When the shoes on the other foot....

[Fantine]

How quickly armchair critic William Barr can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG.

Former AG Bill Barr 'appalled' by White House response to Supreme Court doxxing (msn.com)

On a more serious note, I think he feels differently because he presumes that the Supreme Court is apolitical, whereas progressives know that the Supreme Court has been politicized and manipulated by Mitch McConnell and others for several years.

The only way that the Supreme Court can prove its neutrality and objectivity is:

• for Thomas, the most political of all justices, to retire immediately
• to expand the size of the Supreme Court so that when any justice retires there is less of a partisan impact.

 

[RDKirk]

How quickly armchair critic William Barr can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG.

Former AG Bill Barr 'appalled' by White House response to Supreme Court doxxing (msn.com)

On a more serious note, I think he feels differently because he presumes that the Supreme Court is apolitical, whereas progressives know that the Supreme Court has been politicized and manipulated by Mitch McConnell and others for several years.

The only way that the Supreme Court can prove its neutrality and objectivity is:

• for Thomas, the most political of all justices, to retire immediately
• to expand the size of the Supreme Court so that when any justice retires there is less of a partisan impact.

I think public perception would be helped immensely if justices such as Thomas recuse themselves when appropriate, and that happened with enough regularity that it clearly appears a consistent Court policy.

I'm not sure the Court needs to be expanded, but I do think retirements should be more thoughtfully considered.

 

[HTacianas]

How quickly armchair critic William Barr can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG.

Former AG Bill Barr 'appalled' by White House response to Supreme Court doxxing (msn.com)

On a more serious note, I think he feels differently because he presumes that the Supreme Court is apolitical, whereas progressives know that the Supreme Court has been politicized and manipulated by Mitch McConnell and others for several years.

The only way that the Supreme Court can prove its neutrality and objectivity is:

• for Thomas, the most political of all justices, to retire immediately
• to expand the size of the Supreme Court so that when any justice retires there is less of a partisan impact.

Maybe you should begin by describing precisely what you mean by "all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG.".

 

[Fantine]

Do you read the newspaper and watch the news?

He kneecapped the Mueller investigation and when he did "release" the report, it was filled with redactions. He released the report about six weeks after mischaracterizing it and interpreting it in his own way--a way that completely contradicted what Mueller said.

He also put restrictions on the Kavanaugh confirmation investigation, preventing investigation of the second victim's story--which happened in a room filled with frat party witnesses, and which left her frozen and fearful when she had to encounter Kavanaugh again at a wedding.

He was characterized by many as "the president's attorney--" intstead of the PEOPLE'S attorney.

Just google it.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

On a more serious note, I think he feels differently because he presumes that the Supreme Court is apolitical, whereas progressives know that the Supreme Court has been politicized and manipulated by Mitch McConnell and others for several years.

That’s what progressives say about every court that doesn’t give them their way.

The only way that the Supreme Court can prove its neutrality and objectivity is:

When the court starts making rulings you don’t like, all the sudden that somehow means they have to prove anything? The Warren court never felt the need to prove “neutrality” or “objectivity”.

 

[Fantine]

The past three judges were appointed to unprecedented maneuvers never seen before in history.

McConnell refusing to vote on the Garland nomination for well over a year, then hypocritically rushing to fill RBG's seat before Trump suffered his well-deserved loss.

Sandwiched in between was a judge facing serious accusations from several women that AG Barr refused to look into.

All tainted appointments, 110% political.

If Republicans were ethical they would condemn these practices and remove McConnell from his position.

 

[disciple Clint]

How quickly armchair critic William Barr can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG.

Former AG Bill Barr 'appalled' by White House response to Supreme Court doxxing (msn.com)

On a more serious note, I think he feels differently because he presumes that the Supreme Court is apolitical, whereas progressives know that the Supreme Court has been politicized and manipulated by Mitch McConnell and others for several years.

The only way that the Supreme Court can prove its neutrality and objectivity is:

• for Thomas, the most political of all justices, to retire immediately
• to expand the size of the Supreme Court so that when any justice retires there is less of a partisan impact.

do you have any evidence for the claims you are making?

 

[APersonWithNoName]

How quickly armchair critic William Barr can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG.

