Definitition of a ‘compromise’
I cam selling a car for 2500, you test drive it, like it, look up the Blue Book value, see it is 2400.
pick up a couple of gliches and offer me 2100 cash, no questions asked, give me title etc.
I take the 2100, give you the title and we are done.
LIBERAL VERSION
LIB has car for sale 2500. You look at it, point out a few ‘flaws’ offer 2200, LIB gets whizzed, points out (not so) new AC, (not so) 4 new tires, and demands 2800.
LIB gets weeweed off when you walk away.
On the contrary, it is not a good thing when we cannot predict ahead of time whether the Supreme Court’s decision will be constitutional, or whether it will be another radical legislation from the bench.
If only we could get a full bench of constitutional judges.
The Court will always have a center, and will always have one or more “swing justices,” unless the Court moves into one or two or more completely monolithic groups that always vote in rigid unison.
The question is whether the appointment of a particular justice moves the Court in one ideological direction or another. The center moves with it.
We will put a moderate on if you resign now. Trust us!
The Constitution is non-partisan and if we had Justices who would follow it then non-partisanship would follow automatically.
As a lawyer I and “we” have noted that the Court has been a one man band for quite some time. Before Kennedy others liked that role as the tilter. That makes it a one person body. The final say on all things constitutional! Yes, the executive branch is headed by one man also, but does he have any final say? Just ask that Darth Vader robed twit in Hawaii, or Herr Mueller.
One person in the middle is very powerful. They can accept bribes from either side. Two in the middle makes it a little harder to know who to make a deal with. Be not decidved they are for sale one way or the other.
WOW! An open admission that she and her liberal ‘friends’ on the court are NOT impartial, neutral or fair.