PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on June 27, 2018, 11:31:45 AM
-
Justice Kennedy has informed the president that he will retire, effective July 31, 2018.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire from the highest U.S. court, giving President Donald Trump another chance to fundamentally reshape the top of the judiciary.
In a statement, the Supreme Court said the 80-year-old Kennedy will step down effective July 31. The judge called it "the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years in the Supreme Court." Kennedy wants to spend more time with his family, even though they were content with him staying on the court.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-retiring-from-supreme-court.html
I hope Trump nominates someone in the mold of Scalia. If he does, and when this person is confirmed, it was shift the Supreme Court for the next generation. The Democrats are about to go into panic mode. Once Trump nominates someone it will be up to McConnell to usher him/her through the Senate and to the confirmation vote. This will likely be a bitter process, especially on the part of the Democrats.
Thanks to Justice Kennedy for his years of service and I wish him well in retirement with his family.
-
We need Ginsburg to stroke out, or get run over by a bus. Not only is she a super-bias on the court but she runs cover for those who would likely be more centrist.
-
We need Ginsburg to stroke out, or get run over by a bus. Not only is she a super-bias on the court but she runs cover for those who would likely be more centrist.
Ginsburg is 85 and in not so great health. She will not step down while Trump is President, but time is on Trump's side. God will probably fire Ginsburg before she would retire.
-
And so it begins:
https://townhall.com/notebook/tomelliott/2018/06/27/chris-matthews-insane-if-dems-let-republicans-foist-a-judge-onto-the-court-n2495145
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/liberal-meltdown-over-justice-kennedy-retirement/
https://ntknetwork.com/dems-melt-down-over-kennedy-retirement/
-
Cue the demands for civil war. Liberals are seriously deluded into thinking they a 'right' to all appointments and elections.
-
Cue the demands for civil war. Liberals are seriously deluded into thinking they a 'right' to all appointments and elections.
Civil war with the half of the country that believes in arming themselves may not be the best plan.
-
The Left thought they had turned the corner with Obama, and Hillary was a shoe in, so believed the Progressive movement would continue unabated. The Fundamental Transformation Obama promised would be complete. They were so sure of this that when Trump won, and now the ramifications of his election are hitting home. Russian, and Stormy went nowhere. That was their only hope. They are now in full meltdown mode. GOOD!
-
The unfortunate side of the full meltdown are the ones that will resort to violence, and typically the violence will be aimed at soft targets.
Buckle up, we're in for a long ride.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/06/27/flashback-when-the-nyt-pleaded-with-kennedy-to-not-retireha-ha-ha-n2495093
-
Forget about the Dems. If Republicans stick together they can get almost anyone they want. It appears the normal suspects are signaling they are on board.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/chris-matthews-kennedy-time-for-vengeance/
“The base will attack the leadership for this, if they allow it to happen, and they should,” Matthews said of Democrats. “This is a time for vengeance for what happened two years ago, and if they don’t reap the vengeance now with four and a half months to go before the election, they will not look very strong to their base, and I think they’ll be under attack.”
I guess the thrill running up his legs is long gone now.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/kamala-harris-predicts-destruction-constitution/
The female Obama weighs in.
“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris told Matthews on Wednesday night. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appoint people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”
-
Kamela Harris is a one trick pony.
Her trick isn't very impressive to the uninformed masses, so now she has to up her ignorance and claim that Donal Trump is destroying the constitution.
Project much, Kamela???
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/06/28/resistance-on-steroids-left-plans-all-out-assault-on-trumps-scotus-nominee-n2495159
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/kamala-harris-predicts-destruction-constitution/
The female Obama weighs in.
“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris told Matthews on Wednesday night. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appoint people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”
Oh, the IRONY!!
-
So the dems threaten to 'go nuclear' again against the SCOTUS nominee. What is it? Thursday? Didn't they go nuclear about 1000 times already this month?
yawn...
I'm betting there's a ton of photo ops with her and Pelosi, Maxine, and that Indian woman weirdo. She has about as much credibility as me, and that means - less than none.
-
I'll just leave this here.....
-
From David French's article in National Review:
And let’s not forget that this pick is landing in the middle of one of the most toxic political environments in generations. Progressives believe that Justice Gorsuch sits in a “stolen” seat. Many of them see Trump as an illegitimate president — for reasons that range from Russian interference to disgust at his popular-vote loss — and find it unbearable that he could not just win the presidency but also select the man who could swing the Supreme Court. Expect increasing rage. Expect more personal confrontations of senators and Trump officials. Expect the political environment to get even more toxic, perhaps dangerously so.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/anthony-kennedy-retirement-legal-political-implications/
-
Why the parallels to 2016 and 2018 nominees are different. Why they should not be evaluated the same way.
In Feb 2016, Scalia died. He didn't choose the time of his leaving the bench, he just left. Kennedy could have left the bench in 2010, 2014, or even later than he has. His decision was entirely voluntary, and I have to believe he chose this time strategically(particularly due to his picking clerks for the next term). This would indicate to me that he wants a R president to select his replacement, and a R senate to confirm the next judge.
Scalia's death happened only 9 months before an election where there would be a new exec sworn in. No doubt about it, the current guy was term limited. Of course, 1/3 of the senate seats were up for election as well. The right made a gamble, but so did the left. The left didn't put up much of a fuss over the delay as they KNEW that Clinton would carry on and either keep BOs nominee, or select another minority communist for the bench. Who's risk was higher? Oh - the right's risk was far greater than the risk to the left. This was when the left was having a good laugh that Trump was going to be the nominee, and they were so SURE they could fix his wagon, that the delay didn't cost them much political capital.
During the interim, from Feb 2016 through the end of that term the bench which had been slightly skewed to the right by Kennedy(soft conservative), the loss of Scalia(a clear conservative) moved the court to the left significantly. They weren't 'hurt' by the loss of Scalia in terms of rulings from the bench, even some might say they benefited without a conservative jurist in place in the interim.
Now we have another voluntary opening. The time was chosen by Kennedy for a reason. Further, the 2020 elections are still 16 months away, when Kennedy retires. Almost double the amount of time from the loss of Scalia. The 2020 elections do not elect a term-limited exec, but the 1/3 of senate is up for grabs of course. The chances that the make up of the senate will change radically enough to go D are slim and none. Waiting for 2020 on the chance that there will be a reversal of power in the senate is nothing like the chance there would be a reversal of the exec in 2016.
The left has scratched out their 'hypocrisy' angle on very thin ice. This does not even take into account that the senate rules were changed by the party not in power, and the right could not stop them from changing those rules which had held for about 40 years. Reid decided the senate would never again be controlled by the right, and acted with hubris and effrontery. He was warned at the time 'you will rue the day...' but he decided to ignore good order and discipline for short term political capital. And now, the court will move right for the next 30 years.
-
“We’re looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can tell based on all the folks he’s been appointing thus far for lifetime appointments,” Harris told Matthews on Wednesday night. “He’s been appointing ideologues, he’s been appoint people who have refused to agree that Brown v. Board of Education is settled law.”
Oh, the IRONY!!
I’m waiting for Mike Lee or whoever is the nominee to open up their appointment hearing by saying “Yes, I’m an ideologue when it comes to the sanctity if the Constitution. Guilty as charged. That doesn’t make me “right wing.” That makes me a Constitutionalist.”
-
The latest solution:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/
We've been at 9 justices for a long time. If we're gonna pack the court, I'm fine with that. let's get busy and expand it right now. 15 sounds like a good round number. Trump can have a bunch more appointments.
-
I’m waiting for Mike Lee or whoever is the nominee to open up their appointment hearing by saying “Yes, I’m an ideologue when it comes to the sanctity if the Constitution. Guilty as charged. That doesn’t make me “right wing.” That makes me a Constitutionalist.”
Followed by the progressives in the room gasping and fainting.........
-
The latest solution:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/
We've been at 9 justices for a long time. If we're gonna pack the court, I'm fine with that. let's get busy and expand it right now. 15 sounds like a good round number. Trump can have a bunch more appointments.
I cannot think of anything that would galvanize conservatives more this this. Actually, probably vice versus too.
A constitutional amendment is probably a good idea. Let’s set the number at 9 and do away with silly games.
-
FDR already tried it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 (frequently called the "court-packing plan") was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional. The central provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.
In the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner. The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".
-
I was being more or less tongue in cheek with that packing the court thing, it was supposed to be expressed as a sarcastic commentary. But - really, I think the last time the SCOTUS added judges was in the 1800s sometime. We have a lot of cases that don't get cert, which may be worthy of review. I wasn't really thinking about it too much until the nutbag idea from the left.
In reality, it would be great to add 6 more jurists, but we need to do it right now, when it will make some good, rather than waiting for a liberal court. With 15 jurists we could hear more cases, and get a conservative majority for decades. Not a bad plan - provided we do it soon.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv062918dAPR20180628014506.jpg)
-
I just hope Trump doesn't nominate another traitor like Roberts.
-
I just hope Trump doesn't nominate another traitor like Roberts.
I don't believe so when looking at the list.
As far as Roberts, I still have to wonder what BHO's weaponized DoJ and FBI had to do with his last minute switch on the Obamacare ruling.
BHO was desperate to keep his signature legislation alive, and as we are now learning the DoJ/FBI had become weaponized to a point to seek out and destroy anyone who went against BHO or his policies.
-
I was being more or less tongue in cheek with that packing the court thing, it was supposed to be expressed as a sarcastic commentary. But - really, I think the last time the SCOTUS added judges was in the 1800s sometime. We have a lot of cases that don't get cert, which may be worthy of review. I wasn't really thinking about it too much until the nutbag idea from the left.
In reality, it would be great to add 6 more jurists, but we need to do it right now, when it will make some good, rather than waiting for a liberal court. With 15 jurists we could hear more cases, and get a conservative majority for decades. Not a bad plan - provided we do it soon.
Unfortunately, Democrats are not talking about this tongue in cheek. They are seriously considering it, I overheard people discussing it in earnest yesterday in a bar. To them, the Constitution is a tool to be used against us, not a guiding document. They don't care about checks and balances, they want unchecked power unbalanced in their direction. I would be willing to bet that 90% of the Left can't even explain checks and balances because it's a foreign idea to them.
There is nothing wrong with 9 justices. Let's take it away as an option for them to screw with us. While we're at it, put an Amendment together to stop the Cal-3 thing.
-
I don't believe so when looking at the list.
As far as Roberts, I still have to wonder what BHO's weaponized DoJ and FBI had to do with his last minute switch on the Obamacare ruling.
BHO was desperate to keep his signature legislation alive, and as we are now learning the DoJ/FBI had become weaponized to a point to seek out and destroy anyone who went against BHO or his policies.
I’m guessing the FBI showed Roberts pictures of him and Ruth Bader Ginsburg doing the Horizontal Mambo.
