re: #400 ClaudeMonet

Let’s see. The Florida Supreme Court, all Democratic appointees, rule for Gore, but it’s “non-partisan”. The SCOTUS, appointed by various Presidents, rules for Bush, so it’s “partisan”?

I’ll try to make that the last thing I post about something that happened over 10 years ago. As I tell Republicans about 2008, “It’s done. You lost. Stop fighting lost wars.”

There was a typo on what I wrote originally. I meant to say “I won’t pretend that political ideology doesn’t shape the decisions of the liberals on the court,”

There were two decsions in Bush V. Gore, and in one of them, 4 judges dissented with the decision about stopping the recount - along partisan lines. If you’ll read many other comments I made in the thread, I made it clear that I was refering to both sides when I was pointing ot the partisanship.

The Bush v. Gore reference wasn’t a “post about something that happened 10 years ago.” The post was about partisan influence on the Supreme Court, which predated Bush v. Gore and has continued since. The Bush v. Gore was a particularly notable example, particularly because the right both went against their typical pattern of rulings on issues that involved states’ rights. There are plenty of other examples if you’d prefer.

I completely agree with the gist of your post - it is absurd to argue that partisanship influences the court only either on the left or the right. That’s why the notion that only the conservatives are true to the intent of the framers, as if they can make an objective “interpretation” of what they meant, is ridiculous.