Unfortunately, there isn’t much reality on any of the channels these days.
Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed my opinion mattered so much to you. I’m, like, flattered. 
I wish you a faith-based day, Comrade. 
Referendum on the Constitution being dead or living? That doesn’t stop activist Democrat judges either. In their eyes, the Supreme Court is the supreme, last resort. Referendums have as much power, is just as good as the law, and we know what Democrats can do with that, just as they do to the Constitution.
So you’re happy when the court is majority Republican and unhappy when the court is majority Democrat?
how delightfully partisan of you.
its funny how many of the Democrats I know can see quite happily see both sides of the coin, while most Republicans I know only appreciate one and only one side, the side of God, being right, and the other the spawn of the Devil.
even though neither God nor the Devil actually exist.
At the risk of setting of another pointless round of rope-a-dope you actually know Democrats who aren’t happy when the Court is majority liberal and unhappy when it’s majority conservative?
Is this applied to judges? You got to be kidding. Their side sees the struggle as much as the right. It is by living document that we got gay marriage, abortion, and other issues that the left were unable to accomplish via the normal legislative way, with 536 representatives and their 300 million constituents involved. All they need is a majority of 2 Democrat judges of 3 on lower courts or 5 of 9 on the Supreme Court, and voila, the people have been passed. Democrats know the importance of appointing political judges to getting their agenda accomplished when they are losing elections.
Chief Justice Roberts (chosen by W) has denied being an originalist, for whatever it’s worth.
Meanwhile in Canada, until last September the Supreme Court had eight out of nine judges chosen by conservatives, mostly by Harper, with the Chief Justice chosen by Reagan’s pal Mulroney. It’s not an issue that shows up on most people’s radars. Even after Harper’s picks were appointed, they still shot down whatever parts of his agenda they found improper (including the appointment of one more judge who didn’t quite meet the criteria).
Yet somehow, Canadians failed to get whipped up into a partisan frenzy about partisanship and deep statism. Lord knows how they get along so well. 
But do you see both sides of the coin? There are a lot of lifetime liberals distancing themselves from the lefts increasing desire to label anyone who disagrees with them a racist/sexist/homophobic/blah blah blah.
That Milo is quite a character. When asked if he would rather be unknown in a Trumpist paradise or famous in a Hillary hellhole, he chose the latter. 
Not worth much here. This was said during his confirmation hearings, he said he didn’t have a philosophy. This is because conservative judges have to contemplate their answers very wisely because Democrats are always asking tricky questions, since Judge Bork’s nomination had been nixed by this technique.
Indeed, if Roberts had said he was an originalist when Democrats asked, no Democrat would vote for him. He did get 22 or 44 Democrats, half. But if you look at his quote, it is very clever in that it does tend to stress the importance of staying true to the Constitution anyhow, even though the Democrats didn’t detect it.
not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document
And according to 7th circuit judge Diane Sykes, he is conservative enough:
“appears to be strongly rooted in the discipline of traditional legal method, evincing a fidelity to text, structure, history, and the constitutional hierarchy. He exhibits the restraint that flows from the careful application of established decisional rules and the practice of reasoning from the case law. He appears to place great stock in the process-oriented tools and doctrinal rules that guard against the aggregation of judicial power and keep judicial discretion in check: jurisdictional limits, structural federalism, textualism, and the procedural rules that govern the scope of judicial review.”
[quote=yyy]Meanwhile in Canada, until last September the Supreme Court had eight out of nine judges chosen by conservatives, mostly by Harper, with the Chief Justice chosen by Reagan’s pal Mulroney. It’s not an issue that shows up on most people’s radars. Even after Harper’s picks were appointed, they still shot down whatever parts of his agenda they found improper (including the appointment of one more judge who didn’t quite meet the criteria).
Yet somehow, Canadians failed to get whipped up into a partisan frenzy about partisanship and deep statism. Lord knows how they get along so well.
[/quote]
That’s because the court isn’t overruling the people very often. Neither in Great Britain, for example, they have abortion by legislation. And perhaps British and Canadians are leftist enough that they can accomplish left-wing agendas through their legislators. But in the States, the left often doesn’t have a prayer without activist judges, which is why abortion is still very heated debate in the States even though decided by judges more than 40 years ago, because it was never settled legislatively.
In the states, we can kick Democrats to the curb, vote them clear out of government, and they still manage to rule by judges. Of course it’s very controversial here.
At one level this is correct, because what gets overruled is merely the will of the legislature and/or the will of the executive, not the will of “the people” per se. Yet that’s the same situation you have in the US.
As I said, Harper clashed with “his” Supreme Court – and lost – many times. Perhaps not as often as the likes of Obama and Trump, but often enough that people know the Supreme Court is still there and still separate.
And perhaps British and Canadians are leftist enough that they can accomplish left-wing agendas through their legislators.
I won’t even get started. 
No, that would be silly. I do know quite a few who want the court to be balanced and non-partisan, and do its job over their life time, with any imbalances in law later checked by other decisions with a different court, or less than a full bench sitting.
i also know some who prefer the court appointments to be made along [political lines, and who are annoyed that Obama did not get a chance to appoint, given the hostile Senate and the lack of time before his term was up for the necessary horse trading and bartering to take place to make an appointment that pleased both sides.
and I know a few like myself who come from the perspective that all politics suck, a necessary derivative of a lifetime of punk and anarchist sensitivities. Although they probably wouldn’t describe themselves as Democrats, i guess. If pushed, they may have voted for Bernie. Yes, i appreciate we’re only a tiny minority, and resign ourselves to rule by the diktat of the unwashed proletariat who voted for the Donald.
Democrats wrote the book on partisanship when it comes to the Supreme Court:
[quote]Definition of Bork
Borked or borked; Borking or borking;
US politics, slang
: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification <In 1987, conservative judge Robert Bork endured such virulent criticism … that to this day, a nominee sidelined by activists is said to have been “borked.” [/quote]-- Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Alternate definition, and i suspect with broader appeal then your limited application
Borked means Broken.
“My computers dead. Its completely borked, mate.”
Maybe a derivation of yours.
That’s like the fake dictionary version of fake news.
Dear Comrade, how does Merriam-Webster define Santorum (or santorum)? 
(Don’t actually answer this question, please! 
)
I think he’s building pretext for glassing Gaza and the West Bank. Ergo, no more need for a two-state solution. only Israel on one side and a nuclear wasteland on the other.
But then, he probably thinks there’s no difference right now anyway.
Cheesy character assassination posing as fake fact? Everything is fake these days it seems. I guess when you’re in a race to the bottom the truth is a liability.
What do you call it when words like vandalism, gothic (in the old sense), welch and jew (v) enter the dictionary?
I don’t know much about the Canadian situation, but I’m guessing you don’t have abortion or gay marriage solely because judges decreed it, which has happened in the States. These are too important issues not to be decided by the people and their voted representatives. The courts, rooted in the law and tradition and life-long appointments, should act as a conservative anchor, while the legislative branch, often changing hands to keep up with the mind of the people, should be the more progressive voice of society, and reflect the evolution of people, when they evolve.
The problem is the (leftist) court sees itself as leading society’s evolution. That is way off the mark.