-
Unfortunately, Democrats are not talking about this tongue in cheek. They are seriously considering it, I overheard people discussing it in earnest yesterday in a bar. To them, the Constitution is a tool to be used against us, not a guiding document. They don't care about checks and balances, they want unchecked power unbalanced in their direction. I would be willing to bet that 90% of the Left can't even explain checks and balances because it's a foreign idea to them.
There is nothing wrong with 9 justices. Let's take it away as an option for them to screw with us. While we're at it, put an Amendment together to stop the Cal-3 thing.
I can't say I'm a fan, but I'm also not really against packing the court. I just did a wiki, and the last time the court size was increased was 1869. Our nation, and laws have increased dramatically since 1869, and the court has remained stagnant. I can think of several cases recently that deserved cert, but were denied because there were other cases which required hearing.
Notwithstanding the 'packing' problem, I don't see anything wrong with 15 member panels. Would hope they could be more efficient with more members. If one wanted to avoid the issue of political partisanship, it could be done over a period of 6-8 years, allowing for changes in the makeup of the exec and senate offices. For comparison, the 9th circuit has an 'en banc' population usually 11 members but sometimes more. Not that they get any more work done, but I can't see anything inherently wrong with 15 members. Anyone see a problem with more SCOTUS judges?
-
I’m guessing the FBI showed Roberts pictures of him and Ruth Bader Ginsburg doing the Horizontal Mambo.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/90263c5e9bb48998ac59fd13aed0b005/tenor.gif)
Given that we now know the FBI doesn't have a problem with fabricating evidence in order to go after someone they politically disagree with, or even further, surveilling individuals using warrants obtained illegally and also using unmasking, who knows?
-
I don't believe so when looking at the list.
As far as Roberts, I still have to wonder what BHO's weaponized DoJ and FBI had to do with his last minute switch on the Obamacare ruling.
BHO was desperate to keep his signature legislation alive, and as we are now learning the DoJ/FBI had become weaponized to a point to seek out and destroy anyone who went against BHO or his policies.
When did Trump last nominate a "traitor"?
-
I don't believe so when looking at the list.
As far as Roberts, I still have to wonder what BHO's weaponized DoJ and FBI had to do with his last minute switch on the Obamacare ruling.
BHO was desperate to keep his signature legislation alive, and as we are now learning the DoJ/FBI had become weaponized to a point to seek out and destroy anyone who went against BHO or his policies.
Time to open an investigation.
-
When did Trump last nominate a "traitor"?
????
-
????
Sorry. I hit the quote button under Anthony's post instead of the quote button with Anthony's post.
I just hope Trump doesn't nominate another traitor like Roberts.
-
I may have phrased that improperly. Roberts was appointed by Bush, and I hope Trump doesn't appoint someone like Roberts who screwed us on Obamacare. I doubt he will. Trump isn't the Progressive Bush was, or at least he hasn't showed that side of him while in office.
-
I can't say I'm a fan, but I'm also not really against packing the court. I just did a wiki, and the last time the court size was increased was 1869. Our nation, and laws have increased dramatically since 1869, and the court has remained stagnant. I can think of several cases recently that deserved cert, but were denied because there were other cases which required hearing.
The entire court hears every case, so adding more judges does not really increase the amount of work the court can do. There's some work tied up in writing (clerks?) but every justice is pretty engaged in every case. Doubling the court would not mean they can do twice as many cases. Say they do 80 now, raising the court to 17 would mean maybe they can do 100 or 110. Not really an impressive gain.
The major problem I see from packing the court now - and I presume you mean before Donald Trump leaves office - is that it would be seen as a naked power grab, exactly as you would see it if the Democrats do it the next time they are in power. Democrats would go nuts and the next election would have such a high D turnout that it would be amazing if anyone else won anything.
Additionally, if you pack the court to 17 today, then the Dems can pack it to 35 on their next term. It literally becomes an arms race. What do you do next, raise the size to 71?
There is nothing wrong with the current size. The danger is in not having that size fixed in a way that is very, very difficult to change.
-
In the past, present, and future Democrats have packed the court, and would pack the court with the most Far Left KOOKS they could find. Just like Obama did with Sotomayor, and Kagan. As Obama said, Elections have consequences.
Obama got his Gay marriage through the court, and lit up the White House with the rainbow colors. But, that's OK, right?
-
The entire court hears every case, so adding more judges does not really increase the amount of work the court can do.
I was going to respond similarly, except that I think increasing the number of judges would reduce the number of cases seen. More judges debating a case would take longer than fewer judges. For example, two people can decide where to go to lunch in a few minutes. Have you ever tried to get a dozen people to agree on where to go to lunch?
-
In the past, present, and future Democrats have packed the court, and would pack the court with the most Far Left KOOKS they could find. Just like Obama did with Sotomayor, and Kagan.
It's pretty accepted that after his attempt to pack the court, FDR lost a great deal of his political power. Members of Congress, including a majority of his own party, refused to work with him after the attempt. After all, it was their power that he was trying to take away.
Yet another reason to oppose court packing is that it destroys checks and balances. A packed court sides with the president against Congress. That is not at all good for the country.
-
It looks like Trump will announce his nomination on July 9:
'I've got it narrowed to about five,' he told reporters aboard Air Force One, adding a promise to make his final choice public on July 9.
'I'll be anouncing it the Monday after the Fourth of July,' Trump said. 'I like them all.'
'We've got great people ... It is a group of highly talented, very brilliant, mostly conservative judges,' the president said, without tipping his hand by dropping any names.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5902455/Trump-says-probably-wont-ask-Supreme-Court-candidates-overturning-Roe.html
-
Here is Ben Shapiro's analysis of the supposed top 5 candidates on Trump's list. This was published before Trump said he'd announce his nomination on July 9th. Also, Trump has said that there are two females on the short list and this analysis from Shapiro only has one (Barrett).
So, here’s the bottom line: the most outspokenly textualist judges on this list are Barrett and Thapar (though Kavanaugh and Kethledge have spoken in favor of textualism as well). Kavanaugh has some red flags; Hardiman has red flags of his own. We will certainly need to ask probing questions about those on the list, and we’ll need to hear from groups that have spent time vetting all of the candidates. Conservatives simply can’t afford another Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor, or Roberts.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32411/run-down-heres-what-you-need-know-about-trumps-top-ben-shapiro
I've also heard Don Willett's name tossed around as well. I think he'd be an excellent Supreme Court justice.
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2018/07/01/a-supreme-liberal-meltdown-n2496196
Who doesn’t love it when a good plan comes together? More than that, who doesn’t love it when their opponents’ own actions come back to bite them in the butt? Both of those things came to a head this week when Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he was calling it a day, opening up a second seat on the high court for President Donald Trump to fill. The announcement caused liberals to lose what was left of their collective mind.
-
There's something to dislike on each of those five. I think they should keep shopping.
-
There's something to dislike on each of those five. I think they should keep shopping.
The list was put together by Trump, conservative advisers and research by the Heritage Foundation.
While it's impossible to predict what someone will do several years from now in a lifetime appointed position, at least the list has been vetted and the current candidates are receiving more vetting to narrow to a choice for nomination.
The mouth foaming left would love nothing more than for the administration to "keep shopping".
-
The level of histronics and open weeping on TV demonstrates just how the Left look at the Court as their backstop against losing elections, writing poor laws or resistance from the unwashed masses.
It is really awful.
And the fact that they already exercised the Nuclear Option is just delicious irony, that Donald J. Trump will pick jurists and they will be approved on simple majority thanks to Chucky Schumer's maneuvering is just, well, it's the best.
'Gimp
-
The list was put together by Trump, conservative advisers and research by the Heritage Foundation.
While it's impossible to predict what someone will do several years from now in a lifetime appointed position, at least the list has been vetted and the current candidates are receiving more vetting to narrow to a choice for nomination.
The mouth foaming left would love nothing more than for the administration to "keep shopping".
I don't give a wet, dribbly shit what the left wants or doesn't. I want to focus on the best candidate for the job, and these aren't it. Heck, one of them even talked about a govt interest in some kind of ruling. Thus showing that he's just another embedded 'crat with an agenda that thinks the answer to all questions is 'more govt'.
There's a guy who was on one of the longer lists that was somewhat of a twitter humorist in the vein of Trump. He sounded like he was a Man Of The People, who happened to wear a black robe at work. That's my kind of judge. Don't know his name, just read some article with his twitter offerings. Maybe he has flaws as well, more than likely.
-
. . . Maybe he has flaws as well, more than likely.
Ya think?
Surely you aren't saying we keep looking until we find someone with NO flaws are you? Heck, I don't even think Jesus Christ would measure up to that. I concede that we need to be thorough in the search, but what level of perfection do you expect? And what would make a potential Justice perfect? Would he have to be a perfect, far right conservative? I don't want that either.
-
"I wish this president would engage in conversations and nominate a consensus candidate," Biden said of Trump's choice to replace Kennedy. "That’s what we’ve done in the past. That’s what America needs and deserves. He won’t."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/29/joe-biden-calls-democrats-rise-up-amid-supreme-court-vacancy/743155002/
I am - gobsmacked. Consensus candidates? Elana Kagan? Ginsburg? Sotomayer? What consensus is he talking about? Maybe the one between BO, Clinton, and Biden, surely not anyone on the right.
-
I don't give a wet, dribbly shit what the left wants or doesn't. I want to focus on the best candidate for the job, and these aren't it. Heck, one of them even talked about a govt interest in some kind of ruling. Thus showing that he's just another embedded 'crat with an agenda that thinks the answer to all questions is 'more govt'.
There's a guy who was on one of the longer lists that was somewhat of a twitter humorist in the vein of Trump. He sounded like he was a Man Of The People, who happened to wear a black robe at work. That's my kind of judge. Don't know his name, just read some article with his twitter offerings. Maybe he has flaws as well, more than likely.
I’m sure the WH will be in contact with you ASAP and you will be put in charge of the “shopping” for the next Justice. I mean, after all, you have it all figured out. ::)
-
The “consensus” goobly gook talk is to say simply “we want a progressive”.
During the election I made a comment about how Trump, if elected, would reshape the SCOTUS for years to come with up to 4 nominations. Of course the Sultan of Lard jumped in and said no way it was 4 and then went on a tirade of how Trump would only pick far left justices to appease Chuck Schumer.
“Elections have Consequences”. The left was smug chuckling when BHO uttered that phrase, and now are apoplectic that the table has turned.
-
Ya think?
Surely you aren't saying we keep looking until we find someone with NO flaws are you? Heck, I don't even think Jesus Christ would measure up to that. I concede that we need to be thorough in the search, but what level of perfection do you expect? And what would make a potential Justice perfect? Would he have to be a perfect, far right conservative? I don't want that either.
Surely, I did not say that. I pointed out one flaw of one candidate, but I didn't get a warm feeling in my scrote from any of them.
