It might feel good to say that, but I'm pretty sure the world you are describing looks like the one Chairman Mao created with his Cultural Revolution

No, not feeling good at all. 

And I think you just said Im a happy communist.... but I'm not very smart 

The legitimacy of the courts were undermined long before Trump came into office. Trump is just pointing out the partisan politics has invaded the SCOTUS. You are blaming him for something is incabable of doing since the partisan nature and thus the illegitimacy of the SCOTUS has been known for decades before he became president. I know you have your opinion and you disagree. But you really can’t deny Trump’s words can’t deligitimize something that has been that way long before he came into office.

Now, if you don’t like his words, I can certainly understand that. I don’t like him saying things regarding the SCOTUS either. But we live in a country that has the 1st amendment and I will defend is complaint even if I don’t like it. Do I think he should have said that? No, I don’t. I don’t think it was a wise move. But I will defend his right to say it. I think he is not making any friends by doing that. And I think there should be some respect shown towards the POTUS and towards the SCOTUS. But he is the president we have, like him or not.

As soon as the left were able to get judges into the courts that were willing to rule on a political partisan line, they realized they don’t have to vote on legislation and they can make law through the SCOTUS. I want SCOTUS justices that rule according to the way the constitution is written and rule according to the intent of the way the constitution was intended to be interpreted. Unbiased along political lines. Unfortunately, things are not that way any more. Thus, the illigimate nature of the SCOTUS exists. As long as we still have a majority of justices that interpret the law and the constitution they way it was intended, then the SCOTUS is has an air of legitimacy. But as long as the 3 or 4 Democrat justices left continue to rule on the side of politics over the law, the court is a joke. And has been for a long time. My feeling is if you have 9 unbiased impartial judges then you will mostly have 9-0, 8-1 or even 7-2 rulings 90% or more of the time. But when rulings regularly fall along partisan lines consistently, things are obviously illigimate to some (more or less) extent.

The one thing I want to say something about Trump’s complaints against the SCOTUS. While I think Trump has a right to say what he said, and I don’t think it was a good idea for him to say it. I think it was worse for justice Kennedy to defend all judges by saying none are partisan and all are unbiased was out of line for him to say. It was an obvious lie on his part and everyone is laughing at him and his comment. I honestly feel that what he said was quite ironic as I see his defense and words as being quite partisan in nature. JMHO

I don't think the outlook is as bleak as you seem to. Yes there has always been politics and bias in the courts. Our justice system is an imperfect one set up and administered by imperfect beings but it is the best mankind has been able to come up with, in my opinion.

Judges have their biases of course and they don't always agree but for the most part most of them are trying to do what they think is the right thing. If laws and the constitution were crystal clear we wouldn't need judges but they aren't and we do. That imperfection, bias, and difference of opinion on the constitution inevitably leaves at least one side unhappy with the ruling most of the time. But none of this means our courts are broken or that it is nothing but politics. SCOTUS justices go rather out of their way to avoid politics as a professional image even if they do have personal beliefs on the topic because even if they have bias it is essential that people have faith the judges will try to minimize their biases when the decide cases.

I certainly don't think Trump is the cause of all of this, he is most certainly a symptom. And the 9th circuit court has been called the Mickey Mouse court well before Trump came on scene. But now that he is in power I do think he is snowballing it instead of trying to improve the situation. We like that he is picking judges that think like us but overall he is still undermining confidence and creating division. Stacking the deck the other way doesn't heal the division either, it just puts the scales in our favor for now. In many cases involving Trump including ones well before he was a politician he has gone after the judges time and time again. I don't think his intent is to undermine confidence in the judicial system but in the end that's what he seems to be doing.


