Republicans say Conservative Activist Judges are better than Liberal Activist Judges.

Republican have no shame. Let's take a look at their hypocritical stand on judicial activism and the disturbing silence by the media and Democrats .

First, didn’t we have impartial judges once upon a time? Second, why are we supposed to assume conservative activist judges are better than liberal activist judges?

The Republican point is, once you accept the idea that everyone is a strict partisan, activism is no longer a problem. 

That's when you get what Sen. John McCain puked out of his face hole the other day:

McCain pledged that Senate Republicans would unite against any Supreme Court nominee that a hypothetical President Clinton would try to get confirmed. "I promise you that we will, we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton — if she were president — would put up. This is why we need the majority." 

Yea, if only Republicans had a one party system where they could ignore everyone else and politically poison everything, including the judicial branch. That would bring us back to where the founding fathers hoped we'd be as a nation. Imagine if there were two or three justices openings?

In an LA Times opinion "GOP obstructionism gone haywire: No new Supreme Court justices until the next Republican president?" they offered this:

"...it also could backfire by giving the next president an even freer hand in shaping the Supreme Court. Some might call that poetic justice."

Even scarier, the idea that a complete narcissist sociopath would be praised for his own choices for the court…oh, never mind:

Trump has earned praise from some conservatives for floating roughly 20 names, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), as potential Supreme Court nominees should he win the White House. 

Yup, Sen. Mike Lee. Why? Holy crap, look at his credentials:

1. He wants to do away with the 14th and 17th Amendment.

2. He thinks the Supreme Court should rule child labor laws as unconstitutional.

3. Federal Disaster Relief and FEMA should be deemed unconstitutional.

4. Social Security should be unconstitutional.

5. The Violence Against Women Act is also unconstitutional. 

6. Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional.

7. The FDA and food safety programs should be shut down.

8. Lee claims that raising taxes on the rich would actually hit the poor the hardest.

9. Sen. Lee was very vocal about pushing the global economy into crisis by letting America default on its debt, unless a new Constitutional amendment was written.

10. Sen. Lee had a minister claim Obama needed to put down his Koran and “come up with his hands out” in surrender to them.

Conservative "Institute for Justice" tries to discredit Judicial Branch.

Recent conversations with my ideologically unmovable conservative friend in Milwaukee made it clear to me he no longer believes in debating the issues. You see, the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and big government according to my friend, and any defense of it is a waste of time. That was easy.

This over simplification is consuming the whole Republican Party, who by the way, defeated the tea party by joining it.

The conservative fringe group, the MacIver Institute, is leading the way with the following finely crafted piece of propaganda dissing the entire judicial branch of government. When that’s gone, only then will we have real freedom and liberty. Love the crazy name "Institute for Justices:"

Clark Neily, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, explains that judicial abdication is the deliberate attempt by judges to ignore their responsibility of enforcing constitutional limits on the size of government. One example Neily provides is the absolute overreach by the US Supreme Court when they rewrote the in individual mandate aspect of the Affordable Care Act law.

GOP successfully vilified legislative branch!

Neily now wants to extend the public’s loss of confidence in the legislative branch to the judicial branch. Heck, they're already working on reigning in all presidential power (only under the Democrats). 

From the judicial activism of Citizens United, to the ridiculous declaration that an object like money is free speech and state granted corporations are people, rightwing authoritarians are okay with these kinds of decisions. But if even one decision like the Affordable Care Act doesn’t go their way, suddenly judges everywhere are abdicating their responsibility to enforce the constitution? 

I’m getting the uneasy feeling that they're very close to getting their one party socially conservative dictatorship. It's already happened in Wisconsin.

Republicans Destroy Public Confidence of our Judicial Branch of government.

Republicans talk big about protecting the integrity of everything from voting to judges. As always, it's opposite day everyday in Republican world.
While the nation collapses under the partisan decisions by the decidedly conservative activist Supreme Court, the public has noticed. I'm relieved I wasn't the only one.

Buzzfeed: Only about a third of Americans believe the Supreme Court decides cases based on the law alone ... Americans believe the Supreme Court justices are political, letting their personal views sway their decisions … more than three-quarters of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling … Americans say they would also like to see more ... access to courtroom proceedings to financial disclosures and ethics rules — as well as an end to lifetime terms.

The Numbers:

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps: Majorities of Republican, Democratic, and Independent respondents all told the pollsters that “the current U.S. Supreme Court justices often let their own personal or political views influence their decisions” — 54% of Democrats, 62% of Republicans, and 63% of Independents, for a total result of 60% of respondents agreeing with the statement. Only 36% of respondents agree that “the current U.S. Supreme Court justices usually decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal or political views.” Specifically regarding the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision from 2010, 80% of Americans opposed the decision and 18% supported it. Although Republicans (72%) were less opposed to the decision than Democrats (82%), it was Independents (84%) most opposed to the decision. 

Latest Fabrication: Obama Court Packing Power Play.

Republican filibusters have kept George W. Bush’s courts unchanged and very conservative. The fact that Republicans believes U.S. "law" leans very conservative allows them the cover of supporting judges who mistakenly make outrageously conservative declarations and judgement.  

Their attack on Obama for his insistence Republicans approve or deny nominee’s, is getting downright destructive to the judicial branch of government. Here are a few jaw dropping details reported by Media Matters:

Filibuster Reform Has Right-Wing Media Frantically Condemning Judicial "Power Play": By shamelessly repeating Sen. Chuck Grassley's debunked analogy that the 

president's current nominations to the important U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are a "type of court-packing reminiscent of FDR's era," right-wing media appear to be running out of excuses for rampant Republican obstructionism.

