Yes, the Supreme Court is extremely political/biased.

That's one of the huge reasons to vote your person in as president. Then, they can get judges from their party on the Supreme Court to  influence decisions with enormous impacts on the country.

Every president knows what judges political bias is based on their case history/past decisions.

Then, if given the opportunity during their 4 or 8 years, they try to get judges with a long history that lines up with decisions that line up with their parties belief system.

It would be like playing a card game against another person, where each of you gets to draw a 1 new card from a pile.

Only, there's some twists to the rules.

YOU get to look at all the cards in the pile and pick which one you want when its your turn and sometimes, you get 2 or 3 turns in a row.......based on random luck.

That's an exaggeration of the reality but describes the rules.

There have been some surprises in the past but clearly, Trumps picks have changed the court to a conservative bias. Many Rs think that this was Trump's greatest achievement..........which is an acknowledgement that the court is political.

There is a golden rule in politics with regards to how vehemently a party will fight for something.

The more control the other party has of a situation, the stronger the objections and more vehemently the other party will be and more extreme the  actions and words will be of the party NOT in control  to oppose the path forward in that realm.

The ones in control will be more passive in their defense of the favorable to them situation. 

When Trump was president, what party was screaming bloody murder, otherwise known as TDS? CNN had an all out extreme Trump attack every weekday evening for years. They support Biden without a great deal of passion compared to their Trump position. 

Biden is president, so the other party is doing the exact same thing to him. Fox has an extreme Biden attack every weekday evening that is well into obsession-land.

When the Supreme court was leaning liberal, the Rs squawked all the time.

Now that it's conservative, the Rs are claiming its justice and the Constitution finally. The Ds are claiming the complete opposite.

In fact, the Ds are declaring war on the Supreme Court and its decisions. When it favored the libs, they never acted this way.

It's the squeaky wheel gets the most oil theory on steroids (-:

Both sides will assign nafarious intent to the other sides actions/words and defend its actions and words as justified, along with an ends justifies the means mentality.

If Thomas wasn't on the court, even more people would believe that mixed marriages are on the list.

It's remotely possible that gay marriage could be revisited but I feel strongly that it will not be overturned.

The rational, to me is so extremely different and how I think the court would see it. I think this is more a function of libs trying to mischaracterize a conservative court in order to be able to attack that court as being bogeymen/women. 

As if their mission is to go back and reverse things that don't match up with conservative ideology as if they have this list labelled "conservative" and "liberal" and are trying to take away items as many items from the other one side and give them to the their side.

Certainly, conservative judges that were in the minority before, could revisit an issue they lost then but could win now with a majority..........like abortion but the original ruling was always ripe for this to be overturned.

With gay marriage, alot of acceptance and change has taken place since the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage in United States v. Windsor in 2013, and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

In addition to what their personal opinion might be, they are extremely aware of what's going on around them:

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Advances in US Congress

https://www.voanews.com/a/same-sex-marriage-bill-advances-in-us-congress-/6670650.html

Thanks Mike.  I didn't know that such legislation was in process.  

I would be very heartened if 10 Republican Senators voted for that bill on gay marriage.

YW joj!

Thank YOU actually. This is why I especially like posts that disagree with me.

If it agrees with me.............nobody learns much.

In disagreement, it does this:

1. Causes me to look at the other person's view with an open mind. I know that this seems impossible but I do it.

2. That's when the learning really takes off. Because I have to do research and fact checking out the wazoo because I WILL NEVER state anything here unless I have the authentic facts/science obtained by my own personal research WITH AN OPEN MIND and discernment.

3. This was an example of  both of us learning, joj BECAUSE OF YOU.  I learned it first when researching this topic because you brought it up,  then passed it on.......and now we both know.

4. There were a few smaller items to be learned in the process, which is often the case but every once in awhile, like this time it can result in a WOW! This mean everything!

I feel very optimistic that this will get passed but even if it didn't, the Supreme Court already has a bias credibility issue and if they went after gay marriage it would strongly confirm everything their detractors are stating about them. 

They know this better than we do.

The court is not biased.   If you want to make that argument, you have to say the constitution is biased.  And as the basic definition of "conservative" is a literal translation of the constitution, then I suppose you could say the constitution has a conservative bias.    And as the vast majority of the liberal agenda is in direct opposition to the constitution, I guess you could say the constitution is biased against liberals. But it's a fallacious argument at best.

Quite simply, per the constitution, the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion.  Roe v Wade was a textbook example of judicial activism and even pro-choice Ginsberg thought it was a bad ruling.

The same holds for marriage.  The federal government cannot be for or against it. Should congress attempt to codify abortion or marriage, it will not pass constitutional muster without an amendment.   This is not bias, it's simply following the law.

If it's not in the constitution, then refer to the 10th amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Thanks Tim!

"The court is not biased."

So the court NOW is not biased? (since the majority are conservatives)

And the court BEFORE was biased? (when the majority provided the liberal opinion)

Keep in mind that I'm pro life..........but can see how the political bias in the court was shifted by Trump that led to this decision.

You don't see this?

Is your view that the court before 2016 was biased and Trump appointed judges that don't have bias, so now its not biased?

What would account for the SPLIT decisions?

Not sure how else to say this.

The court is following the law.

The court was not following the law when they made the Roe ruling.

When the court engages in judicial activism, they are not following the law. It's the job of the court to follow the law.

You can interpret that any way you choose, but it's really that simple.

Legislation legislates within the definitions/confines of the constitution.

The court adjudicates within the definitions/confines of the constitution.

Those are the basic job descriptions.

If you can direct me to the passage/article/paragraph in the constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over marriage and/or abortion, I'll change my opinion. But I have read the document many times and read many well-versed constitutional scholars on these specific subjects, and I'm pretty certain you can't find one.

I didn't ask any of those questions.

I only  asked if the court was biased (wrong) before this, since you insist that it isn't now and it had a different conclusion before..........and you apparently gave me the answer.

It was biased before.

Thanks

Was the court "legislating from the bench" when they overturned a Virginia law that said interracial marriage was illegal?   

Great question JOJ.  I assume you are referring to "Loving Vs Virginia"?  Here's a portion of the majority decision.

"There can be no question but that Virginia’s miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. … There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

Loving, 388 U.S. at 11–12.

So, I think you would agree that it was not judicial activism, or "Legislating from the bench". It was not a ruling on marriage, over which the fed has no jurisdiction, it was a ruling based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.  No state can make laws based on race.