There are so many flaws and blatant misconceptions,  a fundamental ignorance of the workings of our government in this article that I don't think I can take the time to list them all,  so I'll stick with my favorite.

"They want a Supreme Court majority that reflects their views and not the views of the majority of the people."

The author apparently feels that the Supreme Court is another representative branch of the government.  We actually only have one of those.  Do you know what it is?  (For the purpose of this discussion,  let's ignore the 17th amendment, which really should be repealed)

The supreme court has never, and should never reflect the views of the people.  It's not in the job description, and thank goodness.  They interpret the constitution.  It's a crucial check and balance in a time when we are losing crucial checks and balances. (See the 17th amendment). End of discussion.  Period. The people can elect representatives who may change the constitution to reflect their views.  It's meant to be a difficult process.  And there are good reasons for that too.

But thanks for another glimpse into the hopelessly flawed thinking of the left.

thanks Tim for setting the record straight but be prepared for a "vandy" like response that will test your patience

" They interpret the constitution.  It's a crucial check and balance in a time when we are losing crucial checks and balances. "

Tim, That certainly was the founders' intent … but new candidates have become political fodder for both parties.  Checks and balances be damned ! Politics reign supreme !

"be prepared for a "vandy" like response that will test your patience"

mcfarm,

Please, let's not attack a poster's response before they have even made it.................that is the sort of thing that the poster you mentioned would do to make attacks personal.................and I know that you are nothing like that poster.

ok ,mike sorry...might of thought it was funny but guess not

Actually Carl,   an argument could be made that one side looks for constitutional conservatives who actually follow the intent of the founders while the other side is strongly opposed to this and prefers judicial activism from the bench where the unelected justices actually write legislation.

Shall I elaborate and attribute?

Tim, no need to elaborate on the politics from both sides, but could you elaborate on " the intent of the founders " ?

Well Carl,  you injected the founders intent into the conversation,  so I assumed you had an idea what that may be.  But...

The founders never intended the Supreme court to be driven by politics.  Seems an unlikely goal to achieve,   but the closest SCOTUS can come is in strict interpretation of the constitution with particular emphasis on the original bill of rights.  Further,  the founders clearly stated on many occasions in many ways that they envisioned a limited central government with very little clearly defined power.  The 10th clearly stated that all duties not specifically (emphasis on specifically) defined in the constitution would be delegated to the states or the people.  The federal approach made each state a powerful entity with the power and ability to "experiment" with different ideas and approaches.

Unfortunately,  the Supremes have allowed this to be corrupted, relying largely on bastardized interpretations of the interstate commerce clause to the point where the result barely resembles the intent.   This was further enabled,  IMO, by the 17th amendment I mentioned above.  Prior to the 17th,  senators were appointed by the states and their sole purpose was to make sure the house did not write laws that infringed on the powers of the state.  We've obviously lost that crucial check//balance and the senators are now driven by popular vote and function merely as more powerful reps than the house of reps.

I could spend hours on this subject,   but I doubt anyone would read it,  so this is the 10 mile high view.  

call me old fashioned but I would read it Tim

Tim, we seem to agree that politics in the Supreme Court is a bad thing.

carl just checking. If you believe politics have no place in the SC does it follow that libs should be banned as they have more and more looked to the courts for something they never got at the ballot box?

mc, the founders were distrustful of the ballot box, fearing that the people could be persuaded by a charismatic demigod. 

would those be "uniformed voters"...sure sounds like it