The thing I would like to see in a 'more' perfect candidate would be someone who is not caught up with the whole 'govt is all' philosophy. I would pay good american money to hear a jurist candidate say that there are places the SCOTUS should not go. Also, I'm not a fan of jurists who write long-winded defenses of their vote unless there is some kind of clear mistake made by the parties presenting argument. The activism of the court is a mess. It started in the early 1900s, and has gotten progressively worse. I would almost amend the constitution to require an up or down thumb like in Roman times, and no order of the SCOTUS would be viable. That would stop shit like 'with all deliberate speed'. Treading on the congress is a dangerous way to go.
-
I’m sure the WH will be in contact with you ASAP and you will be put in charge of the “shopping” for the next Justice. I mean, after all, you have it all figured out. ::)
Easy to fling crap from the cheap seats. Staking out a position and defending it is what men do.
-
Easy to fling crap from the cheap seats. Staking out a position and defending it is what men do.
You just fling inane bullshit around.
-
C'mon, I just changed my signature recently. Now I have to add 'inane bullshitter' too? I thought that was the presumption of all web boards? If you are the arbiter of inane bullshit, I guess we are in good hands, or feces - so to speak.
Can't you be more creative, like 'dysfunctional infection'? That was one quality put-down.
-
C'mon, I just changed my signature recently. Now I have to add 'inane bullshitter' too? I thought that was the presumption of all web boards? If you are the arbiter of inane bullshit, I guess we are in good hands, or feces - so to speak.
Can't you be more creative, like 'dysfunctional infection'? That was one quality put-down.
Go find someone else to listen to your diatribes Skippy.
-
Go find someone else to listen to your diatribes Skippy.
If you want me gone, you are going to need to use the ban-hammer. We will just see how tolerant the far-right is. Or,,, will you go progressive and show you are no better than those left-wing loons you disagree with so vehemently?
-
If you want me gone, you are going to need to use the ban-hammer. We will just see how tolerant the far-right is. Or,,, will you go progressive and show you are no better than those left-wing loons you disagree with so vehemently?
So you’re now using projection. Nice.
-
So you’re now using projection. Nice.
We've gotten past the aggressive, and now get to deal with the passive.
Every time my daughter in law starts a sentence with "So -----" I know it's P/A time. My son puts up with it. Me - not so much. Cya
-
And here we see the difference between a Trump mouthpiece ever-hovering at knee height, and a guy who's certainly on the right but with the balls to have his own opinions.
-
"I wish this president would engage in conversations and nominate a consensus candidate," Biden said of Trump's choice to replace Kennedy. "That’s what we’ve done in the past. That’s what America needs and deserves. He won’t."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/29/joe-biden-calls-democrats-rise-up-amid-supreme-court-vacancy/743155002/
I am - gobsmacked. Consensus candidates? Elana Kagan? Ginsburg? Sotomayer? What consensus is he talking about? Maybe the one between BO, Clinton, and Biden, surely not anyone on the right.
The Democrats have tricked the Republicans into doing the consensus appointees in the past, and it has come back to BITE them hard. Meanwhile, the Democrats install FAR LEFT activist judges like the above, and the Republicans go along with them in the "civil tradition" of the Senate. NO MORE. It ends here. We will have a court that at least some members respect the Constitution as written.
-
The Democrats have tricked the Republicans into doing the consensus appointees in the past, and it has come back to BITE them hard. Meanwhile, the Democrats install FAR LEFT activist judges like the above, and the Republicans go along with them in the "civil tradition" of the Senate. NO MORE. It ends here. We will have a court that at least some members respect the Constitution as written.
Dems are certainly pushing that, but I don't see Republicans going for it. All the bluster from Dems has basically been ignored. I think Maxine has helped...thank you Congresswoman Waters!
-
This is my guy!
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/01/abc-news-trump-scotus-don-willett/
ABC doesn't like him - check
He's a Texan - check
Likes Calvin and Hobbs - check
Saved a man in Chick-fil-a - check http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/28/justice-don-willett-reportedly-saved-a-mans-life-at-a-chick-fil-a/
Found against the state of TX regulation - check http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/28/this-could-be-trumps-most-popular-wave-of-judicial-picks-yet/
The fact he's a christian doesn't even bother me much. Seems like the real deal.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk062918dAPR20180629074506.jpg)
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb180629cd20180629122341.jpg)
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle180629c20180628090921.jpg)
-
I'm starting to like Mike Lee now. The mostly outsider of them all. He's also coming out of the Senate, and has never been a judge. All good points in his favor.
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/about-mike
-
I like Mike Lee also, and have for a while.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/02/mike-lee-supreme-court-consideration/
Republican Senate staffers note Lee has taken explicit positions on a range of issues, including Roe v. Wade, that would galvanize liberal opposition and make it practically impossible for moderate, pro-choice Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to support him.
-
Roe v Wade will never, ever be overturned. The SCOTUS would need nine far right judges to do that. It's never going to happen. One or four, or even six or seven conservative judges will still not overturn it. The country has moved on. They could make it a 'states rights' issue just like things are leaning with smoking pot. However, the inverse is at work with the two themes. With rec marijuana, the law took the view that it was legal, then it wasn't(prohibition) and now it is becoming legal again through a convoluted process. Abortion was illegal in all states since forever, and slowly became legal in some states, and then Roe v Wade was the watershed liberalization.
Any changes to abortion law will be incremental like the funding for abortions may be withdrawn, or reduced. Which is all good with me. Besides, the litmus test on abortion is just the kind of stuff the left would rally about. Why give them ammo?
-
The democrats have given up on stopping the new Justice from confirmation, which is why their entire strategy is to focus on Roe vs Wade, a case they already won. When the new court doesn't overturn it, the dim-witted democrats will pretend that it was due to their 'struggle.'
The outright hypocrisy of the left on every single topic since the election has become a national comedy and a democrat party calamity.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/02/mike-lee-supreme-court-consideration/
If it's really down to Kavanaugh and Barrett, I would like to see Barrett get the nomination. First, she's a woman, which would make it hard for the left to vote against since they're constantly saying how sexist the right is. Second, and far more importantly, she is incredibly qualified for the job. We're already seeing people come out against her because of her religion, which is ridiculous. There isn't, and shouldn't be, a religious test to be on the Supreme Court.
-
Roe v Wade will never, ever be overturned. The SCOTUS would need nine far right judges to do that.
I'm not sure you understand how voting for a case at the Supreme Court works. All it takes is a simple majority. A larger majority, or even a unanimous decision, would be even better, but it only takes 5-4.
The country has moved on.
I think it's less that the country has moved on and more that there are a lot of people uneducated about what overturning Roe vs. Wade would actually mean.
They could make it a 'states rights' issue just like things are leaning with smoking pot.
This proves my point.
However, the inverse is at work with the two themes. With rec marijuana, the law took the view that it was legal, then it wasn't(prohibition) and now it is becoming legal again through a convoluted process. Abortion was illegal in all states since forever, and slowly became legal in some states, and then Roe v Wade was the watershed liberalization.
Marijuana is illegal on the federal level and thus, by extension of the Supremacy Clause, illegal at the state level. For reference, see this page (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause) for the wording in the Constitution.
Any changes to abortion law will be incremental like the funding for abortions may be withdrawn, or reduced. Which is all good with me. Besides, the litmus test on abortion is just the kind of stuff the left would rally about. Why give them ammo?
The two most common answers you're likely to hear from the nominee is that 1.) Roe vs. Wade has established precedent and/or 2.) there is not currently a case before the Supreme Court and if there was, the nominee would need to evaluate all relevant evidence and could not answer during the confirmation hearings since it would be prejudicial (which is what the left wants them to reveal, anyway).
As for incremental changes, that much I agree with. David French, among others, thinks that you're likely to see cases involving abortion bans at a certain time period (20 weeks seems to be common), or requiring certain medical tests such as ultrasounds, etc.
-
If it's really down to Kavanaugh and Barrett, I would like to see Barrett get the nomination. First, she's a woman, which would make it hard for the left to vote against since they're constantly saying how sexist the right is. Second, and far more importantly, she is incredibly qualified for the job. We're already seeing people come out against her because of her religion, which is ridiculous. There isn't, and shouldn't be, a religious test to be on the Supreme Court.
Sen Diane Feinstein has already attempted the religious test on Barrett:
And expect it to get ramped up even louder if Barrett is nominated. Several on the left have already started saying Barrett's faith is a "cult".
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/amy-coney-barrett-under-progressives-religiou-ignorance-bigotry-attack/
Based on a September 28, 2017, New York Times article by Laurie Goodstein, the insinuation is that there’s something not quite right with Barrett’s faith. She’s part of a “small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise,” and this group — not her church — is the real problem.
Goodstein goes on to cast the group in near cult-like terms, with talk of a “lifelong oath of loyalty,” special religious language like “head” and “handmaid” to describe the leaders of the group, and ominous implications that members are not completely independent — that group leaders “give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.”
-
Sen Diane Feinstein has already attempted the religious test on Barrett:
And expect it to get ramped up even louder if Barrett is nominated. Several on the left have already started saying Barrett's faith is a "cult".
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/amy-coney-barrett-under-progressives-religiou-ignorance-bigotry-attack/
Yep, I've seen those. I'm not surprised by the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to this. What it really boils down to is the left just not wanting anyone nominated by Trump to get confirmed.
-
Yep, I've seen those. I'm not surprised by the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to this. What it really boils down to is the left just not wanting anyone nominated by Trump to get confirmed.
Yep, just more resist!
And the left continues to alienate even more mainstream Americans.
And here's what the polls are saying today:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/07/03/sorry-schumer-most-americans-want-a-new-supreme-court-justice-before-november-n2496886
-
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is attacking any potential nominee:
Now, fast-forward to 2018. Writing in The New Yorker, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin paints his own puzzling picture of a post-Kennedy Court:
It will overrule Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions and to criminally prosecute any physicians and nurses who perform them. It will allow shopkeepers, restaurateurs, and hotel owners to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds. It will guarantee that fewer African-American and Latino students attend élite universities. It will approve laws designed to hinder voting rights. It will sanction execution by grotesque means. It will invoke the Second Amendment to prohibit states from engaging in gun control, including the regulation of machine guns and bump stocks.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/jeffrey-toobin-supreme-court-smears-new-yorker/
-
Give it enough time and the alt left will start saying that only a progressive, activist can be appointed and that President Trump cannot be involved at all in the nomination, and any objection from a conservative senator will not be allowed, or tolerated.
The crazy train has gone off the rails.
-
A short time ago I heard that Senator Mike Lee has confirmed that he was one of the four people the President interviewed yesterday to be Justice Kennedy's replacement.
-
A short time ago I heard that Senator Mike Lee has confirmed that he was one of the four people the President interviewed yesterday to be Justice Kennedy's replacement.