As for the divisions on SCOTUS decisions, something to consider is that cases don't usually make it to the SCOTUS unless lower courts have already disagreed. If all the rulings of the lower court all went the same way the court doesn't see much need to hear the case, thus the cases the SCOTUS gets are already inherently something that courts are split on. Now yes we usually see decisions that are split by political ideologies but I think one thing to point out is that these judges are not following politicians so much as they are just ruling on what they believe and that is why they were picked. So RBG doesn't rule liberally because the democrats tell her to, she rules liberally because that is her interpretation of the constitution and that is why democrats picked her. I think that an important distinction as opposed to someone who just follows whatever the democrat party or republican party flavor of the day is.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I am glad that you recognize Trump says a lot of dumb things and that you don't like it. I want to clarify that I don't think his comments should be restricted but I also won't hold back my criticism when he does say something bad. I think we can support him while at the same time speaking against some of his poor choices.

Former Federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova's slightly scathing take down of Roberts' comments:

Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/justice-roberts-attack-against-president-trump-was-blatantly-political-and-wrong

Excerpt:

In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president’s quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.

The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.

Shame on the chief justice. What he did is unforgivable, especially after the corrosive Senate confirmation battle over now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the subject of bitter and baseless partisan attacks and character assassination by Senate Democrats.

With everyone looking for ways to remove the high court from the political thicket, Roberts strode arrogantly right into it. Sad day.

I don't think the outlook is as bleak as you seem to. Yes there has always been politics and bias in the courts. Our justice system is an imperfect one set up and administered by imperfect beings but it is the best mankind has been able to come up with, in my opinion.

Judges have their biases of course and they don't always agree but for the most part most of them are trying to do what they think is the right thing. If laws and the constitution were crystal clear we wouldn't need judges but they aren't and we do. That imperfection, bias, and difference of opinion on the constitution inevitably leaves at least one side unhappy with the ruling most of the time. But none of this means our courts are broken or that it is nothing but politics. SCOTUS justices go rather out of their way to avoid politics as a professional image even if they do have personal beliefs on the topic because even if they have bias it is essential that people have faith the judges will try to minimize their biases when the decide cases.

I certainly don't think Trump is the cause of all of this, he is most certainly a symptom. And the 9th circuit court has been called the Mickey Mouse court well before Trump came on scene. But now that he is in power I do think he is snowballing it instead of trying to improve the situation. We like that he is picking judges that think like us but overall he is still undermining confidence and creating division. Stacking the deck the other way doesn't heal the division either, it just puts the scales in our favor for now. In many cases involving Trump including ones well before he was a politician he has gone after the judges time and time again. I don't think his intent is to undermine confidence in the judicial system but in the end that's what he seems to be doing.


As for the divisions on SCOTUS decisions, something to consider is that cases don't usually make it to the SCOTUS unless lower courts have already disagreed. If all the rulings of the lower court all went the same way the court doesn't see much need to hear the case, thus the cases the SCOTUS gets are already inherently something that courts are split on. Now yes we usually see decisions that are split by political ideologies but I think one thing to point out is that these judges are not following politicians so much as they are just ruling on what they believe and that is why they were picked. So RBG doesn't rule liberally because the democrats tell her to, she rules liberally because that is her interpretation of the constitution and that is why democrats picked her. I think that an important distinction as opposed to someone who just follows whatever the democrat party or republican party flavor of the day is.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I am glad that you recognize Trump says a lot of dumb things and that you don't like it. I want to clarify that I don't think his comments should be restricted but I also won't hold back my criticism when he does say something bad. I think we can support him while at the same time speaking against some of his poor choices.

Not sure what you picked up that I said that made you say that the outlook is not as bleak as I made things out to be? I read and reread what I wrote and I see nothing that I said about any outcome being bleak or otherwise.

You stated that we do see rulings based on political ideologies. You don’t see that as biased? Then you said you think they are not following politicians/politics. To me you are contradicting yourself with those two statements. In my mind a judge should leave their political views at home. But they don’t. And that is why they are biased and therefore not doing the job that they were appointed to do. They should never rule along political ideologies. A lot of what they do is make new law because they refuse to rule according to the constitution and its intent. I am glad you admit that the judges are biased but I don’t understand how you can say in one hand they are biased but then say they are not?

