>>>>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.
Maybe because the US is not a democracy and was never meant to be. It is a constitutional representative federal republic. As the saying goes, " a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner". The US Constitution was written to protect the rights of the less populated states or there would have never been a United States.



>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.