Ah good. Trump is undermining the justice system.

@jackjjackson I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but they like to see themselves as technocrats. Like central bankers.

It was a norm to consider them as such, and treat their decisions as apolitical, unless proven otherwise.

Once you break that norm, then you are in a different world. And it isn't a world that conservatives, and especially partisan Republicans, should want to go in.

If it is okay for Trump now to denigrate the decisions of "Obama judges", then future Democratic presidents can freely ignore the "Trump judges" (or the Helsinki justices, as I call them). Since remaking the judiciary is Trump's major achievement, he probably shouldn't be trying to undermine it.

But Trump decided instead it would be a good idea to add another asterisk to all Kavanaugh's decisions.

@jackjjackson How their appointments come about may be a political process but, that does not mean that Supreme Court judges are "by definition" political.

Prior to the last twenty years they were commonly viewed as apolitical. Sadly that has changed. Sadly not without reason. I liked it better the old way @WoodyAq @room101

@jackjjackson yeah. In many ways it was still a fiction back then. Although maybe it is really just at the margin ... controversial cases with split decisions make the news, while consensus decisions don't.

Or maybe it's a real problem. Not sure.

I think my main point is that Trump's decision to dispense with the fiction works against GOP interests.

@jackjjackson @WoodyAq Running through the very fabric of American political ideology is the separation of powers dogma. That's the definition that should be adhered to and protected. The rhetoric and actions of trump are attempting to erode and ultimately dismantle that dogma.

He's even doing it to the military. By branding someone like Admiral McRaven a "Clinton fan" (during the Chris Wallace interview on Fox News), he is perpetuating the "us vs them" mentality. And it's this mentality which gives legitimacy to his efforts to dismantle the separation of powers dogma.

Bottom line, even if certain judges on your Supreme Court are blatantly partisan, this is not a positive scenario.

@room101 I fully agree. Dividing the country along partisan lines, as Trump repeatedly does, weakens the country's institutions.

He himself is the only beneficiary of Americans following him in this: Republicans stand to lose a lot even, or perhaps especially, when they win, as with their appointments of judges.*

*Trump appointed.

@WoodyAq It's straight out of the "I wanna be a dictator" playbook.

“Perpetuating the same mentality”

So you’re disappointed that the President Trump hasn’t altered what’s been the status quo for a long time. Because he hasn’t then you’re going to say he made it worse. Another excuse for Trump bashing.

@room101 @WoodyAq

@jackjjackson Has any other president blatantly divided your Supreme Court and your service personnel in this way?

Nothing new. President Obama’s SCOTUS appointments were blatantly political. I wasn’t upset. It was expected business as usual.

The change is that occasionallyJustice Kennedy sided with the liberals and he has been replaced by someone more conservative. However the Chief Justice sided with the liberals on thr ACA case. Over time conservative justices become more moderate over time. Personally I think this is a lot of ado about nothing. Over time it will all be fine. The left will be even more upset if President Trump has the opportunity to appint another. @room101

@jackjjackson Were they? Based on what? Did they announce themselves as being partisan in the way that Kavanaugh announced himself? Was it their decisions? Or, was it how those decisions are viewed by "the opposition"?

In any event, that's not answering my question. Nor is it addressing the point that I'm making. The point that you've dismissed as trump bashing.

Please name any other president who has singled out and derided, a Supreme Court judge or, a senior member of the armed forces (actually, ANY member of the armed forces) based on that individuals political alliances. Be those alliances by party or by a politician that they have supported in any way.

Sorry no interest in researching what you should have prior to making an unsupported allegation. I’ll stick with my position until you prove otherwise. @room101

@jackjjackson Can you name another president who has tried to discredit either the justice department or has attacked judges the way Trump has? That is new. It is a change from the status quo.

And it hurts conservatives more than anyone else.

@jackjjackson What allegation have I made, supported or otherwise?

What IS your position exactly? That what we are witnessing now is the status quo? It's not. I've searched online for any and all references of previous presidents doing what trump has been routinely doing since he started campaigning.

[b]NO PRESIDENT, SINCE AND INCLUDING JOHN F. KENNEDY, HAS SINGLED OUT AND DERIDED A SUPREME COURT JUDGE OR, A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES BASED ON THAT INDIVIDUALS POLITICAL ALLIANCES.[/b]

Yeah, that does include tricky Dicky Nixon.

Prove me wrong!

But it’s fine fine liberal judges a justice in this cas to be blatantly political AFTER being confirmed and while serving?

“I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Ruth Bader Ginsberg


@room101

But it’s fine for liberal judges a justice in this case to be blatantly political AFTER being confirmed and while serving?

“I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Ruth Bader Ginsberg




@WoodyAq

@jackjjackson Nope. That's misconduct too.

So why didn’t you also train your sights on her? @WoodyAq

@jackjjackson Because she isn't president of the US.

Were she the deciding vote on a slew of consequential far-reaching judgements, I'd be far more concerned about her.

Seems more like it doesn’t fit the narrative you want to push 😀 @WoodyAq

@jackjjackson There are a number of differences between the comment by Ruth Bader Ginsberg and what trump does on an almost daily basis.

1. as @WoodyAq points out, she's not president. And we are, after all, looking at the behaviour of a president. NOT any other public figure.
2. trump derides anybody who he sees as opposition, because he sees them as opposition. Regardless of whether his comments are justified or appropriate.
3. Ginsberg gave an opinion on a man with an extremely checkered reputation ie her opinion can be viewed as having merit. The attacks by trump are simply that, attacks.
4. the comment by Ginsberg was on the man, not his political affiliation.
5. the comments of a Supreme Court judge (outside of a Supreme Court ruling) do not have a political influence.
6. the comment by Ginsberg does not undermine any of your institutions. trump has sought to undermine your intelligence community, your DoJ, your legislature, your judiciary, your free press and that holy of holy's (as far as the GOP is concerned) your military.

I could go on but I'll simply repeat:

[b]We are looking at the behaviour of a president. NOT any other public figure.[/b]

@jackjjackson The narrative that a rogue president can do a lot of indisciminate damage?

Yes, it doesn't fit ... and is largely irrelevant to the important issues.

@WoodyAq It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You two simply want to president bash. You made it look as though the discussion was going to be about the lack of pretense that judges are apolitical. Don’t let me interfere. @WoodyAq @room101

@jackjjackson No. I simply want to stand up for truth, the rule of law, and the health of America's democratic institutions.

Since the president is, in thought, word and deed, against those things, and is currently the person with the most power to undermine them, he deserves a little scrutiny, don't you think?