RBG was very much a moderate when she was appointed by Billy Bob Clinton in 1993. She was actually considered a swing vote on a lot of topics. She has always been left leaning in certain political rulings. But she voted quite a few times according to the constitution early in her career. Which is how she is supposed to rule. But around 2006 or ‘07 she changed her political beliefs and moved far to the left. And now can be counted on by the left to rule in their favor more than 90% of the time. How is that not being biased? She has been very vocal about not leaving the court while Trump can appoint a judge that will interpret the constitution the way it is supposed to be. In other words she doesn’t want someone to replace her that is going to do their job properly. How is that not biased? Is this what you are talking about when you say I made the outlook sound bleak? If so then it is true. The outlook looks bleak.

BTW, just so you know, I have been a constant critic here on this forum of things the president says. The difference between you and myself is that some of the things you harp on him about are basically meaningless in the long run. I think you are just being overly sensitive to both the things that really matter and those that don’t. JMHO

Former Federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova's slightly scathing take down of Roberts' comments:

Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/justice-roberts-attack-against-president-trump-was-blatantly-political-and-wrong

Excerpt:

In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president’s quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.

The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.

Shame on the chief justice. What he did is unforgivable, especially after the corrosive Senate confirmation battle over now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the subject of bitter and baseless partisan attacks and character assassination by Senate Democrats.

With everyone looking for ways to remove the high court from the political thicket, Roberts strode arrogantly right into it. Sad day.

I agree with this 100%. Actually, I think I said just this same thing in an earlier post. The statement made by Roberts (I think I accidentally wrote Kennedy in my earlier post) was completely and totally political. Again, our judges need to leave their politics at home. This just reinforced what Trump was saying. Our judges are politically bias when they shouldn’t be. And this is why our SCOTUS is a circus (joke). I was watching an interview of a Democrat law expert during Clinton times (forgot his name) and even he admitted that our courts have become so biased and weoponized that everything that Trump has done as been fought in court just to be obstructionist. And the left can count on the leftist judges to rule in their favor. Sad. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/president-trump-refuses-to-back-down-takes-it-to-chief-justice-roberts-on-thanksgiving/

President Trump Refuses to Back Down – Takes it to Chief Justice Roberts on Thanksgiving

In a rare rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized President Trump over his remarks about the Obama-appointed judge Jon Tiger reversing his asylum policy.

On Tuesday, President Trump lashed out at the liberal activist ‘Obama judge’ in San Francisco who put his asylum policy on hold.

Chief Justice Roberts, who was nominated by George W. Bush and voted in favor to uphold Obamacare, lashed out at Trump on Wednesday saying the U.S. doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

In contrast, the Chief never attacked Barack Obama after he rebuked the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech in 2010. [Grassley Defends Trump: ‘I Don’t Recall Chief Roberts Attacking Obama When He Rebuked Alito During a SOTU’; https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/grassley-defends-trump-i-dont-recall-chief-roberts-attacking-obama-when-he-rebuked-alito-during-a-sotu/. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS Lectures Trump on Criticizing Liberal Judge — Was Silent When Obama Scolded SCOTUS at State of the Union; https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/chief-justice-roberts-lectures-trump-on-criticizing-liberal-judge-was-silent-when-obama-scolded-scotus-at-state-of-the-union/.]

The President lashed out at Chief Justice Roberts on Wednesday and continued to spar with him on Thanksgiving morning in a pair of tweets.

Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result. Judges must not Legislate Security…

….and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else. They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe. Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death. We want the Constitution as written!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2018

God Bless President Trump! He never backs down!

Marc Thiessen: Chief Justice Roberts is wrong. We do have Obama judges and Trump judges.

For someone trying to demonstrate that the judiciary is not political, getting into a political fight with the president sure is a funny way to do it.