Lee would be an excellent choice, but unfortunately it doesn't appear he could get confirmed unless several democrats broke party lines and voted for him.
Not saying it couldn't happen, but it doesn't look feasible with the current events.
-
A short time ago I heard that Senator Mike Lee has confirmed that he was one of the four people the President interviewed yesterday to be Justice Kennedy's replacement.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/07/03/scotus-watch-president-trump-has-spoken-to-senator-mike-lee-n2496992
-
Mike Lee would certainly be a pick that would see Democrats in the Senate go apoplectic. His confirmation hearings would be interesting, considering he's said he believes he can vote for himself.
-
I'm not sure you understand how voting for a case at the Supreme Court works. All it takes is a simple majority. A larger majority, or even a unanimous decision, would be even better, but it only takes 5-4.
There aren't 2, or 3, or even 4 conservative judges on the bench right now that would overturn Roe v Wade, much less 5. There will never be(short of some kind of Rapture) any 5 judge panel that will overturn it. First because they wouldn't get through confirmation, and if they got through confirmation, the reality is, deep down in their heart they know that this kind of individual right/liberty/decision is not the place that SCOTUS belongs. Sanctioning the punishment for abortion is as medieval as sanctioning abortion. Except, in this case - we would have minority, and young women being locked up for back-alley abortions. No sir - this will not play in Peoria.
I will bet my life savings on this.
I'm fully aware of supremacy, but thanks for the link. I'm also aware that both BO and now Trump are in the process of ignoring it by both de jure, and de facto methods, and have told all their fed prosecutors not to enforce it except in very extreme circumstances. There hasn't been a fed pot case for several years, except one or two trafficking. Strangely, there have been a spat of state cases which devolve to someone not following the rules and trying to avoid the tax consequence.
-
Mike Lee would certainly be a pick that would see Democrats in the Senate go apoplectic. His confirmation hearings would be interesting, considering he's said he believes he can vote for himself.
Absent a constitutional mandate prohibiting it, I can't say I see why he would be wrong in casting his own vote for confirmation. It is one of those rubicon moments the founders never imagined. Therefore, no settled law, no prohibition. We are a republic. Absence of law, is as telling as the presence of a law.
-
There aren't 2, or 3, or even 4 conservative judges on the bench right now that would overturn Roe v Wade, much less 5. There will never be(short of some kind of Rapture) any 5 judge panel that will overturn it.
How do you know this?
First because they wouldn't get through confirmation, and if they got through confirmation...
Why wouldn't they? See my above post as to the most common responses they are likely to give during the confirmation hearings. I sincerely doubt, with possibly the exception of Senator Mike Lee (I believe he's on record being against Roe vs. Wade) any nominee would give a flat out answer to the question.
...the reality is, deep down in their heart they know that this kind of individual right/liberty/decision is not the place that SCOTUS belongs. Sanctioning the punishment for abortion is as medieval as sanctioning abortion. Except, in this case - we would have minority, and young women being locked up for back-alley abortions. No sir - this will not play in Peoria.
Except emotion isn't how the law is applied. And if it doesn't belong at the SCOTUS level then it should be reversed, based on your own statement. The issue is not whether or not women should be able to have an abortion. The issue is why the states aren't able to decide for themselves. This is a state's rights issue, plain and simple. Find me the section in the Constitution that deals with abortion.
I'm fully aware of supremacy, but thanks for the link. I'm also aware that both BO and now Trump are in the process of ignoring it by both de jure, and de facto methods, and have told all their fed prosecutors not to enforce it except in very extreme circumstances. There hasn't been a fed pot case for several years, except one or two trafficking. Strangely, there have been a spat of state cases which devolve to someone not following the rules and trying to avoid the tax consequence.
I'm not a fan of picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones to not enforce as I think it sets a bad precedent. However, the president has the authority, and by extension the Attorney General, to exercise prosecutorial discretion. As for why the Trump administration isn't currently enforcing it, I don't know. I don't know if it's because they can only fix so many issues created by Obama at a time or if they don't find this to be worth it.
If it's not worth enforcing then perhaps Congress should write legislation that either re-classifies marijuana or repeal the prohibition against it altogether.
-
How do you know this?
Why wouldn't they?
Find me the section in the Constitution that deals with abortion.
How do you know they would? This is one of those actionable references that signify an activist court. We are supposed to be moving away from activism. Roe v Wade was one of the most egregious examples of activism. Overturning it would only reinforce further activism, and show that the court was not the arbiter, but the enforcer as well. It would open the door to putting the federal law into the medical profession, the social fabric of family, and deeply into the struggle of the poor, pregnant teens. Can you imagine the MSM having video of a 17YO black girl in cuffs for getting an abortion? Notwithstanding the pro or con of the debate, this would set back the right politically for generations. SCOTUS judges are surely cognizant of the damage they could do to country and party.
Exactly. We are a republic. Find me a section in the constitution that prohibits it(sic - abortion). We are a nation of laws, and absent a law - cultural and social norms will determine what is and what is not prohibited. An abortion prohibition law would be disastrous. Even a states rights watering down of Roe v Wade is fraught with peril for the right.
-
Gotta love those inside beltway republicans. They could fuck up an anvil.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/03/conservatives-trump-supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh/
The announcement of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee pick is merely days away — yet one name on the list has some influential conservatives cringing behind the scenes.
That name is Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh, a former Kennedy clerk and veteran of DC judicial circles, is roundly considered the front-runner for the position. While the op-ed pages of mainstream publications are filled with establishment consensus pieces promoting the case for Kavanaugh — the base backlash against him has begun. A conservative movement whisper campaign against Kavanaugh began last Friday and has reached a loud roar today — with conservative pundits and thought leaders wary about his judicial record, conservative bonafides and pro-life rock ribs.
The Washington Post has confirmed that Kavanaugh was one of four judges who met with Trump at the White House Monday morning to interview for the position. Amy Coney Barrett, Amul R. Thapar and Raymond Kethledge were the others three on the list.
Kavanaugh drew the ire of multiple influential conservative movement staffers and judicial activist who spoke with The Daily Caller, some on background due to their positions within the White House and decision-making judicial circles. Insiders say that the base criticism of Kavanaugh are beginning to reach Trump. “The White House Counsel’s Office is reeling today on Kavanaugh,” says one GOP judicial insider with direct knowledge of the selection process. “Kavanaugh is crashing and burning today. I cannot figure out how this happened in one day.”
“The conservative grassroots I speak with are terrified that this will be another Harriet Miers,” says Terry Schilling, executive director, American Principles Project referencing the ill-fated George W. Bush selection for SCOTUS, citing Bush family nepotism and lack of enthusiasm with the base as Kavanaugh weaknesses.
I'll be waiting for George Will to write a column telling us Hillary should get to nominate the Justice, not Trump. ::)
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/03/conservatives-trump-supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh/
Is exactly what's wrong with most of the guys/gals on the list. They are someone that Bush would choose. I don't want to go back to Bush. I want to boldly go where no SCOTUS pick has gone before. If the person has the creds, and has never served as a judge before, I'm fine with that. If I wanted a Bush exec, I could have supported any of the other empty suits from the right.
Edit; Posting same time as above ^^^. It's not the beltway insiders who are railing against him, it's the Trump faithful looking at all the Bush baggage this guy has. If they want a fast confirmation, forget it with this guy. He'll be up there talking about Bush era for months.
-
More derangement syndrome in action:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/07/03/the-left-wants-to-torch-possible-scotus-nominee-but-theyre-already-got-clothesl-n2496869
Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a potential nominee to fill the vacancy that is going to be left by outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy. She’s going to be torched. For starters, she’s been picked by Trump, which makes her an enemy of the state to liberals. Second, she’s Catholic. Yes, Senate Democrats had an issue with her faith during her confirmation hearing for the seventh circuit. With liberals gripped with fear over abortion rights, you bet the Catholic attacks are coming back.
The Left is gunning for whomever Trump selects, and right now, the person of interest for left-wingers is Judge Barrett. Yet, in their initial attack, they’ve already been clotheslined by reality. Let’s start with the false claim that Judge Barrett has ties to the “hate group” Alliance Defending Freedom. It stems from that terrible confirmation hearing last fall, where Democrats grilled the scary, conservative, and uber-Catholic Barrett. The charge was Barrett didn’t fully vet ADF for it’s alleged support for sterilizing transgender people, or something. Former Sen. AL Franken (D-MN), who resigned in disgrace after he allegedly groped multiple women, lobbed the accusation. It’s pure crap (via National Review):
-
I'm hoping that Trump is playing a game of Alphonse et Gastogne with the libs, and the media. We will have them chasing phantom candidates whom he has no intention of appointing, and come Friday, we'll all be whiffing at a 78MPH knuckle ball. the truth will be that Lee has gone quiet for a reason, and he'll come out with very little advance hateraid from the left.
It would be hard for a R senator not to confirm one of their own. That - would be pretty treasonous.
Hoping.....
-
I'm hoping that Trump is playing a game of Alphonse et Gastogne with the libs, and the media. We will have them chasing phantom candidates whom he has no intention of appointing, and come Friday, we'll all be whiffing at a 78MPH knuckle ball. the truth will be that Lee has gone quiet for a reason, and he'll come out with very little advance hateraid from the left.
It would be hard for a R senator not to confirm one of their own. That - would be pretty treasonous.
Hoping.....
Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would stick a knife in his back.
-
Dems have worked really hard to make this all about abortion. I think they're making a huge mistake because as long as Republicans stick together, Dems have no power and getting someone rammed down their throat is going to cause them to make a great big thud when they hit the floor. That is not the sound you want to make 4 months before an election.
I'm waiting to see who the nominee is. It doesn't really matter who it is, Dems have also made the mistake of stating that they already oppose whoever is nominated. So it's kind of "I know that nothing I say will please you, so I just don't care about your questions". Dems are going to get a lot of non-answers.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/03/kethledge-rising-scotus/
Judge Raymond Kethledge’s interview with President Donald Trump has placed him in serious contention to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, multiple sources tell The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Sources with knowledge of the process told TheDCNF that Kethledge had a strong interview with the president, and remains under very serious consideration.
Other knowledgeable sources say Judge Amy Barrett’s interview with Trump was satisfactory and that she remains viable for a Supreme Court appointment, either now or in the future. The strength of Kethledge’s meeting, however, seems to have scrambled the field.
Bloomberg also reported that Trump was impressed with Kethledge.
-
How do you know they would?
That's not how this works. You made a statement that 2, 3, or even 4 justices wouldn't vote to overturn this and when I asked how you knew this, you replied by asking me how I knew they would. It's silly to defend your position by attacking mine.
This is one of those actionable references that signify an activist court. We are supposed to be moving away from activism. Roe v Wade was one of the most egregious examples of activism. Overturning it would only reinforce further activism, and show that the court was not the arbiter, but the enforcer as well.
