SmaptyWolf said:Yes, I do. Almost none of SCOTUS's big decisions this term involved anything written in the constitution. They just pulled rationalizations out of their butt in order to arrive at decisions that right wingers have been wanting for ages, and happily tossed one 50 year precedent after the next to do it. Exactly what you said: "legislating from the bench when your ideas can't win in the form of actual legislation".flylike44 said:SmaptyWolf said:ncsupack1 said:
I see Biden wants term limits on the SCOTUS, but I couldn't find the part with Congress needing them?
Cool, how about we just vote in new SCOTUS members every two years like we do congress? If they're gonna act like partisans they should be treated that way.
So funny how you guys used to bawl about "activist judges". I guess that was just a smoke screen while you packed the court with radicals.
Following the constitution isn't activism. Trying to legislate from the bench when your ideas can't win in the form of actual legislation from the legislative branch most certainly is. But I have a feeling you know that.
You guys worked a long time to create this radical court and are having your fun, but don't worry, the pendulum will be back soon enough.
Sending the question of abortion back to the individual states, where it always has belonged, isn't legislating from the bench. It's the exact opposite. It's actually begging for actual, you knowvoted on, legislation.
If this issue is such a winner, why in Obama's first term did our lord and savior Barak not get a federal abortion bill passed when the democrats controlled both the house and the senate? Because it's not a winning issue and would never make it to a president's desk for signing.
If it were such a slam dunk, they would have passed a federal abortion bill to guard against a "radical court" from dismantling Roe and sending the issue back to the individual states. They didn't, and haven't because they know it's not as popular as they'd like you to believe.