After President Trump called a judge who ruled against him an "Obama judge," Chief Justice John Roberts issued an extraordinary public rebuke of the president, declaring in statement "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." Roberts was not only wrong to speak out, but also his claim that there are no Obama judges or Trump judges was wrong.

If we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, then why did Senate Republicans block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the final year of Obama's term? And why did Democrats filibuster Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to fill Scalia's seat?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-chief-justice-roberts-is-wrong-we-do-have-obama-judges-and-trump-judges

IMO, good "common sense" look at the issue. 

I got into engineering because I have always absolutely hate politics.  As I graduated college and started working, I quickly realized (or allowed myself to see) that politics are in everything.  Even religion. 

To say that "SCOTUS justices go rather out of their way to avoid politics as a professional image even if they do have personal beliefs on the topic because even if they have bias it is essential that people have faith the judges will try to minimize their biases when the decide cases" is either blind or just plain burying their head in the sand. 

Marc Thiessen: Chief Justice Roberts is wrong. We do have Obama judges and Trump judges.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-chief-justice-roberts-is-wrong-we-do-have-obama-judges-and-trump-judges

IMO, good "common sense" look at the issue. 

I got into engineering because I have always absolutely hate politics.  As I graduated college and started working, I quickly realized (or allowed myself to see) that politics are in everything.  Even religion. 

To say that "SCOTUS justices go rather out of their way to avoid politics as a professional image even if they do have personal beliefs on the topic because even if they have bias it is essential that people have faith the judges will try to minimize their biases when the decide cases" is either blind or just plain burying their head in the sand.

As a fellow engineer I concur about the politics being everywhere.  When you are spending millions
of the company's money there are definitely politics involved.
As for Judges,  I sincerely believe that although they think they are being "impartial interpreters of the law"
They are worse than any ignorant lying in the gutter druggie/drunk.  Judges never question themselves.
As an engineer you are used to every Tom, Dick, and Harry challenging your work.  You constantly have to defend
and that makes for better, safer, and cheaper "stuff".  Judges rule and are rarely reviewed, and even then it takes years.
Even if they are wrong somebody has spent years in jail ,likely
all their fortune lost,  and the judge doesn't suffer a single bit.
That is the problem with our entire legal system, Cops, Prosecutors, or Judges never
suffer for their biases and consequences of their misdeeds.
Everybody else in society does, why is that?

Not sure what you picked up that I said that made you say that the outlook is not as bleak as I made things out to be? I read and reread what I wrote and I see nothing that I said about any outcome being bleak or otherwise.

You stated that we do see rulings based on political ideologies. You don’t see that as biased? Then you said you think they are not following politicians/politics. To me you are contradicting yourself with those two statements. In my mind a judge should leave their political views at home. But they don’t. And that is why they are biased and therefore not doing the job that they were appointed to do. They should never rule along political ideologies. A lot of what they do is make new law because they refuse to rule according to the constitution and its intent. I am glad you admit that the judges are biased but I don’t understand how you can say in one hand they are biased but then say they are not?

RBG was very much a moderate when she was appointed by Billy Bob Clinton in 1993. She was actually considered a swing vote on a lot of topics. She has always been left leaning in certain political rulings. But she voted quite a few times according to the constitution early in her career. Which is how she is supposed to rule. But around 2006 or ‘07 she changed her political beliefs and moved far to the left. And now can be counted on by the left to rule in their favor more than 90% of the time. How is that not being biased? She has been very vocal about not leaving the court while Trump can appoint a judge that will interpret the constitution the way it is supposed to be. In other words she doesn’t want someone to replace her that is going to do their job properly. How is that not biased? Is this what you are talking about when you say I made the outlook sound bleak? If so then it is true. The outlook looks bleak.

BTW, just so you know, I have been a constant critic here on this forum of things the president says. The difference between you and myself is that some of the things you harp on him about are basically meaningless in the long run. I think you are just being overly sensitive to both the things that really matter and those that don’t. JMHO

You said "The legitimacy of the courts were undermined long before Trump came into office."
Maybe bleak wasn't the best term but what I meant was I don't think things are that bad, I don't think the courts have been undermined.