You're seriously trying to argue that Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism but trying to overturn it to roll back judicial activism is itself a form of judicial activism? That's beyond silly and is not a compelling argument.
It would open the door to putting the federal law into the medical profession, the social fabric of family, and deeply into the struggle of the poor, pregnant teens.
First, federal law is already in the medical profession, all over the place. Second, the "social fabric of family"? Really? Korematsu didn't do that? Dredd Scott? Plessy vs. Ferguson? The list goes on. And the answer to the struggle of "poor, pregnant teens" is not universal abortions. Your arguments are based on emotion and do not hold any legal weight. The Supreme Court decides if cases are Constitutional and Roe vs. Wade is not. There are plenty of crisis pregnancy centers out there to help young, pregnant women. And besides, abortion won't instantly become illegal if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
Can you imagine the MSM having video of a 17YO black girl in cuffs for getting an abortion? Notwithstanding the pro or con of the debate, this would set back the right politically for generations.
Oh this is what the right has to worry about from the media? Attacks about abortion? That's already happening. It wouldn't set the right back for generations, either.
SCOTUS judges are surely cognizant of the damage they could do to country and party.
Justices shouldn't be concerned with any political party; that's not their job. As for the damage to the country, this is hardly a case that would damage the country. It would restore a bit of Constitutional order to the country.
Exactly. We are a republic. Find me a section in the constitution that prohibits it(sic - abortion).
There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, which is the entire point. Enter the 10th Amendment. Since we are a republic the 10th Amendment is why Roe vs. Wade is un-Constitutional.
10th Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment)
We are a nation of laws, and absent a law - cultural and social norms will determine what is and what is not prohibited. An abortion prohibition law would be disastrous. Even a states rights watering down of Roe v Wade is fraught with peril for the right.
Are there abortion prohibition laws either on the books or somewhere in a state legislature? I'd love to see a link to one.
Your responses to overturning Roe vs. Wade are the same the left are using. You think that if Roe vs. Wade was overturned it would immediately and instantly make abortions illegal, which is just not correct.
-
It would be hard for a R senator not to confirm one of their own. That - would be pretty treasonous.
That's absurd.
-
There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, which is the entire point. Enter the 10th Amendment. Since we are a republic the 10th Amendment is why Roe vs. Wade is un-Constitutional.
The court ruled that the 4th and 14th amendment were operative - therefore the 10th never entered into play. Specifically whether the laws against abortion violated women’s “right to be secure in their persons.” (“You got a person in there?” “Define person. Besides, you got a warrant?”)
Few seem to have read the arguments or decision (I read snippets of it years ago) - at best, most people have only read simplified, sometimes misleading, summaries. There was a lot more nuance and Roe v Wade did not strike down all laws against abortions - the court wrestled with what defines human, because obviously at some point there are two involved and one allegedly needs state protection. But when? Christians say at conception, but scientifically and pragmatically that is an assertion without foundation. Who would execute someone for murder of a single cell? Two cells? Four cells? Eight cells?
The court went with viability based on third trimester, then later fetal viability.
The abortion debate is one of when human life begins (for legal or moral purposes) - between religious and non-religious definitions. If you follow church teaching, nothing to debate - killing even a single cell or small cluster of cells is murder that must be punished.
-
The Supreme Court decides if cases are Constitutional and Roe vs. Wade is not.
Come again?
-
I would be very surprised if Bill Nelson voted against confirmation, because he is up for reelection and is behind our governor in all the polls. Pissing off the dixie-crats in Florida could sink that low-life, bastard.
-
I would be very surprised if Bill Nelson voted against confirmation, because he is up for reelection and is behind our governor in all the polls. Pissing off the dixie-crats in Florida could sink that low-life, bastard.
He's not to bright, and a party hack. He would rather please his small base rather than vote for a confirmation.
-
He's not to bright, and a party hack. He would rather please his small base rather than vote for a confirmation.
Disagree. He would rather get elected than anything. Period.
-
Disagree. He would rather get elected than anything. Period.
We’ll soon see.
-
We’ll soon see.
Not really. He is slimy, but still a gullible liberal. He will probably vote against confirmation because he will think that will help him get elected. In fact, it will. If he votes against the party bosses, his re-election financing will dry up.
-
Not really. He is slimy, but still a gullible liberal. He will probably vote against confirmation because he will think that will help him get elected. In fact, it will. If he votes against the party bosses, his re-election financing will dry up.
Didn’t I just say that?
As far as his re-election chances, he’s way behind Scott right now and even Nelson has concerns over his re-election chances.
-
You're seriously trying to argue that Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism but trying to overturn it to roll back judicial activism is itself a form of judicial activism? That's beyond silly and is not a compelling argument.
Maintaining a flawed decision of a previous court may or may not be activism. Regardless, Justices are never required to stick with what a previous court has ruled. If we get 5 justices who agree that life begins between the 3rd and 6th months, then the baby becomes a full citizen somewhere between 3 and 6 months and is entitled to the full protection of the law, which includes the protection to not be murdered. If we get 5 justices who agree that life begins at conception, then Roe v Wade goes away.
Regardless, Democrats have tried to make this a single issue debate. They are very likely to lose out on it since no potential Justice could ever promise them not to overturn Roe v Wade. Any future case should be determined on the merits of the case and not a political promise to a senator. As Abraham Lincoln said about Senate confirmations, "We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it."
-
Didn’t I just say that?
Sort of. But you said he would vote to please his small base. I agreed with you on HOW he would vote, but I said he would vote to please his party hierarchy so that he would continue to get party financing. Financing is the name of the game.
-
The court ruled that the 4th and 14th amendment were operative - therefore the 10th never entered into play. Specifically whether the laws against abortion violated women’s “right to be secure in their persons.” (“You got a person in there?” “Define person. Besides, you got a warrant?”)
Few seem to have read the arguments or decision (I read snippets of it years ago) - at best, most people have only read simplified, sometimes misleading, summaries. There was a lot more nuance and Roe v Wade did not strike down all laws against abortions - the court wrestled with what defines human, because obviously at some point there are two involved and one allegedly needs state protection. But when? Christians say at conception, but scientifically and pragmatically that is an assertion without foundation. Who would execute someone for murder of a single cell? Two cells? Four cells? Eight cells?
The court went with viability based on third trimester, then later fetal viability.
The abortion debate is one of when human life begins (for legal or moral purposes) - between religious and non-religious definitions. If you follow church teaching, nothing to debate - killing even a single cell or small cluster of cells is murder that must be punished.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was only pointing out that the 10th Amendment should be the reason why Roe vs. Wade is un-Constitutional.
-
Come again?
I'll clarify: I don't think Roe vs. Wade is Constitutional.
-
Maintaining a flawed decision of a previous court may or may not be activism. Regardless, Justices are never required to stick with what a previous court has ruled. If we get 5 justices who agree that life begins between the 3rd and 6th months, then the baby becomes a full citizen somewhere between 3 and 6 months and is entitled to the full protection of the law, which includes the protection to not be murdered. If we get 5 justices who agree that life begins at conception, then Roe v Wade goes away.
Regardless, Democrats have tried to make this a single issue debate. They are very likely to lose out on it since no potential Justice could ever promise them not to overturn Roe v Wade. Any future case should be determined on the merits of the case and not a political promise to a senator. As Abraham Lincoln said about Senate confirmations, "We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it."
Agreed. The Democrats are trying to make this a single issue debate at the risk of everything else. There's been several First Amendment cases this year at the Supreme Court. I would expect to see some more Second Amendment cases potentially next year if the new justice is seated in time. I would also expect to see the rhetoric increase once Trump announces his nominee, especially if it's someone like Barrett.
-
I'll clarify: I don't think Roe vs. Wade is Constitutional.
There are many, many laws, and rulings the courts, including the Supreme Court have made that are unconstitutional. Most gun laws that the Feds, states, and some cities have passed are blatantly illegal. The court has also abused the Commerce Clause to allow a multitude of government over reach.
The Libs are all scared of the court repealing Roe v Wade like it some kind of sacred thing. I guarantee the court won't touch it, but the Left is using it as an excuse to stir up emotion and shoot down ANY nominee Trump proposes.
-
There are many, many laws, and rulings the courts, including the Supreme Court have made that are unconstitutional. Most gun laws that the Feds, states, and some cities have passed are blatantly illegal. The court has also abused the Commerce Clause to allow a multitude of government over reach.
The Libs are all scared of the court repealing Roe v Wade like it some kind of sacred thing. I guarantee the court won't touch it, but the Left is using it as an excuse to stir up emotion and shoot down ANY nominee Trump proposes.
They may be somewhat concerned, but I don't think they are really afraid that RvW will be repealed. They are just using that as an excuse to oppose any potential Trump nominee.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk070518dAPR20180705064505.jpg)
-
That's not how this works. You made a statement that 2, 3, or even 4 justices wouldn't vote to overturn this and when I asked how you knew this, you replied by asking me how I knew they would. It's silly to defend your position by attacking mine.
You're seriously trying to argue that Roe vs. Wade was judicial activism but trying to overturn it to roll back judicial activism is itself a form of judicial activism? That's beyond silly and is not a compelling argument.
First, federal law is already in the medical profession, all over the place. Second, the "social fabric of family"? Really? Korematsu didn't do that? Dredd Scott? Plessy vs. Ferguson? The list goes on. And the answer to the struggle of "poor, pregnant teens" is not universal abortions. Your arguments are based on emotion and do not hold any legal weight. The Supreme Court decides if cases are Constitutional and Roe vs. Wade is not.
There are plenty of crisis pregnancy centers out there to help young, pregnant women. And besides, abortion won't instantly become illegal if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
Oh this is what the right has to worry about from the media? Attacks about abortion? That's already happening. It wouldn't set the right back for generations, either.
Justices shouldn't be concerned with any political party; that's not their job. As for the damage to the country, this is hardly a case that would damage the country. It would restore a bit of Constitutional order to the country.
There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, which is the entire point. Enter the 10th Amendment. Since we are a republic the 10th Amendment is why Roe vs. Wade is un-Constitutional.
10th Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment)
Are there abortion prohibition laws either on the books or somewhere in a state legislature? I'd love to see a link to one.
Your responses to overturning Roe vs. Wade are the same the left are using. You think that if Roe vs. Wade was overturned it would immediately and instantly make abortions illegal, which is just not correct.
It's hard to respond to all these item by item, but I'll give it a try. Asking 'how do you know....? is simply another way of asking 'why?'. The answer to 'why' is 'why not'? I'm not attacking your position any more than you were attacking mine. If we get two strong right-wing jurists, which appears likely we'll have a very nice conservative to strong conservative majority. And I repeat they will not TOUCH Roe v Wade. Not with a 10 foot pole. I do not know this, any more than you know they would overturn. It's what we call an informed opinion.
