Comments by "Andrew Wilson" (@andrewwilson9183) on "AOC Says IMPEACH Lying Supreme Court Justices | The Kyle Kulinski Show" video.

  1.  @elsikpych  Yay!
    2
  2.  @Ellieempress  No they didn't The never said they would uphold the decision
    2
  3. Just because something is precedent doesn't mean a justice has to agree with it
    2
  4. They put the issue of abortion out of their hands. Seems to be more like rejecting power
    1
  5. Expanding the court is you rigging the rules in your favor
    1
  6.  @Gardosunron  He didn't rig the rules. If you are referring to his holding up the court in 2016, Republicans controlled the senate, Obamas nominee wouldn't have made it anyway.
    1
  7. They didn't lie. All supreme court decisions are precedent. Does not mean they agree with them
    1
  8. Packing the court upends the rule of law
    1
  9.  @joseluisgonzalez1047  Yes but by expanding the court, the congress is imposing its will on the court. Which is an imposition on checks and balances. So roe is 50 year precedent, so it should be upheld, Okay So how do you justify Obergfel with that logic. Gay marriage not being legal has been precedent forever.
    1
  10.  @joseluisgonzalez1047  Yes I know. Still a cynical move to get what you want
    1
  11.  @joseluisgonzalez1047  Because the current rules failed you
    1
  12.  @joseluisgonzalez1047  All the court did is bring abortion back to the states and congress. A person does not have to be a religious fundamentalist in order to be pro life. the court exists to step out of line with the peoples popular opinion. Else there isn't rule of law
    1
  13. It allows them to become more wise in decesion making
    1
  14. No. The job of the supreme court is to objective and cold heartedly rational. They have to be able to rule against what the people want. no elections Democracy is not always good
    1
  15.  @davidjohnson2469  The right on the court isn't as partisan as you think it is. They follow more strict readings of the constitution, republicans just so happen to support that. Also the conservatives on the court don't always rule in the Republican parties favor. Such as when both Alito and Roberts voted to include trans people under the civil rights act. The left on the court always gives the dems what they want. The current system in the supreme court is till less democratic than the current system. Which is good, because the court should have to rule against the will of the people when necissary.
    1
  16.  @davidjohnson2469  I said less partisan. Again, if the justices were to be elected the the supreme court would rule on whatever the people want. They have to be able to rule against popular opinions. Thats how rule of law works
    1
  17.  @davidjohnson2469  Personal lives get tricky when you start talking about an embryo which is a human life. The founder believed that change should be moderate and slow. You didn't address my reasoning for wanting the court to be as undemocratic as possible
    1
  18.  @davidjohnson2469  the stakes are higher at the supreme court
    1
  19.  @davidjohnson2469  The supreme court deals with national issues. When a problem is at the federal level the stakes are the highest. Because when the federal government rules affirmatively on anything it becomes bound to us all. The problem with term limiting is that I don't know how that would change anything.
    1
  20. How did the supreme court attack liberty and democracy They gave power back to the congress and the states on the matter of abortion
    1
  21.  @ABC_Guest  Who says abortion is a right? Abortion is a profound moral question. Why then should the federal government be involved.
    1
  22.  @ABC_Guest  How was this an attack on democracy. People can still vote on abortion, even more so now. only within their states
    1
  23.  @ABC_Guest  A. A third party is involved, the embryo B. The court does not recognize a right to privacy being implied by the 14th amendment
    1
  24. No no no no no. The court should not be elected. there job is to cold hearted and rational. They should not be bound to the passions of the people
    1
  25.  @nathanielchieffallo4273  You assume that abortion is a persons liberty. Thats not clear, so it should be left to the states How were they emotional. Read the decision, it makes perfect sense. I was not venerating them. I'm defending the fact that they are unelected
    1
  26.  @evilwelshman  Because the founders believed in curtailing the will of the people. I fail to see how term limits would change anything. Conservative politicians would still get into power and appoint originalist and textualist judges. The same logic applies for the left. Also had term limits already been in place, all three of trumps justices would still be on the court.
    1
  27.  @nathanielchieffallo4273  It is not just a womens body, there is also the embryo to consider. Whether or not the embryo in the womb deserves protection is a highly argued over moral and philosophical problem that should not be the concern of the federal government, or at least the concern of the supreme court.
    1
  28.  @evilwelshman  The supreme court justices are nominated and then approved by the senate. Still less democratic then what you have proposed. The reason why, electing justices is bad is simple. The people will elect justices who agree with them on everything. Turning the court into a de facto legislature. Justices have to be able to rule against the will of the masses, else there is no rule of law. Laws exist to protect minorities, so that not everything is up to what the mob wants. if the majority of the country was against abortion, I doubt you would be in favor of popular election for justices.
    1
  29.  @evilwelshman  That later proposal makes sense
    1
  30. Why would the do that
    1
  31.  @ablewindsor1459  Makes sense, they need some kind of, honor guard. But I doubt they want an entire army
    1