What I was saying about the bias is to note the source. There is a difference between someone sticking to their own personal views who happens to share them with a certain party than someone who just parrots the views of a political party. Once a justice is selected they are not beholden to the GOP or the Democratic party. They have a lifetime appointment and they get to rule based on what they think the constitution says, not what the sitting president wants or what the speaker of the house wants. Thus I would argue that their bias comes from their own stance on an issue, not from a quickly changing tide.

So while I think there is bias I also think the construction of the court seeks to reduce the effect of the bias. Picking competent and ethical justices also seeks to reduce the effect of bias. Ultimately we haven't figured out a way to eliminate bias. It is practically impossible to find someone who doesn't have an opinion on the constitution however I don't think the existence of the bias we both agree is there necessarily undermines the legitimacy of the court.


I admit that many of the dumb things Trump says are inconsequential in and of itself but the greater problem I have is that it brings into question the competency of the president. So Trump lied about the number of people in attendance at a rally or inauguration (for example). Does it matter to whether he had a larger crowd or not? Nope. But what must we think if we see so often him lying or being tricked  or just not understanding something he should?

Former Federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova's slightly scathing take down of Roberts' comments:

Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/justice-roberts-attack-against-president-trump-was-blatantly-political-and-wrong

Excerpt:

In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president’s quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.

The spectacle of the ostensibly nonpolitical chief justice engaged in a dispute with the president of the United States is insulting to the Supreme Court and to our system of justice.

Shame on the chief justice. What he did is unforgivable, especially after the corrosive Senate confirmation battle over now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was the subject of bitter and baseless partisan attacks and character assassination by Senate Democrats.

With everyone looking for ways to remove the high court from the political thicket, Roberts strode arrogantly right into it. Sad day.

I realize you did not write this article so my critique is not on you but on the author.

To suggest that what Roberts did is an unforgivable shame to the supreme court and the justice system but give Trump a pass on the large amount of unprofessional comments Trump has made is rather hypocritical.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? - Matthew 7:3

I realize you did not write this article so my critique is not on you but on the author.

To suggest that what Roberts did is an unforgivable shame to the supreme court and the justice system but give Trump a pass on the large amount of unprofessional comments Trump has made is rather hypocritical.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? - Matthew 7:3

A hypocrite is someone who says you should do one thing and then DOES the opposite. (Actions, not speech).

Someone criticizing Roberts for partisan statements are fair, no matter what he may say about Trump.  It doesn't make him a hypocrite.

What Roberts said is not made better or worse by anything Trump said or didn't say. To believe he's justified in his political comments because "Trump said something, too" falls under "whataboutery".

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that
attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly
refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with
Soviet and Russian propaganda.  When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the
Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western
world.

A hypocrite is someone who says you should do one thing and then DOES the opposite. (Actions, not speech).

Someone criticizing Roberts for partisan statements are fair, no matter what he may say about Trump.  It doesn't make him a hypocrite.

What Roberts said is not made better or worse by anything Trump said or didn't say. To believe he's justified in his political comments because "Trump said something, too" falls under "whataboutery".

Ok, fair argument, I will give you that one, but my point was that what Roberts did was a rather tiny infraction in the scope of what is going on today.

Ok, fair argument, I will give you that one, but my point was that what Roberts did was a rather tiny infraction in the scope of what is going on today.

That's not a fact.  That's your opinion.

In my opinion, since justices are not elected via party elections, they should keep their political opinions private.

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have a rash of lawsuits seeking to force judges to be recused over political statements they make.

Sounds to me like the judges themselves are hurting the integrity of the Supreme Court.

You said "The legitimacy of the courts were undermined long before Trump came into office."
Maybe bleak wasn't the best term but what I meant was I don't think things are that bad, I don't think the courts have been undermined.