Yes, I'm saying that Roe v Wade was the worst kind of judicial activism(just as the many others you and I have pointed out). It would require an activist judicial action to overturn an activist original ruling. For example, Plessy v Ferguson was bad judicial activism. And guess what, it took 50 years, but it was overturned. Relating to Roe v Wade, I now understand where you're coming from. You think it is a bad activist judicial ruling, and therefore - any ruling which overturned it would be a good thing, activist or otherwise. We don't share that opinion. I think Row v Wade was and is a good activist case, therefore I"m against any conservative majority(no matter how far right) overturning it and sending back to medieval times like the 12th century goobers in the ME.
I agree that justices SHOULD NOT be concerned about the politics of their rulings. That is what a perfect world situation would be. But - I thought we were all adults here, and we could actually come to terms with the reality that everything the SCOTUS does is dripping with political importance. Everything.
As abortion has ALWAYS been an individual right, the 10th A has nothing to do with Roe v Wade. There was a time when it was a states rights issue. That's why people from conservative states like FL or VA back in the 60s had to go north all the way to NY/Jersey to get an abortion. the 10th never entered into the decision, right or wrong, the jurists that wrote Roe v Wade made no mention of states rights. It was supremacy writ large.
I don' t thing you will find anywhere I said if Roe v Wade were overturned, it would instantly make abortions illegal. However, given the history of prohibition, that is EXACTLY what happened. Booze legal on Tue, illegal on Wed. Bam. As for it being a argument of the left, believe it or not, all things from the left are not automatically wrong. Or - are they? That's not how I roll.
-
I'm placing my bet on Raymond Kethledge.
-
I think Row v Wade was and is a good activist case, therefore I"m against any conservative majority(no matter how far right) overturning it and sending back to medieval times like the 12th century goobers in the ME.
I think the 60 million+ babies that have been murdered since Roe v Wade would disagree. Except that cannot because...they've were killed before they were born. I think you have to put the death count inflicted by Mao Zedung, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin together in order to beat that.
But, setting the horrendous moral question aside...if we can...ask this from a legal standpoint. What law did Roe v Wade and later cases rule on and what was the Constitutional question? How did we arrive at the restriction of laws limiting abortion when the United States has no law at all one way or another? If they are state laws, then why does the 10th Amendment not come into play. By what authority can the Supreme Court rule on restrictions on a State Law for which there is no federal authority to begin with? The claim was for a right to privacy, that it was OK to murder a baby as long as you kept quiet about it. That was the major decision of Roe v Wade.
From the dissenting opinion:
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court
That is what I would say is bad judicial activism. The federal government has no business being involved in these things because they are State matters. The Court co-opted the authority of the State governments in contravention of the 10th Amendment and they continued to do so through at least a dozen more cases over the following years.
-
I think the 60 million+ babies that have been murdered since Roe v Wade would disagree. Except that cannot because...they've were killed before they were born. I think you have to put the death count inflicted by Mao Zedung, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin together in order to beat that.
But, setting the horrendous moral question aside...if we can...ask this from a legal standpoint. What law did Roe v Wade and later cases rule on and what was the Constitutional question? How did we arrive at the restriction of laws limiting abortion when the United States has no law at all one way or another? If they are state laws, then why does the 10th Amendment not come into play. By what authority can the Supreme Court rule on restrictions on a State Law for which there is no federal authority to begin with? The claim was for a right to privacy, that it was OK to murder a baby as long as you kept quiet about it. That was the major decision of Roe v Wade.
From the dissenting opinion:
That is what I would say is bad judicial activism. The federal government has no business being involved in these things because they are State matters. The Court co-opted the authority of the State governments in contravention of the 10th Amendment and they continued to do so through at least a dozen more cases over the following years.
Well, if you want to have the zygote argument, I'm not your guy. Go ahead and toss all the vitriol you want if it makes you feel good. Meh - no skin off my nose.
Roe v Wade eventually came down to that zygote question on when is life - life. Terms like 'viability' and 'sustained growth outside the womb' were batted around, and discussed ad-nauseum. Suffice to say, the jurists tried to split the baby just as Solomon was tasked with, it can't be done either way.
I understand your point about the states rights, and I'm not saying it couldn't be a 10th A issue, but the fact is - the jurists didn't use that argument because they wanted to enforce supremacy, and linearize the legal minefield that existed before that ruling. In fact, I think that there could be ample reasons for almost all rulings(like pot) to come down to states rights. I believe states like TX would outlaw abortions in almost all cases almost instantly if Roe was overturned on a 10th A basis. Whereas states like CA and CT would allow all abortions all the time. Think that the jurists have multiple weapons at work, and want to use the right one in the right instance. In the case of abortion, they were trying to set a bar for everyone.
To be honest with you, I am not a nationalist or federalist, and definitely not a activist. Questions like abortion maybe should be left to the states, where we have a patchwork which recognizes the different cultures, mores, and ideals of different state citizens. However, it was framed as an individual(women's) rights issue, and that's why SCOTUS didn't use the 10th A for their argument.
Now, it's interesting to see an advocate of a prohibition(sic - abortion, pot, alcohol, gun ownership, etc) call up the states rights argument. As has been noted, in several states, pot is now legal, but the feds are turning a blind eye. In other states, the gun ownership prohibition(that IS in the BOR) forces are hard at work at the state level. It takes years for them to get overturned, e books which are patbut in the mean time we have laws on the books that are patently unlawful.
What's sad, is the almost unhinged vitriol of anti-abortion proponents. No name is too vicious, no moral argument is too disgusting, no simile is beyond the pale when telling someone who respects the law(even when it may be wrong), that has come out of the SCOTUS and been on the books for +40 years. That kind of stuff is very -- leftist.
Edited for clarity.
-
Roe Versus Wade was every bit as flawed as the USSC obamacare rulings tipped to obama by the idiot, Roberts.
They both need properly tried and decided, but that is impossible because liberals are too stupid to look at fact adn people as pro life as I am think the pro abortion liberals are too fucking stupid to come in out of a hurricane.
The truth is that planned parenthood has carefully cast Roe versus Wade as the ultimate liberal 'right.' No amount of discussion can shake the liberal brainwashing on the topic.
Sadly it was and still is all and only about money. Planned Parenthood couldn;t care less about women, or women's rights They carer only about free tax money... period.
-
Cruz of TX endorses Sen Lee.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-called-ted-cruz-talk-trumps-supreme-court-options-185107165.html
Cruz, who is facing a tough reelection battle in Texas, said he had spoken to the president several times on the issue of the Supreme Court — most recently in a 30-minute conversation over the weekend. The junior senator from Texas has thrown his endorsement to Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a fellow conservative and close friend who was confirmed last week to be on Trump’s shortlist and has been interviewed for the job.
-
Cruz of TX endorses Sen Lee.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-pence-called-ted-cruz-talk-trumps-supreme-court-options-185107165.html
Cruz, who is facing a tough reelection battle in Texas, said he had spoken to the president several times on the issue of the Supreme Court — most recently in a 30-minute conversation over the weekend. The junior senator from Texas has thrown his endorsement to Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a fellow conservative and close friend who was confirmed last week to be on Trump’s shortlist and has been interviewed for the job.
Mike Lee would be a reasonably good choice. Would hate to see him out of the Senate, but a no-brainer to have someone like that in the SCOTUS.
-
To be honest with you, I am not a nationalist or federalist, and definitely not a activist. Questions like abortion maybe should be left to the states, where we have a patchwork which recognizes the different cultures, mores, and ideals of different state citizens. However, it was framed as an individual(women's) rights issue, and that's why SCOTUS didn't use the 10th A for their argument.
They didn't use 10A because that would have required them to yield to the state law.
Question - do you know what they DID use to decide the issue? What great Constitutional question they answered on this case?
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/05/schumer-mcconnell-garland-scotus/
-
It's hard to respond to all these item by item, but I'll give it a try. Asking 'how do you know....? is simply another way of asking 'why?'. The answer to 'why' is 'why not'? I'm not attacking your position any more than you were attacking mine. If we get two strong right-wing jurists, which appears likely we'll have a very nice conservative to strong conservative majority. And I repeat they will not TOUCH Roe v Wade. Not with a 10 foot pole. I do not know this, any more than you know they would overturn. It's what we call an informed opinion.
Yes, I'm saying that Roe v Wade was the worst kind of judicial activism(just as the many others you and I have pointed out). It would require an activist judicial action to overturn an activist original ruling. For example, Plessy v Ferguson was bad judicial activism. And guess what, it took 50 years, but it was overturned. Relating to Roe v Wade, I now understand where you're coming from. You think it is a bad activist judicial ruling, and therefore - any ruling which overturned it would be a good thing, activist or otherwise. We don't share that opinion. I think Row v Wade was and is a good activist case, therefore I"m against any conservative majority(no matter how far right) overturning it and sending back to medieval times like the 12th century goobers in the ME.
I agree that justices SHOULD NOT be concerned about the politics of their rulings. That is what a perfect world situation would be. But - I thought we were all adults here, and we could actually come to terms with the reality that everything the SCOTUS does is dripping with political importance. Everything.
As abortion has ALWAYS been an individual right, the 10th A has nothing to do with Roe v Wade. There was a time when it was a states rights issue. That's why people from conservative states like FL or VA back in the 60s had to go north all the way to NY/Jersey to get an abortion. the 10th never entered into the decision, right or wrong, the jurists that wrote Roe v Wade made no mention of states rights. It was supremacy writ large.
I don' t thing you will find anywhere I said if Roe v Wade were overturned, it would instantly make abortions illegal. However, given the history of prohibition, that is EXACTLY what happened. Booze legal on Tue, illegal on Wed. Bam. As for it being a argument of the left, believe it or not, all things from the left are not automatically wrong. Or - are they? That's not how I roll.
That is precisely why the 10th Amendment applies. bflynn has done a good job summarizing the rest.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/05/schumer-mcconnell-garland-scotus/
This is great. I needed a good laugh. Even if Trump nominated Garland, which he won't, why would McConnell push him through confirmation? He refused to do it the first time when it was a Democratic nominee, there's no way he'd even consider it for a Republican nominee.
-
That is precisely why the 10th Amendment applies. bflynn has done a good job summarizing the rest.
Well, then you're both wrong. The entire idea of individual rights is where the constitution belongs. Speech, religion, bear arms, confront accuser, remain silent. etc. None of these can change from state to state. They must be protected for all people, in all states. Like I said before, I wouldn't mind going back to a states rights theme on most everything, including abortion. But - I still think it's not the correct ruling for the reasons I've already mentioned.
-
Well, then you're both wrong. The entire idea of individual rights is where the constitution belongs. Speech, religion, bear arms, confront accuser, remain silent. etc. None of these can change from state to state. They must be protected for all people, in all states. Like I said before, I wouldn't mind going back to a states rights theme on most everything, including abortion. But - I still think it's not the correct ruling for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Have you read the 10th Amendment? Here it is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Notice it has both "states" and "people" in there. The entire point of the Constitution was to be a government limiting document, not a rights granting document. The federal government was limited to a select few powers and the rest were left to the states and/or people.
