The other thread wandered pretty far afield. So, to get back to the issue.
It’s not about Trump. The judicial branch is not supposed to be political. It is supposed to interpret the law, not make it. The opinions of the judges are irrelevant to their decisions, and so are the opinions of the public. The law is what it is. If it needs changing, that belongs to the legislative branch. There is no reason to lobby a SCOTUS justice, ever.
It is against Federal law to try to intimidate a judge. Those protesting outside the homes of justices are blatantly breaking the law, and Garland won’t enforce the law. Finally, this led to an unstable partisan trying to kill a justice. Thankfully he was incompetent.
But the MSM seems intent to ignore this, and not hold those who sent protestors to the justices’ homes fueled by violent rhetoric accountable. Schumer should resign, Garland should be impeached.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“The judicial branch is not supposed to be political.”
Too bad that it has become so. To say it hasn’t is to deny the reality of what has gone on with SCOTUS over the past several years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if that is so, is that reason to not oppose it?
One of the best reasons for Roe v Wade to go is to return the courts to their proper role.
Had the Warren court not taken it on itself to make law from the bench, our country would be a far better place.
LikeLike
Your opinion is noted. I disagree with it in that there was no new law made; just that certain rights were in the Constitution and those rights include a woman’s right to privacy and choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course they made new law.
A woman’s right to privacy and autonomy was not the question, The question was when the fetus had a countervailing right to life.
The court could have just rejected the Texas law and instructed the legislatures to define the beginning of life, but instead it set thresholds based on trimesters and split the difference.
That was the legislature’s prerogative.
LikeLike
…”to return the courts to their proper role.”
Then Marbury v. Madison will have to go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And going back to your original link, I noticed the date is March 2020. The unstable perp, who deserves to be prosecuted for his crimes, was not motivated by that. The leaked decision on the Mississippi abortion law, the appearance of loosening of gun restriction and other issues is what sent him to Maryland.
I do not believe that Kavanaugh should be assassinated. But if anyone should resign, maybe it should be Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett. They were both gifted their seats by McConnell, who made it clear the American voters should have a voice in the next selection, but Coney-Barret had to rushed through because he saw the writing on the wall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have to take grandkids to jujitsu, but I’ll get back to you.
LikeLike
Enjoy!
LikeLike
“ The opinions of the judges are irrelevant to their decisions…”
Then why have laws that require opinions. Thousands of court cases for one Constitution tell anyone that clarity is not taken for granted. Your opinion is just that. The difference is that SCOTUS’ opinions are law until overturned.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Couldn’t agree more. It is beyond comprehension why there is so much babbling about Trump but nary a peep about Democrats constantly inciting violence. Heck, putting the hyperpartisan commission with zero defense statements on prime time with an MSM cohort to sensationalize this political stunt, JUST in time for midterms, in itself is inciting violence. We all have known the anti-GOP dialouge of this farce for far too long. It’s just Pelosi vomit, instead of regular programming, grasping at straws trying to save a sunken ship…Democrat majority in Congress.
LikeLike
Uh, you seem to think the hearings are going to be very helpful to the Democrats in November. You know, I hope you are right. It’s that old “reality has a liberal bias” trick we play so often.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading comprehension is not your strong point…
LikeLike
Oh yeah, what did I miss?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Off topic in this thread
LikeLike
“Off topic in this thread?”
I assume that was addressed to Mr. Smith. I responded directly to the comments of Mr. Smith concerning the hearings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Out of respect for those involved, I don’t think now is the time to rush to some kind of knee jerk legislative action. And I’m shocked and disheartened at those attempting to politicize such a sensitive issue. In the mean time, Kavanaugh and family have my thoughts and prayers.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not to be unkind, but the top officials have plenty of protection from shootings. It is the rest of us who have to wonder about being in the wrong supermarket, school, church, synagogue, concert, mall, restaurant, office…when some nutjob decides to exercise his God given right to possess a high powered rifle and test it on people.
45,000 gun deaths in 2020. 24,000 suicide, 19,000 homicide and a smattering of accidents, police, etc.
Yeah, we are competing with Russian genocide in Ukraine. And they are at war.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And then the prospect of the heroic boys in blue standing around outside shitting their pants too afraid to do anything except attack unarmed bystanders begging them to do their jobs.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What Russian genocide in Ukraine are you referring to?
LikeLike
Stop being so sanctimonious. We’re all adults here. Nobody believes the SC is an impartial body. Kavanaugh was part of the Ken Starr investigation and worked in the Bush White House. He’s not some enlightened jurist sent down from on high. He’s a political hack. And let’s not even discuss Clarence Thomas.
These people are appointed for life to rule as some sort of ancient philosopher kings. They ARE politicians, so they should be protested as such. Let them feel one iota of the discomfort their divine rulings mean for regular people. Overturning Roe will effectively make women in about half the states second class citizens. Anyone who makes that happen probably should fear for their safety.
If this were 6 liberal justices raising the corporate tax rate a tenth of a percent, you’d be writing the same thing I just did.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You’re young. Your timeframe is too short.
Prior to Roe v Wade the court was apolitical.
Even when Brown v Board of Education came down, new justices were not a point of contention, in spite of a lot of racists being angry.
But Roe poisoned everything. Presidential elections hinge on what kind of justice the candidate might appoint. Confirmation are partisan battles.
It wasn’t always that way. Justices were routinely confirmed by 80 votes or more based entirely on their qualification. No one cared what their personal beliefs were.
But then Roe came along and the term Borking entered the language.
LikeLike
Thanks for your drunk history. But Roe was not controversial and not poison for MANY years after the decision. Then the culture warriors of the GOP picked it up and used it to mobilize “Christians.”
https://www.vox.com/23055389/roe-v-wade-timeline-abortion-overturn-political-polarization
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barry Goldwater, who was a longtime supporter of abortion rights nonetheless criticized Roe V Wade as judicial overreach.
LikeLike
I may be young, but I know a little about the history of the country in which I live.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/just-accept-it-supreme-court-has-always-been-political
From a source even you might trust.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting but note that your cite only references the confirmation process, not the actions of the court.
LikeLike
You specifically mentioned the confirmation process in your reply
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hit “send” before I meant to. Why would a confirmation process be political if the senate didn’t understand the work of the justices was political? If every nominee is just a perfect robot umpire, why isn’t every confirmation unanimous?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Prior to Roe, many we unanimous, or nearly so.
In many cases, the rejections were due to animosity toward the President more than the nominee.
Her is a list of the votes from the beginning and you will see that close votes were rare prior to Roe,
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
LikeLike
Roe was decided in ‘73. The VERY NEXT nominee, John Paul Stevens was approved unanimously. As were O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. Everyone else won comfortably except for the aforementioned Bork and Clarence Thomas, who was credibly accused of sexual harassment, right up until the presidency of—guess who—Barrack Obama.
So when you accused me of being short sighted from my youth, it was actually you who was assuming your youth was the default. It’s okay, it’s a very common mistake.
LikeLiked by 3 people
…”it’s a very common mistake.”
Yes. Don has a habit of retelling history in HIS view and that is the only correct one. Just ask him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You’re young. Your timeframe is too short.”
Not giving credit to young people who ARE well-informed is rather disingenuous and rude.
CHildren should be seen and not heard, Don?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Those protesting outside the homes of justices are blatantly breaking the law, and Garland won’t enforce the law.”
We have seen so much of this in recent years that I am no longer inclined to attribute the problem to incompetence (Hanlon’s razor).
LikeLike