These clowns are running around saying there is no such thing as an 'Obama judge'. What are these people talking about? Let me ask a simple question, when was the last time Ginburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan have ever ruled against the democrat position in a case. The answer is NEVER. Nobody even debates who they might rule because everyone knows from the start.
Whats all this BS that judges arent political?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Since 2010 around 45 % of SC cases were decided unanimously so Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are voting with the conservative judges quite often you moron.
Last edited:
Hey Slaw, answer the question.
The question is answered.I know you are to fucking stupid to figure that out though.
Slaw, you just proved my point. I clearly referenced cases where political parties had differing views. You referenced all cases, which indicates you think all SC cases are political in nature. Checkmate, game over, you lose again.
Second, why are you foreigners always trying to sow discord in the US political system? Mueller said thats illegal. You are no different than a Russian troll.
Again,you are a fucking moron.
Kagan helped gut Obamacare and voted for a baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple.Those are 2 instances of ruling against democrats in huge political cases.
http://prospect.org/article/should-liberals-be-mad-kagan-and-breyer
Should Liberals Be Mad at Kagan and Breyer?
SCOTT LEMIEUX
JULY 9, 2012
Why did the left-leaning justices side with Roberts on Medicaid?
While the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius was generally good news, the decision did have one unfortunate side effect. The Court limited the use of federal spending power with respect to Medicaid, permitting Congress to withhold new grants but not existing Medicaid funds from states if they failed to adopt Obamacare. In other words, governors can reject new federal funds to implement the health-care law without losing the rest of their Medicaid money.
Despite the consequences and dubious logic of this holding, however, it was joined by two of the Court's Democratic appointees: Clinton nominee Stephen Breyer and Obama nominee Elena Kagan. Given the escalating conservative outrage over Roberts's joining with the Court's more liberal faction on the other key elements of the case, several writers have wondered: Where's the liberal outrage against Breyer and Kagan?
"In contrast to all the weeping and wailing that has accompanied what appears to be John Roberts’ single significant defection since joining the court," writes Dahlia Lithwick, "liberals have been strangely silent—as they are always strangely silent—about the myriad ways in which the liberal justices have disappointed them this term." Glenn Greenwald sees this as more evidence that the choice of Kagan was misguided.
I think Greenwald is right that Kagan, while not a disaster, was a suboptimal choice. I also agree with the Lithwick that liberals generally place less pressure on Democratic presidents with regard to Supreme Court appointments, which over time creates a regrettable right-wing ratchet effect—Democratic presidents chose moderates while Republican presidents feel compelled to nominate party-line reactionaries. The fact that John Roberts will now be considered too liberal to have been an acceptable choice to many conservative will only exacerbate this effect.
https://www.newsweek.com/liberal-leaning-justices-side-majority-masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-957351
U.S.
WHY DID ELENA KAGAN VOTE FOR THE MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP SUPREME COURT RULING?
By Paul Leblanc On Monday, June 4, 2018 - 17:34
Observers of Monday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012 may have been surprised to find that two of the court's liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined with the conservative majority for the opinion. But a legal expert told Newsweek this was the result of the very specific nature of this case.
“The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented while Breyer and Kagan, considered to be liberal-leaning, joined the more conservative justices in a majority ruling
Last edited:
Once again I just proved in the above post what a fucking idiot and moron you are.
Foreign trolls arguing the exceptions to the general rule.
What really happened?
Most likely it was because the baker's side had 5 judges anyway...So Kennedy called in some favors or rallied his fellow justices to support his decision because he supported them in the gay marriage law suit. In exchange for jumping over they probably got some some of the limiting language they desired. I remember some of the lefties here and in the media using that language to act like the Baker lost and the gay and govt bullies won. (at first)
Nevertheless I give the two lefties credit for doing the right thing and realizing it was not a gay rights lawsuit but a Gov't oppressing the bakers freedom of thought, action and religion. As the ruling said gays already have the same rights already anyway.
What really happened?
Most likely it was because the baker's side had 5 judges anyway...So Kennedy called in some favors or rallied his fellow justices to support his decision because he supported them in the gay marriage law suit. In exchange for jumping over they probably got some some of the limiting language they desired. I remember some of the lefties here and in the media using that language to act like the Baker lost and the gay and govt bullies won. (at first)
Nevertheless I give the two lefties credit for doing the right thing and realizing it was not a gay rights lawsuit but a Gov't oppressing the bakers freedom of thought, action and religion. As the ruling said gays already have the same rights already anyway.
Last edited:
wildchild said:
Let me ask a simple question, when was the last time Ginburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan have ever ruled against the democrat position in a case. The answer is NEVER.
Exactly!