Also, in terms of whether or not rights are applicable across the states, they are now because of the Incorporation Doctrine. But if you read the First Amendment, for example, it says "Congress shall make no law...". There's a long history and a lot of debate about the Incorporation Doctrine and it's widely held now that it applies to States as well as the federal government.
-
Have you read the 10th Amendment? Here it is:
Notice it has both "states" and "people" in there. The entire point of the Constitution was to be a government limiting document, not a rights granting document. The federal government was limited to a select few powers and the rest were left to the states and/or people.
Also, in terms of whether or not rights are applicable across the states, they are now because of the Incorporation Doctrine. But if you read the First Amendment, for example, it says "Congress shall make no law...". There's a long history and a lot of debate about the Incorporation Doctrine and it's widely held now that it applies to States as well as the federal government.
If that's going to be your argument, as you've said before; 'show me where abortion is in the constitution?', well since it isn't, and the rights are back to the people, it would be up to each individual to decide on abortion. And - we are back to where we are now. Because, of course, in the US state constitutions are also in the govt limiting job. So, any prohibition there would have to go back to the zygote question.
If you want it to be a 10th A issue, I've already said too that basically everything can be a 10th A issue if you want it to be. But again - reiterating what I have already written and will not bother to write anymore, supremacy was what they were going for. Not deferring to the various states which had a patchwork of laws on the books.
-
If that's going to be your argument, as you've said before; 'show me where abortion is in the constitution?', well since it isn't, and the rights are back to the people, it would be up to each individual to decide on abortion. And - we are back to where we are now. Because, of course, in the US state constitutions are also in the govt limiting job. So, any prohibition there would have to go back to the zygote question.
Actually, show me where it is in federal law either. It isn't.
That does not mean power flows back to the people, it means it goes back to the state and is an issue for each state to decide what matches the temperament of their citizens. California - hey, full out dismemberment of babies until the second before the last piece of the body clears the mother. Other states, no abortion at all. That is what 10A means to this. It is the way it SHOULD be, despite us having screwed it up so badly.
You state the "zygote" question as if it's settled, but of course it is not. What Californians believe about it is not at all what Georgians believe about it. And now we are darting uncomfortably close to 1A and the Establishment of belief about the unborn baby question. The compelling State interest could be in protecting the life of babies before they're born, even where the mother wants to kill them.
-
Oh but the zygote question is settled. It has been defined by the law, and unless one acts like a 'never-Trump' with a bad case of TDS, 'so let it be written, so shall it be done'.
As for the 10th A question, I guess I'll just give up. I already said everything can be framed as such, so fine - go with that. I don't care enough to school folks anymore on supremacy and individual rights based authority. Anyone with 'compelling states interest' in their argument has just lost any relevance before advancing a thesis. You can't have it both ways.
-
Actually, show me where it is in federal law either. It isn't.
That does not mean power flows back to the people, it means it goes back to the state and is an issue for each state to decide what matches the temperament of their citizens. California - hey, full out dismemberment of babies until the second before the last piece of the body clears the mother. Other states, no abortion at all. That is what 10A means to this. It is the way it SHOULD be, despite us having screwed it up so badly.
You state the "zygote" question as if it's settled, but of course it is not. What Californians believe about it is not at all what Georgians believe about it. And now we are darting uncomfortably close to 1A and the Establishment of belief about the unborn baby question. The compelling State interest could be in protecting the life of babies before they're born, even where the mother wants to kill them.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. Are you saying any rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are given to the State Governments to abridge or not abridge as they see fit? That doesn't seem right, but maybe I'm not keeping up.
-
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't follow this line of reasoning. Are you saying any rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are given to the State Governments to abridge or not abridge as they see fit? That doesn't seem right, but maybe I'm not keeping up.
Negative. As mentioned, the constitution does not enumerate rights. It limits the powers of the govt to specific things. Those powers not discussed or enumerated by the feds, are left to the states to sort out(libraries, schools, driver license, parks, property records, etc). Those things not covered by the state constitution powers are then the realm of the people.
Here is an example of how states deal with the abortion debate:
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy
OK has had an interesting take on things.
-
Negative. As mentioned, the constitution does not enumerate rights. It limits the powers of the govt to specific things. Those powers not discussed or enumerated by the feds, are left to the states to sort out(libraries, schools, driver license, parks, property records, etc). Those things not covered by the state constitution powers are then the realm of the people.
Here is an example of how states deal with the abortion debate:
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy
OK has had an interesting take on things.
Ok, I think that's what I'm getting at but bear with me on this. What I'm trying to say is that just because a right isn't enumerated in the US Constitution, does not mean that the States suddenly have free reign to abridge that right. Isn't that correct? I recall that one of the big debates was whether to have a Bill of Rights at all, for fear of making it SEEM that those were the only rights that the people had.
So I don't understand all the conversation above this post about this being a cut-and-dry 10A issue because abortion isn't in the constitution. It's not that simple, right? The power to abridge an unenumerated right doesn't automatically flow "back to the states" just because it isn't enumerated in the Constitution.
-
So I don't understand all the conversation above this post about this being a cut-and-dry 10A issue because abortion isn't in the constitution. It's not that simple, right? The power to abridge an unenumerated right doesn't automatically flow "back to the states" just because it isn't enumerated in the Constitution.
I'm afraid that, yes it does. An un-enumerated right(lets use abortion, just to be sure it is not enumerate), is a right of the people. States are then able to abridge that right, through legislation. In the dark, and dangerous past, many states did just that. It was a patchwork of laws, rules, regulations, statutes, that all dealt with whom, when, age, fatherhood, circumstance, dependence, harm, medical factors, etc. Which I will describe again as a 'patchwork'. RvW came down, and expressed supremacy over all those various prohibitions. SCOTUS chose a specific case, with specific details, and made specific rules on abortion. One could say they took it AWAY from the 10th A argument, and made it a national 'right'.
-
Have you read the 10th Amendment? Here it is:
Notice it has both "states" and "people" in there. The entire point of the Constitution was to be a government limiting document, not a rights granting document. The federal government was limited to a select few powers and the rest were left to the states and/or people.
9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Notice no mention of state power. The founders’ way of saying “there are individual rights we just didn’t have room or time to list - you’ll hopefully recognize them when they come up for debate.” They can and sometimes should be adjudicated at the federal level.
There is no mention in the constitution of a right to fly in the air above the ground. So maybe that should have been a state-level thing and would all have had different flight rules over all 50 states.
-
I'm afraid that, yes it does. An un-enumerated right(lets use abortion, just to be sure it is not enumerate), is a right of the people. States are then able to abridge that right, through legislation. In the dark, and dangerous past, many states did just that. It was a patchwork of laws, rules, regulations, statutes, that all dealt with whom, when, age, fatherhood, circumstance, dependence, harm, medical factors, etc. Which I will describe again as a 'patchwork'. RvW came down, and expressed supremacy over all those various prohibitions. SCOTUS chose a specific case, with specific details, and made specific rules on abortion. One could say they took it AWAY from the 10th A argument, and made it a national 'right'.
Let's imagine the Founders hit the sauce a bit too hard before drawing up the Bill of Rights. All is the same, except they forgot to "enumerate" the right to life. But, they made it clear, via the Ninth, that just because they didn't list a right in 1A through 8A, does not mean it doesn't exist. As I think we've established, the Constitution doesn't give rights. Does the fact that the 10A exists mean that, suddenly, the states have full authority to murder their citizens by the tens of thousands, simply because the Constitution failed to specifically enumerate one of the ultimate natural rights, giving 10A and States Rights precedence? I sure don't see how.
The Constitution does not enumerate protection of material published on the internet. So does the 10A allow States to wholly censor internet articles that it does not like?
So again, I don't follow the 10A argument being pushed here. The fact that a right is not enumerated in the US Constitution does not mean the power to fully abridge said right flows to the State. And I specify "fully" abridging because all rights can be reasonably abridged, whether at the state of Federal level.
-
One could say they took it AWAY from the 10th A argument, and made it a national 'right'.
Yes, and in fact many DO say that the Supreme Court usurped the States' rights to legislate that issue on their own. There is no Constitutional authority for abortion to be a national "right", assuming there even is a right to kill another person just because they haven't made it through the birth canal yet.
Federal courts really have no jurisdiction.
-
I'm going to agree that the SCOTUS did usurp the powers of the states(states do not have 'rights', people have rights, states have powers, delegated). Such is the nature of the law of supremacy. Before RvW, it was a state regulation. Now, many states are trying to worm around it in various ways. Getting back more to the theme of this thread, it's quite possible that the new SCOTUS will put some dents in RvW, but they will never overturn it.
As for the rest of that, you're all headed back to the zygote question, which has already been established, and will not be debated.
-
As for the rest of that, you're all headed back to the zygote question, which has already been established, and will not be debated.
Ah, so you agree that the US Government has adopted a belief about the beginning of life? Doesn't that Establish? Why, I believe you used that very word.
It is not settled and I don't think you can say that it will not be debated. You hope it is not debated because that is the weakest link in the Left's argument FOR abortion - that babies cannot be alive until after X. If they lose that, then everything else falls apart because you an unborn baby becomes a living citizen. But the truth is, if there are enough justices on the court who think that abortion is a state sin against a living baby, then it could be debated and abortion could be overturned.
-
I'm going to agree that the SCOTUS did usurp the powers of the states(states do not have 'rights', people have rights, states have powers, delegated). Such is the nature of the law of supremacy. Before RvW, it was a state regulation. Now, many states are trying to worm around it in various ways. Getting back more to the theme of this thread, it's quite possible that the new SCOTUS will put some dents in RvW, but they will never overturn it.
As for the rest of that, you're all headed back to the zygote question, which has already been established, and will not be debated.
The utter arrogance of your statement is perfectly in line with the liberal position on the fake mmgw scam.
They ran all over proclaiming that the 'science was settled,' just like you are pretending that the question of life was settled by a couple of cowards on the court.
-
Sigh,,,
For the purposes of the legal argument, the zygote question is settled law. End of statement on the zygote. It's finished, until it isn't. When SCOTUS oveturns RvW then you can all rush on here and go; 'neener-neener we TOLD you!' Until then(ha, if ever) just deal.
Call me when the SCOTUS rules on MMGW or Climate Change, or whatever it's called. I'm waiting by the phone.
-
I used to think issues like abortion were too thorny to ever solve. But then I realized that the problem always solves itself if you stop trying to apply the scorched earth method to it. That always results in a Pyrrhic victory, thus essentially solving nothing for the road ahead.
Being able to hold two conflicting ideas in consideration at once is the key. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. And that is a valid stance. It gives the mother the freedom to decide what to do with the life growing inside her. She will have a clean, well-lighted place to get her abortion if she chooses.