What I was saying about the bias is to note the source. There is a difference between someone sticking to their own personal views who happens to share them with a certain party than someone who just parrots the views of a political party. Once a justice is selected they are not beholden to the GOP or the Democratic party. They have a lifetime appointment and they get to rule based on what they think the constitution says, not what the sitting president wants or what the speaker of the house wants. Thus I would argue that their bias comes from their own stance on an issue, not from a quickly changing tide.

So while I think there is bias I also think the construction of the court seeks to reduce the effect of the bias. Picking competent and ethical justices also seeks to reduce the effect of bias. Ultimately we haven't figured out a way to eliminate bias. It is practically impossible to find someone who doesn't have an opinion on the constitution however I don't think the existence of the bias we both agree is there necessarily undermines the legitimacy of the court.


I admit that many of the dumb things Trump says are inconsequential in and of itself but the greater problem I have is that it brings into question the competency of the president. So Trump lied about the number of people in attendance at a rally or inauguration (for example). Does it matter to whether he had a larger crowd or not? Nope. But what must we think if we see so often him lying or being tricked  or just not understanding something he should?

You said that you don’t think the courts have been undermined. So let’s talk about the 9th circuit court. They are overturned by SCOTUS 87% of the time. If there is no political bias I would expect that number to be much much lower. If there is no political bias I would expect the 9th circuit to NOT side against the constitution as often as they do. The SCOTUS reins them back in being as politically unbiased as possible. But this does not mean that the SCOTUS is not politically unbiased either. If the courts have NOT been undermined why is the 9th circuit rulings overturned so often and so much? I don’t think you can say that there are so many judges in the 9th circuit that are NOT politically motivated that this particular court has not been undermined. Or is it just a coincidence that so many politically biased judges end up on one particular court that just happen to rule against the constitution at an extremely high rate? Either way, if the politically biased judges on the 9th circuit ended up there by design or by chance, this court has been undermined due to the obvious political bias by an overwhelming majority of politically biased judges.

I personally feel your original description of bleak is accurate. JMHO

That's not a fact.  That's your opinion.

In my opinion, since justices are not elected via party elections, they should keep their political opinions private.

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have a rash of lawsuits seeking to force judges to be recused over political statements they make.

Sounds to me like the judges themselves are hurting the integrity of the Supreme Court.

At least Robert's comments were measured and respectful (in my opinion of course)

I don't think he would face any recusal issues unless he had to rule on something that would be specifically about Trump but certainly it could be brought up as an objection.

You said that you don’t think the courts have been undermined. So let’s talk about the 9th circuit court. They are overturned by SCOTUS 87% of the time. If there is no political bias I would expect that number to be much much lower. If there is no political bias I would expect the 9th circuit to NOT side against the constitution as often as they do. The SCOTUS reins them back in being as politically unbiased as possible. But this does not mean that the SCOTUS is not politically unbiased either. If the courts have NOT been undermined why is the 9th circuit rulings overturned so often and so much? I don’t think you can say that there are so many judges in the 9th circuit that are NOT politically motivated that this particular court has not been undermined. Or is it just a coincidence that so many politically biased judges end up on one particular court that just happen to rule against the constitution at an extremely high rate? Either way, if the politically biased judges on the 9th circuit ended up there by design or by chance, this court has been undermined due to the obvious political bias by an overwhelming majority of politically biased judges.

I personally feel your original description of bleak is accurate. JMHO

I was referring to the SCOTUS when I was saying I don't think the courts have been undermined, sorry if I didn't make that clear. The 9th circuit (AKA Mickey Mouse Court) is a different story. I do hesitate though to declare that they rule against the constitution. Not because I agree with them (I don't) but because I recognize that on many issues they simply think it means something different. Now maybe they are consciously just saying to themselves "I don't care what the constitution says" but I think it more likely they are trying to interpret it honestly but just do so through their colored lenses. And that is ultimately where we end up with the difficult question of how to interpret the constitution. You are always going to have people a little to the left or to the right. I think the 9th circuit perhaps strays too far left from a more reasonable center area though.