![C3TZR1g81UNaPs7vzNXHueW5ZM76DSHWEY7onmfLxcK2iQSVYCMLLaegsXguxMxmEAQMQWJRTAxvBjvcDSmzD5eBjPRyEncQdfgLbSk2s6nLpbTNy5jiQcv.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmXKGJuuBEevmBymAHESwa892BsAP9LHVuBgM43fJALmo9/C3TZR1g81UNaPs7vzNXHueW5ZM76DSHWEY7onmfLxcK2iQSVYCMLLaegsXguxMxmEAQMQWJRTAxvBjvcDSmzD5eBjPRyEncQdfgLbSk2s6nLpbTNy5jiQcv.png)

Congratulations @davidpakman! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

<table><tr><td><img src="https://steemitimages.com/60x70/http://steemitboard.com/@davidpakman/voted.png?202002261559"></td><td>You received more than 230000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 240000 upvotes.</td></tr>
</table>

<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@davidpakman) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=davidpakman)_</sub>
<sub>_If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word_ `STOP`</sub>



###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!

Under your analogy we would never have a full Supreme Court as those serving during the time of those who appointed them should all be recused because there would obviously have to be preconceived bias involved.  The differences in references that one is obtained via preconceived bias versus an open display of bias.  Many already figure there will be relative preconceived bias based on the party in office who chooses them, that's been a historical given and has no relevance in regard to the objection you are offering, it's standard fair or power to the course of things.  

Most supreme court justices are chosen in part by their discipline in not verbally engaging in partisan politics.  Part of the reason that they are chosen above the rest of the flock.  Their decision's may lean to the left or the right of things but without an all out verbal assault it's pretty hard to make accusations that that is the sole basis for the judgement.  That's where Sotomeyer went wrong, she should have showed better judgement in how to scrutinized the current administration practices without finger pointing and calling out bias.   Same with Ginsburg, if she did openly criticize someone whom there was the potential whereas if they became elected she would sit in judgement of possible decisions brought forth by the administration she lacked self discipline in doing so.  This is why most these people get chosen, it's their exceptional ability to be self disciplined.  Once they openly display a bias maybe there should be a consideration of recusing themselves.  Many supreme court justices have dissented on opinions involving any number of administrations they have served under and they have written those dissents in manners that do not reflect calling out names or making direct accusations against those whom they serve alongside as being biased.  It's a total loss of control.  A good example of what I am talking about I can relate directly.  I will see something on a website or comment section that just inflames me to the point that if I replied at that exact moment would make me look out of control and possibly foolish, not to mention it would further get the juices of any trolls salivating even further.  If I walk away for a few minutes I can ponder how to respond in a manner that would convey the same exact sentiment only in an intelligent manner.  Sotomeyer lost control, she can no longer be trusted that she has enough self discipline to not be passing judgement based on anger or revenge for what she perceives as preferential treatment.  

Which brings us to what she basis that preferential treatment on and that is that no other prior administration has brought forth this many emergency request.  That may be so but it does not negate the urgency particularly given the judicial activism(s) of lower court judges, whose judgement(s) are not based on prevailing laws and precedence as if they were they would be being upheld by the supreme court over the current administrations appeals. This is why we are seeing more cases advancing, there is no reason to be wasting time when you know the law and/or the boundaries upon which you are making the request falls firmly within the administrations right to do so.  The fact that we have an administration willing to enforce the laws of this country and to implement policies that are keeping people safe is also why we are seeing a greater number of request, this administration unlike prior administrations didn't just make a bunch of false promises then disappear into the Washington sunset they made promises that they are keeping.       

As far as your accusation that Trump is a war criminal by stating "we have the oil" would have to be taken in one direct content and meaning...that is that we are over there loading up the oil and literally taking it out of the country while telling everyone within Syria to screw off.  A real "f" you type of situation.  That's not what's happening.  Yes we are guarding the oil, we are also guarding one of the damns that supply water into that region.  This is to ensure there is no attempt to damage and/or limit water in that region to those who need it.  The oil is being processed and sold by those in the region to take care of those in that region, mainly the Kurds and the rebels who fought against Assad.  So technically we are sitting on the oil as in babysitting, we ain't over there spanking ass and taking it in the literal sense you addressed it in.