63 comments

  1. Gorsuch is the libertarian wild card that can sometimes end up on the libertarian leaning left side, along with Robert’s sometime centrism.

    1. Roberts is being blackmailed. There is no way a conservative would ever rule against something that was on the census for more than 100 years.

    2. @TimBuckOhFive actually, there should be no way any judge ruled in favor for it. To change a census question, the POTUS needs to give a reasonable and logical reason to change the question, and the question needs to go through a five year long process. Neither of those happened, so judges should vote party, they should vote what is correct.

    3. @TimBuckOhFive also, doesn’t the word conservative mean “to conserve” as in, to not change? Conservatives want things to be how they were in the old times and not progression, so wouldn’t they want a 100 year old question?

    1. Tony Kohanek Lol forcing justices to resign is even worst than when FDR tried to pack the court in 1937, and even he paid a political price for it

    2. @Brother Sanguinary that is crazy how will putting more judges and stacking the courts ok… our laws are laws…

  2. Term limits definitely need to be implemented in all seats of government. Supreme Court, Senate, Congress all should only be allowed in office no more than 10 year’s.

    1. As I see it, for congress; senate should be 2 terms 6 or 4 years each only, House 4 term limit 2 years. Governor- 2 term 8 years only. Mayor 2 term 4 years only. Supreme Court once you reached the 20 year mark you have to retire.

  3. The Supreme Court should not be about Red or Blue it should be about protecting the constitution..!!!!

    1. @MLK’s Conservative Ghost so you think the government should have a say in each of these matters?

    2. @mrt094 Says someone without a clue about history of the actual opinions, huh?
      Find me those cases where the reasoning for the decisions went against what the Constitution actually means. You will be hard pressed to find enough to count on one hand.

    3. @MLK’s Conservative Ghost You really are a real piece of work. Use your head, it’s common knowledge that red states have been making it harder for minority voters in the recent decades

      https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/restricting-vote

      https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/09/19/americas-unfair-voting-laws

      Actually Roe V wade decided a woman’s right to choose IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, and is protected under the 14th amendment Also you got a problem with gay marriage don’t marry someone who’s gay simple as that. Your personal feelings have no right to decide who someone can be married to.

  4. A little Wikipedia
    “Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced the American legal system. The phrase was proposed by the building’s architects, and then approved by judges of the Court in 1932.”
    Powerful phrase

    1. Casp3r8911 equal justice under the law is a great phrase but given what has happened and is still going on this phrase is no longer relevant. The only way to make it relevant is to start applying the law equally. They need to start with cleaning up the mess mad by the FBI , CIA and others. If not politicians like the Clinton cartel will think they are above the law.

    1. They have been given too much power Congress doesn’t wanna pass anything they just wait for the court to rule.

    2. The problem with that is there is no such thing as non-human bias. Bias exists because humans are inherently biased, this means that in school a lot of the opinions you have on world events depend in a lot of cases on who wrote the book. Most textbooks take a liberal bias, decidedly, nowadays, for instance. Anyway, the Supreme Court justices are supposed to be as fair and balanced as possible, as unbiased as possible, but again, there is no such as NO bias. Ultimately the judges can be predicted to vote one way or another — conservative or liberal. But at the root of that though they’re still supposed to take each on a case by case basis, in the case of Justice Roberts he’s expected to vote conservative and yet he’s the only thing standing in the way of the Supreme Court being entirely conservative. More than anything else about the prospects of Trump winning 2020 is that at least one more of the justices is liable to die (I’m sorry, but RBG may be one of them who doesn’t make it another four years from 2020) and the president more or less can put whoever he wants there so long as Congress approves of it.

  5. How can USSC uphold gerrymandering???
    Takes away power of a citizen’s vote.
    Completely Un-American!
    Sad.

    1. Because drawing districts is a power given to the states. Any drawing a districts, even if done by algorithm, “Takes away power of a citizen’s vote.”

    2. Anthony Talerico kinda like you Libtards get dead people to vote! You Demotards are as crooked as can be!!!!!!!!!

    1. @CrossCynical a simple consistent system for drawing lines that applies everywhere would clearly be more reasonable than the spaghetti we have going on right now. Take a look at some of the maps.

    2. @CrossCynical – gerrymandering can only be exercised by a party, in power, making changes while and because they are in power, to lessen the prospects of those not in power, to gain power.

  6. Gerrymandering equals stealing. The supreme Court is partisan, your law’s only work for those who can pay for it.

    1. And just how do you think your favorite Democrats have held onto power for decades?
      They only call it “gerrymandering” when they want to accuse the “Other Side” of it.

    2. You do realize there was 2 gerrymandering cases being heard right. 1 was democrat and the other was republican. The SCOTUS just left it up to the states.

  7. They need to be impeached for attacking the United States, how can you uphold gerrymandering and call yourself a patriot?

  8. Oh yeah he is another extension of never trumper and corrupt political hack so called judge . He is a joke

    1. The Supreme Court is a joke. What once was the institution that made landmark decisions that shook the fundamental beliefs in cases (such a Brown v Board of Education) of the country has turned into a political hacky sack. The question isn’t America first anymore, it’s political agendas and partisan bickering first. The Supreme Court should be the voice of reason and represent America’s beliefs but rather the hacks on the Supreme Court started to represent interests over country.

    2. With illegals dictating where federal funds are allocated for the next ten years the SCOTUS effectively killed America yesterday…

  9. All Justices should be dismissed and elected by Citizens not Presidents who make biased and party based selection.

    1. That… that goes against what the judges are supposed to be. The point is that the judges can be raw and unflinchingly depict who they are. They’re to be genuine and not have to worry about what the public thinks. If the judges had to campaign, that would make them like every other fake politician, making promises that don’t make sense, making them even more partisan than they already are. What campaign promises can a justice make? They don’t create cases or laws, they only review existing ones. Judges uphold the constitution, not public opinion. You seem to be a liberal who’s not happy that there’s a conservative majority. I would first educate myself on politics and the government instead of making an instinctive statement that makes no damn sense.

  10. Roberts destroyed the court. It has no credibility anymore. The next ‘real’ president must correct it before there is no justice in this country.

    1. @Truck Taxi I was talking about Justice Roberts need to be impeached. He has been compromised by the deep state. For a so called constitutional judge to rule against the constitution is an outrage. The question was on the census for more than 100 years.

  11. If we want the federal courts to be non-partisan, we need to stop letting politicians appoint federal court judges.

  12. No. He destroyed the Voting Rights Act, and now he’s upheld Gerrymandering. He is an enemy of the Republic.

  13. THAT’S RIGHT! We’re definitely LOOKING AT JUDGE John Roberts! We are watching u supreme Court! WE ARE WATCHING ALL OF U!🤨😐

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.