>>>>>yeahhhh - but that has only happened once and I think it was in like 1805. Some of the decisions can lean left or right though -- and the court now leans to the right, whereas it *should* be leaning to the left.
>>>
>>>So you only object to the lean if it's not biased towards you?
>>
>>No -- I object if it doesn't lean the way that majority of the people want it to lean -- the way a democracy such as ours is supposed to work.
>>I should probably explain what I mean here because this is a bit tricky since these guys have lifetime appointments. If the majority of the people have voted to the right for a president -- if an appointment comes up then that president can pick a right-leaning judge. Same if the majority of the people vote to the left. Now that judge may be on the court for decades, and things might shift during that time -- but AT THE TIME they are appointed, it *should* reflect the majority of the people. Over time this shapes the court and their rulings. What's happened in recent times, with Gore and HRC winning the popular vote and not the election, along with Obama being robbed of his pick -- the appointments don't reflect what they should.
>
>Precisely how was Obama "robbed" of his pick.
>
>If you're just speaking out of emotion regarding Garland, OK.....but anything beyond that, what laws were broken in the process of Obama being robbed of his pick?

Bad choice of word on my part. I should of said denied, not robbed. While no laws were broken it was still a shady wrong thing to do...and certainly unethical.