“Whether a Democrat or a Republican wins in 2016, he or she may well have the chance to shift the court’s ideological balance.”
How wrong is this? I realize that I am; at times; somewhat of an idealist but the Court is not supposed to have a political ideology.
The Court’s only ideology is supposed to be the Constitution.
I really don’t believe either; that the Constitution is as difficult to understand as the Parties say it is. I would love to have the opportunity to participate in a “Mock SCOTUS” scenario where you could get the chance to see a whole case and make an informed judgment. Maybe something a bit longer; say a week; three cases; various subject matter and Constitutional principals. then see how you compare to the real opinions perhaps. Sounds like fun and very educational. Might shut this Angryman up about what a piss poor job The Court does of standing up for the Constitution. Or;… verify my suspicions that they make it much more complicated than it needs to be.
Supreme Court justice and pop culture icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg left the hospital yesterday after having a heart stent implanted and expects to be back at work Monday. Despite various health issues over the years, Ginsburg insists that she is still of sound body at age 81 (her mind isn’t in question) and has no plans to retire before the end of President Obama’s term to ensure a Democratic replacement. If she keeps to that pledge, and presuming there are no other retirements in the next two years, the makeup of the Supreme Court could be a bigger campaign issue in 2016 than ever before. It certainly ought to be.
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court is brought up almost as an afterthought in presidential campaigns. The potential for a swing in the court is used to motivate activists to volunteer and work hard, and the candidates usually have to answer a…
View original post 537 more words