This "radical and different" treatment of the president's nominees as opposed to that of past Republican presidents has led to the real possibility that Senate rules will be changed in July.

Grassley and now Rep. Tom Cotton have introduced bills that would block the president's nominations by eliminating the vacant seats -- literally court-packing in reverse. 

The Wall Street Journal similarly warned that the president wanted judges who "rubber stamp liberal laws," leading him to his "flood-the-zone strategy" for the D.C. Circuit, "a liberal power play that shows contempt for traditional political checks and balances."

Breitbart.com is breathlessly proclaiming the nominations show "Obama has declared war on judicial independence" and is "trying to declare law by executive fiat."

As American Enterprise Institute scholar and congressional expert Norm Ornstein reported, Grassley's court-packing rhetoric made him "laugh out loud" at the absurdity of the comparison: “I remain deeply uneasy about a nuclear option … But if senators who know better … continue to obstruct nominations, they and their colleagues will be the ones responsible for the damage done.”

How can you describe any of the following Republican picks as “impartial,” when they've made comments that show a “complete contempt for traditional political checks and balances?”

The last three Republican presidents actually have been quite successful at "flood-the-zone" strategies. The ensuing right-wing tilt of the federal judiciary, especially at the upper levels, has been dramatic.

Take the Reagan-pick Judge David Sentelle, currently on the heavily conservative D.C. Circuit the president is trying to balance, whose latest shocking decision overthrew decades if not centuries of precedent in order to disallow the president further recess appointments. Or his possibly more extreme colleague, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who has criticized New Deal programs as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution" and formally advocated for a rejection of the results of the "democratic process" that led to such progressive legislation, a blend of "political and judicial roles" that even conservative legal experts have balked at. 

Just this week it was reported that at an unrecorded Federalist Society speech, Judge Edith H. Jones of the Fifth Circuit - another Reagan nominee - allegedly claimed "blacks and Hispanics were more prone than others to commit violent crimes and that a death sentence was a service to defendants because it allowed them to make peace with God." Jones has been repeatedly pushed by right-wing media as suitable for the Supreme Court.

State Republican’s Brazen act of Power: Tear Down that Wall of Separation of Powers, between the Judicial and Legislative Branch of Government.

Republicans have a certain air of confidence knowing their state Supreme Court is actively conservative. It's fascinating to watch Republicans go absolutely power mad with their now super majorities and safe gerrymandered districts. With a lock on the massive network of conservative media statewide, it's time to plunder.

People still like the guy....

This is the new conservatism, the kind of government Scott Walker is advancing in Wisconsin, and later nationwide if given the opportunity.

It even plays well with the safer, more desperate conservative constituents, who are more politically defensive due to all the recall elections that would have “stolen” their original vote. They'll show us, even if they take the state down with them.

Like Rep. Peters Barca said, “If there is any doubt democracy is at risk in this state, then this is exhibit A."

jsonline-Patrick Marley: Orders by trial judges blocking state laws could be quickly overturned by lawyers - at least for a time … The court limits were advanced by Republicans in response to a series of court rulings that stalled some of their signature achievements over the last two years. Since 2011, circuit judges have blocked all or parts of laws backed by Republicans that required voters to show photo ID at the polls, limited collective bargaining for public employees and expanded the governor's power over administrative rules.

But the limits themselves may be unconstitutional, according to a review by nonpartisan lawyers who work for the Legislature. Democrats argued the proposed court limits would be found unconstitutional, because they improperly interfere with the judiciary, as former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske has said.

A recent memo from the Legislative Council - a nonpartisan office that advises the Legislature - said "it appears possible that portions of the bill could be found unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine." Madison attorney Lester Pines, a Democrat who has successfully sued to block some GOP laws in recent years, said if the bill becomes law he would file a legal challenge and ask the state Supreme Court to immediately take it up.

This will pass and be challenged. Conservatives statewide will love the thought of one party rule and the subjugation of the minority liberal elements in the state. It's all so breathtaking to watch. 

Walker cuts Wisconsin's Court System Funding Again, by Mistake or in another Power Grab?

Slashing and cutting their way to reduce the size of government, Scott Walker and state Republicans apparently forgot about the last slashed budget. Is anyone in the Capitol paying attention?

Thanks to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, these nincompoops were kindly informed of their mistake. Here's the audio:

WPR: As Republican state lawmakers review Governor Scott Walker's proposed budget, they are considering reducing the amount Walker would cut from Wisconsin's court system. Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson told lawmakers it amounts to the largest cuts in the history of the court system. What has some legislators worried is that the governor's budget may include what they consider to be a “double cut” of what the state spends on its court system. That is partly because the last budget required temporary cuts to the courts in both the last two years and in the next two. Add to that the new cuts proposed in this budget.

Doh!

Abrahamson got some attention from legislators. Republican Assembly Joint Finance Committee Co-Chair John Nygren says, “We need to figure out what's really going on there and I don't think that's the legislature's intent — to make a double cut to the courts.”

Ya think? But even stranger is the bizarre comparison made by the Walker Authority;  

Governor Walker's budget director told lawmakers that as a percentage, the cuts to the court system were smaller than cuts to the Governor's office. But the size of the court budget in terms of dollars, people and buildings is much larger to begin with.

There’s no excuse for this level of bad state management, unless Walker wants to weaken our courts for more political power.