06-04-2024, 08:46 PM
(06-04-2024, 08:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think we need to be clear, though, SCOTUS justices are chosen because of their partisan leanings. When I talked about less faith in jurists as you move up the ladder, this is the sort of thing I am talking about. Presidents are expecting justices to rule a certain way when they appoint them. Now, they can go rogue from time to time, but as much as we like to pretend they are supposed to be non-partisan, they are expected to be partisan by the political class in Washington.
I wasn't referring to you in this regard. Your positions are logically consistent. Let's use the Kyle Rittenhouse trial for an example. Both of us thought this was the clearest case of self defense we'd ever seen. Yet some type of pressure (political?) compelled the DA to file charges. The judge was very even handed, is known as a fair and competent judge and was constantly lambasted here by left leaning posters for being a partisan actor. If we use their own logic, then a jury in a county in which close to 90% of the residents voted against Trump it would be an impossibility to find twelve impartial jurors. If a professional jurist cannot be a non-partisan actor then there's zero chance an amateur jury member can. The same argument could be made in reverse if Trump was tried in a deep red county in West Virginia, using the exact same logic.
I know asking for consistency from hyper partisans wholly blind to their own deficiencies is a big ask, but it's not exactly hard to see if you're even slightly paying attention.
