Justice Blocking Republicans hoping to appoint Right Winger to Court, whine Ginsburg too Partisan in recent comments.

The moment Republicans promised, as a party, to nominate a conservative justice to the Supreme Court was the day they gave up the right to complain about liberal judges and any suggested expectation of impartiality.

Republicans individually have demanded activist judges and justices before, even allowing judge shopping here in Wisconsin, but this latest example of faux outrage takes the cake.

The Republican point of no return came when they blocked Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia, hoping a Republican president would insert an activist believer in "originalism," a wildly conservative concept pushed by all the diehard Birch Society loyalists now comfortably at home in the Federalist Society.

So cry me a river guys....

Gulp, Ginsburg truthfulness and sense of humor is a troubling issue to Republicans who have troubling issues with Trump as their nominee:

The Supreme Court justice told the AP she couldn't imagine what the country would be like under Trump and joked to the New York Times about moving to New Zealand ... could end up forcing her to recuse herself from future cases involving a President Trump—or election cases like a potential Clinton vs. Trump recount.

Conservative justices and judges have already argued that comments, personal appearances at groups appearing before them and monied special interests backing elections and appointments is no reason for recusal...so what's their beef?  

As for Trump's reaction? Wouldn't it be nice if she quit?

"It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.”

Here are more links provided by a comment to a NY Times editorial bashing Ginsburg:

Where was their outrage over the MANY, MANY partisan events and partisan tropes attended by and headlined by conservative justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito?  
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/26/14065... 
 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/20/13986... 
 http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/20/scotus.conf...  
All the raging of the right wing noise machine don't set aside the FACT that the court is as politically divided as the rest of the country and that the downfall BEGAN with the likes of Scalia and Thomas. 
 http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/co...  

Dumb Ron Johnson wants "originalist" Justices, prefers 8-0 decisions on all Supreme Court Decisions in future!!!

It was odd to hear Scott Walker, lackey AG Brad Schimel and Dumb Ron Johnson all declare “victory” over the Supreme Courts actual split 4-4 non-decision over Obama’s executive order on immigration. 

After all, the Republican blockade to nominate a new justice created the courts deadlock.

But the weirdest, most honest and detached from reality reaction was from Ron Johnson. Latching on to the dangerous notion that the Democratic left is an actual enemy of the state, hell bent on destroying American exceptionalism, Johnson laments not having a politically tilted conservative court with 8 “originalist” activist justices all deciding the same thing. 

  

I know, crazy isn't it. Johnson made the claim like it was just commonly accepted public sentiment:

Johnson Responds to Split Court Ruling Blocking Obama’s Executive Immigration Order“I’m pleased the lower court’s decision that effectively blocked the president’s executive action granting legal presence and immigration benefits for up to 4 million illegal immigrants has been upheld.  President Obama clearly exceeded his legal authority. 

The fact that this decision was split speaks to a larger, more depressing issue — the politicization of the Supreme Court.  

Here's Johnson's mind blowing authoritarian one-party illogic: 

If the court contained only judges instead of super-legislators, today’s ruling would have been 8-0. This split political decision demonstrates why the American people need to decide the direction of the court through their votes for president and Senate in November."

That's the new thinking; we're not talking about impartial justices anymore. Instead, we're supposed to be choosing the direction of the entire court...politically.

Bradley's "Originalist" Constitution does not protect or promote "a more equal society!!!"

I never thought Rebecca Bradley would be partisan enough to highlight, and go after, JoAnne Kloppenburg for her promise to promote a more equal society. I was wrong.

The Constitution doesn't promote a more Equal Society? Apparently "originalists" have decided all rights have already been doled out, end of story. Forget any new challenges and efforts to discriminate.

Bradley's "originalist" Constitution believes "a more equal society" is a return to the days when the middle class fought back and threatened the status quo. She made that clear in the editorials she wrote at Marquette University. In a recent partisan rant, Bradley proved once again she hasn't moved an inch from her bigoted, partisan, condescending comments of the past:

In a March 21, 2016 interview on Wisconsin Public Radio’s "Joy Cardin Show," Bradley said:

"Given her judicial philosophy, JoAnne Kloppenburg has told us she thinks it's her job to promote a more equal society. She will most definitely introduce her social and political beliefs into her decision making."

But as PolitiFact pointed out, it wasn't Kloppenburg's idea so much as something the courts have emphasized over centuries:

"...my decisions are based on the law and the facts, not on ideology or partisan politics. I am faithful to the court’s role as an independent check and balance on the other political branches of government. My duty is to uphold the Constitution, a sacred document that represents the will of the people and which contains the fundamental principles that define our democracy, protect individual rights and promote a more equal society."
Kloppenburg’s statement is more broad than Bradley suggests.

If Bradley doesn't like the idea of "a more equal society," or thinks it's partisan to expect that from our courts, then by all means let's make sure voters know what she won't do...

"...JoAnne Kloppenburg has told us she thinks it's her job to promote a more equal society." 

Amazing. But there's a reason Bradley doesn't agree with a more equal society; because it's part of a "living breathing" reading of the Constitution, the opposite of her originalist philosophy.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Chief Justice John Marshall had lectured the American people to always remember that the Constitution is intended "to be adopted to the various crises of human affairs." This notion of a "living constitution" is not accepted by all scholars or judges, but the history of the Equal Protection Clause in the last half-century would indicate that its applications, and possibly its meaning as well, have changed over time.