sum'bitch on the court any more than I want a g'damn quran thumpin' sum'bitch, or a torah thumpin' sum'bitch. They're ALL a bunch of CULTISTS IMO.

There's a place for religious cults, and it's in THEIR respective church/mosque/temple/ whatever, and NOT in our government.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Fair enough.

She IS a sexist racist cunt.

However, I don't want any g'damn bible thumping sum'bitch on the court any more than I want a g'damn quran thumpin' sum'bitch, or a torah thumpin' sum'bitch. They're ALL a bunch of CULTISTS IMO.

There's a place for religious cults, and it's in THEIR respective church/mosque/temple/ whatever, and NOT in our government.

I wouldn't want a court dominated by that type anymore than you do.

But considering there are many, tax paying, military serving americans who fit that profile, those who share their views should be present in all aspects of the government.

There should also be atheists.

No significant numbered group should be excluded.

 

[Doer]

If kooks aren't considered how do you explain Sotomayor?

She is no kook. That is your partisan opinion, And you would not even know to parrot that had not some hate group dug up some comments and smeared it beyond proportion.

Or are you a guy that thinks women should not be represented along with too many Jews.

You are focusing on your hate, not reality.

 

[Doer]

I wouldn't want a court dominated by that type anymore than you do.

But considering there are many, tax paying, military serving americans who fit that profile, those who share their views should be present in all aspects of the government.

There should also be atheists.

No significant numbered group should be excluded.

Why not ignore all that? None of that is even Constitutional to consider. And what slip-slide are you on to think the top experts in Law are supposed to be Representative of the People.
They are representative of Law, not people.

This is not the Legislature. This is another branch of govt that is for experienced legal experts that are clean enough to be considered at all.

It is well above everything but the Constitution itself. They alone preserve the Constitution the President is sworn to protect.

Take you UN-constitutianal "should" and stick it up your shood.

What are you anyway, a Canadian....or Irish?

 

[Red1966]

Same SCOTUS. Same voting. Same outcomes.

Read the article I posted about outcomes. Beyond that is just your lies and racists attacks.

This court has ruled against this President unanimously, more that any other President.

It is Law not people. People are just people and that is why the Constitution is written as a balance of power.

"your lies and racists attacks."? Really? I challenge you to quote just one of these, you lying bastard. Just as you accused me of making personal attacks previously, you never responded with even one. Is your position so bankrupt you can only make up lies to defend it? If it was law and not people, every decision would be unanimous. The reason the court rules against the president so consistently is because even his liberal appointees can not stomach his lawless, dictatorial abuse of his office. He would have been impeached years ago if it were not for the majority of corrupt, lying Democrats in the Senate who behave, surprise, surprise, much like you.

 

[SmokeyDan]

She is no kook. That is your partisan opinion, And you would not even know to parrot that had not some hate group dug up some comments and smeared it beyond proportion.

Or are you a guy that thinks women should not be represented along with too many Jews.

You are focusing on your hate, not reality.

I don't think any of that is the case. I don't think any of the other libs on the court are nearly as kooky as she is.

 

[Red1966]

Fair enough.

She IS a sexist racist cunt.

However, I don't want any g'damn bible thumping sum'bitch on the court any more than I want a g'damn quran thumpin' sum'bitch, or a torah thumpin' sum'bitch. They're ALL a bunch of CULTISTS IMO.

There's a place for religious cults, and it's in THEIR respective church/mosque/temple/ whatever, and NOT in our government.

What should we do with all the Secular Humanists in office then?