Former AG Bill Barr 'appalled' by White House response to Supreme Court doxxing (msn.com)

On a more serious note, I think he feels differently because he presumes that the Supreme Court is apolitical, whereas progressives know that the Supreme Court has been politicized and manipulated by Mitch McConnell and others for several years.

The only way that the Supreme Court can prove its neutrality and objectivity is:

• for Thomas, the most political of all justices, to retire immediately
• to expand the size of the Supreme Court so that when any justice retires there is less of a partisan impact.

you are speaking from the view of a liberal.

I am sure there are many conservatives who think Justice Sotomayor should retire immediately.

 

[KCfromNC]

you are speaking from the view of a liberal.

I am sure there are many conservatives who think Justice Sotomayor should retire immediately.

Why? When has she failed to recuse herself from cases related to her spouse's lobbying job? Was her spouse working to help organize an attack on the US Capitol?

Because if not, there's no comparison to Thomas.

 

[Fantine]

If you've been ignoring the news for years I don't have time to catch you up. Read a history book.

 

[hislegacy]

Since we are addressing when the shoe is on the other foot….

Anyone notice for the decades the Supreme. Court was majority liberal, not one person called for justices to retire, not one person called for court expansion.

more another example of other foot syndrome

When Barr spoke against Trump, he was a truthful hero. When he speaks against Joe he is biased.

go figure

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The past three judges were appointed to unprecedented maneuvers never seen before in history.

McConnell refusing to vote on the Garland nomination for well over a year, then hypocritically rushing to fill RBG's seat before Trump suffered his well-deserved loss.

Sandwiched in between was a judge facing serious accusations from several women that AG Barr refused to look into.

All tainted appointments, 110% political.

If Republicans were ethical they would condemn these practices and remove McConnell from his position.

All 110% legal. They’re only unprecedented for a Republican president. And when is a federal court appointment not political?

It sounds like being “ethical” means fighting with one hand behind your back - at best. Why play by rules that are written for the express purpose of ensuring that you lose? Condemn them? On what grounds? Because they’re effective?

 

[Fantine]

Exactly what do you call it when McConnell says Obama can't nominate a Supreme Court justice 9 months before Election Day....
But allows Trump to get a justice confirmed two weeks before Election Day?
That's the definition of dirty politics.
And there had never been a court vacancy that long any time on history.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Exactly what do you call it when McConnell says Obama can't nominate a Supreme Court justice 9 months before Election Day....
But allows Trump to get a justice confirmed two weeks before Election Day?

Payback for Bork? I figure we're about even now.

That's the definition of dirty politics.

Politics, sure. But what's dirty about it? I actually found the liberal-left spin to paint it as some kind of moral issue rather amusing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly what do you call it when McConnell says Obama can't nominate a Supreme Court justice 9 months before Election Day....

It is an invitation for future administrations to do whatever they want w.r.t. to the court assuming it is technically legal. For example, expand it by 15 or 20 members.

 

[JSRG]

Since we are addressing when the shoe is on the other foot….

Anyone notice for the decades the Supreme. Court was majority liberal, not one person called for justices to retire, not one person called for court expansion.

more another example of other foot syndrome

Can you clarify what the "decades" in question you are referring to are?

 

[RDKirk]

Can you clarify what the "decades" in question you are referring to are?

I suspect those "decades" will include periods that the majority of sitting justices had been appointed by Republican presidents, but those justices were not reliably right-wing enough in all their decisions.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Plenty of Republican appointed justices have been quite liberal; Trump was the only president who appointed conservatives as consistently as Clinton and Obama appointed liberals. This fits in with basic Trump idea of taking on the liberal establishment as its own game.

 

[disciple Clint]

It is an invitation for future administrations to do whatever they want w.r.t. to the court assuming it is technically legal. For example, expand it by 15 or 20 members.

Well when it was obvious that Obama could not get the votes to get his candidate approved why would anyone want to waste time, it would be like attempting to impeach a president when you do not have a case that supports that action or the votes to accomplish it, nothing but a waste of time and money. I am glad the Republicans believe in being fiscally responsible instead of wasting our money on foolishness.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well when it was obvious that Obama could not get the votes to get his candidate approved

When did this happen?