Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Blasphemer

(3,618 posts)

20. While I may disagree...

Reply to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:55 AM

Jun 2016

and Breyer has "gone rogue" in other decisions, I don't think having a different legal interpretation on one, or a few cases, makes one a bad justice. When the right-wing justices veer left, they are heralded for it. It could simply come down to the law, and their interpretation of it, more than politics and that's their job. That said, this decision does not make me enthusiastic about Garland sitting on the SCOTUS. I suspect he would have voted like Breyer. I'd prefer a more liberal voice on L&O issues, and I do think Clinton would nominate someone more to the left on those issues.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton Suprme Ct. appointee Stephen Breyer today helped the Court's four conservatives. . . [View all] markpkessinger Jun 2016 OP

I haven't read his separate expression (if there is one,) elleng Jun 2016 #1

Agreed. So when liberals talk about Democratic Presidential guillaumeb Jun 2016 #2

+1 n/t markpkessinger Jun 2016 #4

One never knows, elleng Jun 2016 #5

An excellent point. And Kennedy can also surprise people. eom guillaumeb Jun 2016 #19

Because of one vote by one justice? TwilightZone Jun 2016 #6

They forgot he also appointed Ginsburg. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #7

One extremely important and significant vote, yes. n/t markpkessinger Jun 2016 #10

Yup, because Trumo would appoint a liberal Justice obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #11

Breyer has never impressed me a whole lot. Truth is BootinUp Jun 2016 #3

Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan nominee too. floriduck Jun 2016 #8

Right . . . markpkessinger Jun 2016 #9

And she voted to give Bush the presidency. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #14

It sounds like a bad call Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #12

The destruction of the 4th Amendment is a "bad call" . . . markpkessinger Jun 2016 #13

simply mind boggling. breyer's actions are inexcusable and grounds for....what? Gabi Hayes Jun 2016 #15

"Destruction" seems both self-serving and melodramatic LanternWaste Jun 2016 #23

Everything is her fault, remember? DonRedwood Jun 2016 #31

Just like with Obama Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #32

And Ruth Ginsburg, his other appointee, dissented. pnwmom Jun 2016 #16

Exactly. One vote doesn't define the justice. Breyer has been extremely liberal in his past BlueCaliDem Jun 2016 #29

A suggestion from a lawyer elljay Jun 2016 #17

right....who's that knocking at your door? Gabi Hayes Jun 2016 #18

Thanks, elljay, elleng Jun 2016 #22

I just hate it when people jump to conclusions! elljay Jun 2016 #25

So do I but it's SO common, elleng Jun 2016 #26

Watching legal shows on tv elljay Jun 2016 #30

While I may disagree... Blasphemer Jun 2016 #20

Kinda hard under the new rules. zipplewrath Jun 2016 #21

Objective and valid criticism is yet allowed LanternWaste Jun 2016 #24

Of the decision zipplewrath Jun 2016 #27

This is probably Hillary's fault too WhiteTara Jun 2016 #28

Everyone is fixated lancer78 Jun 2016 #33