Simultaneously, I think life should be valued, even at early stages. Devaluing life in general and dehumanizing developing fetuses in particular do not a stable culture make. I would advocate plenty of education about how to prevent pregnancy, the emotional and physical costs to a woman of having sex outside marriage, and the emotional and physical costs of having an abortion. The real life consequences of sexual activity are real.
The trouble is that there is no convenient label or group or party for those of us who are pro-choice and anti-abortion. So it is as if we don’t exist. And the battle to solve the problem rages on in its clumsy and unsolvable way.
-
Bottom line. The fear mongering of the alt left using a potential overturn of Roe v. Wade is just that, fear mongering.
They (progressives) are losing more control daily and simply can’t face the reality. As their great leader once said “Elections have consequences”.
Yes, yes they do.
-
[...] the question of life was settled by a couple of cowards on the court.
It was 10 out of 12 - not just a couple of people deciding:
The Texas abortion law in Roe v Wade was first struck down unanimously by a three judge panel from the U.S. Northern District Court of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Later, seven of nine supreme court justices also concurred in striking down the Texas abortion law.
Justice Blackmun spent a week at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota researching the history of abortion so he could learn how people had historically determined when life begins. He included a brief of his findings (a short history lesson on abortion from ancient times to the present) in the text of the Roe v Wade decision, whose full text can be found here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html)
-
You can send a thousand Ph.D.'s to proclaim that their definition of life is the only acceptable one, but it doesn't change the outcome. a handful of justices overruled the logic of thousands of years to pander to a bunch of profiteers at planned parenthood.
When the outcome is apolitical decision, the subject is never settled, except in the narrow minds of those who have something to gain off of the decision. If the scum at planned parenthood wouldn't pretend so hard and admit that the only that matters to them is free money, then the opportunity exists to have a legitimate debate, but those fucking scum bags are so deeply hypocritical that they can;t admit the simple truth that everybody already knows - it's all about the money and nothing else.
-
Justice Blackmun spent a week at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota researching the history of abortion so he could learn how people had historically determined when life begins. He included a brief of his findings (a short history lesson on abortion from ancient times to the present) in the text of the Roe v Wade decision, whose full text can be found here:
It really doesn't matter what he found. This is a State issue. Federal courts don't have legitimate jurisdiction.
Additionally, the fact that he researched people's beliefs and then adopted one belief as the law of the law Establishes religion. Also unacceptable.
-
I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. And that is a valid stance. It gives the mother the freedom to decide what to do with the life growing inside her.
Isn't "the life" entitled to a choice too?
-
For the purposes of the legal argument, the zygote question is settled law.
Except that settled law is not ever settled law, especially something so controversial and something so...not even law. This isn't written down anywhere except in a judge's decision.
If Ginsberg cannot hold on for the next 2 years and Trump appoints another conservative, it would become very unsettled law. If Trump gets re-elected, then it's practically certain that he will appoint at least one more additional justice and it would be very, very unsettled law.
-
I used to think issues like abortion were too thorny to ever solve. But then I realized that the problem always solves itself if you stop trying to apply the scorched earth method to it. That always results in a Pyrrhic victory, thus essentially solving nothing for the road ahead.
Being able to hold two conflicting ideas in consideration at once is the key. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. And that is a valid stance. It gives the mother the freedom to decide what to do with the life growing inside her. She will have a clean, well-lighted place to get her abortion if she chooses.
Simultaneously, I think life should be valued, even at early stages. Devaluing life in general and dehumanizing developing fetuses in particular do not a stable culture make. I would advocate plenty of education about how to prevent pregnancy, the emotional and physical costs to a woman of having sex outside marriage, and the emotional and physical costs of having an abortion. The real life consequences of sexual activity are real.
The trouble is that there is no convenient label or group or party for those of us who are pro-choice and anti-abortion. So it is as if we don’t exist. And the battle to solve the problem rages on in its clumsy and unsolvable way.
It takes two to tango, shouldn't the father get a say?
-
Isn't "the life" entitled to a choice too?
It is quite literally incapable of making one. Its mother chooses for it.
-
It takes two to tango, shouldn't the father get a say?
Sure. But women bear almost a totality of the burden of a child, and all decisions about it, unless there is a loving, supportive father on scene. Sadly, many women face these decisions alone.
-
It really doesn't matter what he found. This is a State issue. Federal courts don't have legitimate jurisdiction.
The word “person” appears multiple times in the constitution and therefore a definition of “person” is essential to have at the Federal level.
Additionally, the fact that he researched people's beliefs and then adopted one belief as the law of the law Establishes religion. Also unacceptable.
It seems you haven’t read the decision - if you had you wouldn’t be relying on my paraphrased summaries.
He researched past abortion law and defintions of when a person’s life starts for legal purposes. If they had adopted a religious belief you should be able to name the specific religion it came from.
They did first scan the constitution for any hint of a definition of “person”. Pregnancy is only ever touched on when the word “born” appears. So a literalist reading of the constitution would define persons as existing only after birth. Prior to that event the fetus is just another part of the woman, and the right to privacy (found buried in the ninth amendment, thankfully IMHO) would preclude laws dictating what she could do with it. I doubt that would sit well with you?
-
It really doesn't matter what he found. This is a State issue. Federal courts don't have legitimate jurisdiction.
Why? I still don't understand your Tenth argument. Your quibble seems not to be with the Tenth, but the Ninth, Fourteenth, and the Court's basis thereof with respect to Roe v. Wade.
-
He researched past abortion law and defintions of when a person’s life starts for legal purposes. If they had adopted a religious belief you should be able to name the specific religion it came from.
We're pretty far off topic at this point but it should be noted that science has evolved quite a bit since 1973. Even today there are tests to determine at what point during a pregnancy a baby can feel pain. There's also the heartbeat issue. The point is that science in 1973 is nowhere near where it is today.
-
Why? I still don't understand your Tenth argument. Your quibble seems not to be with the Tenth, but the Ninth, Fourteenth, and the Court's basis thereof with respect to Roe v. Wade.
And also the 10th. The federal government has no authority to regulate abortion - as others have said and you have consistently ignored, there is nothing in the Constitution which permits it, not even by a stretch. There is no federal law authorizing abortion everywhere. That automatically means that it is a State issue and because it's a State issue, the federal government has no jurisdiction in it.
Additionally the federal government was NOT involved with abortion until the courts decided to get into it. They are stuck their their nose into a place where they have no law upon which to base a decision. Everything about the federal rulings of abortion were created in absence of any guidance on what the law should be. The judges literally made things up out of nothing.
The ninth is almost a non-amendment, it just says that the rights of the people are not iterated in the Constitution. And I do not believe the 14th applies here at all unless a State government were not treating it's citizens equally under the law - say by paying for abortions for one group and not paying for them for another group. There's that one clause that talks about depriving a person of life, but the government not killing citizens is pretty much a given in a civilized society.
-
New name in the hopper, sounds like my kind of guy;
Thomas Hardiman
Hardiman, 53, is on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist for the second time. He was runner-up to Neil Gorsuch, who Trump nominated to the Supreme Court last year. According to the New York Times, Trump has recently expressed renewed interest in Hardiman, who was added late to the president’s list of finalists. Some in Trump’s inner circle were reportedly intrigued by Hardiman’s life story.
The Waltham, Mass., native, worked his way through high school and college by driving a taxi. If nominated and confirmed, Hardiman would be the only Supreme Court justice not to have attended an Ivy League school. He received a B.A. from the University of Notre Dame, becoming the first member of his family to graduate from college. Hardiman studied law at Georgetown University Law Center, where he edited the Georgetown Law Journal, receiving a Juris Doctor with honors. His relatively humble origins and different alma maters might be preferable for a president who regularly denounces political elites.
Throughout the 1990s, Hardiman was a litigator and trial lawyers at various law firms in Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh. In 2003, then-President George W. Bush nominated Hardiman to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He would only hold that position for three years before Bush nominated Hardiman to the Third Circuit, where he served with Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry. She reportedly spoke favorably of Hardiman to her brother.
-
Kavanagh thinks we care about mom and dad, siblings, kids, teachers, students, blah, blah, blah. It's all about him, him, him. How it's done in "DC". Why not take this opportunity to talk about the law? What about the rest of the nation?
Douche diipshit.
-
Kavanagh thinks we care about mom and dad, siblings, kids, teachers, students, blah, blah, blah. It's all about him, him, him. How it's done in "DC". Why not take this opportunity to talk about the law? What about the rest of the nation?
Douche diipshit.
Who peed in your corn flakes?
Thoughtful acceptance speech and gives Americans their first insight into this nominee. The law questions will come through the senate hearing.
-
Trump
-
Trump
Your TDS coming out?
Run into the streets and show your outrage.
-
Your TDS coming out?
Run into the streets and show your outrage.
If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. Besides, you already knew who screwed up, so this is just you fellating the guy, no matter what he does.
Kavanaugh is the swampiest of swamp dwellers. He's plugged into all things DC govt. He will NEVER have an open opinion about fixes that do not involve more rules, regulations, laws, rulings, etc. An activist's activist. Fuck him, and the golden carriage he rode in on.
-
If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. Besides, you already knew who screwed up, so this is just you fellating the guy, no matter what he does.
Kavanaugh is the swampiest of swamp dwellers. He's plugged into all things DC govt. He will NEVER have an open opinion about fixes that do not involve more rules, regulations, laws, rulings, etc. An activist's activist. Fuck him, and the golden carriage he rode in on.
Yawn...............
-
If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. Besides, you already knew who screwed up, so this is just you fellating the guy, no matter what he does.
Kavanaugh is the swampiest of swamp dwellers. He's plugged into all things DC govt. He will NEVER have an open opinion about fixes that do not involve more rules, regulations, laws, rulings, etc. An activist's activist. Fuck him, and the golden carriage he rode in on.
How the fuck do you know that already? Is your anti Kavanaugh sign already printed? The fact is no one knows a whole lot about these guys, but we will.
Here’s an analysis by someone of where he
Stands ideologically:
https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-conservative-ideological-political-views-9d009f84-0e0a-4ebf-ac82-084489a108f2.html
He also thinks assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1016490627742171137
Let’s wait and see. I usually trust the Federalist Society. I give huge props to Trump for doing the same.
-
Never seen a Trump position for which Lucifer wouldn't get on all fours. And I mean that literally. I can't remember a single trump position that he/she disagreed with.
-
How the fuck do you know that already?
Let’s wait and see. I usually trust the Federalist Society. I give huge props to Trump for doing the same.
I don't want to hash it all out. Disappointed that the guy we sent to drain the swamp hires a GWB 'crat, with Kenneth Starr baggage, and has never left the beltway except for school.
There were a ton of better options. Kavanagh was a safe choice, because there's no fight left from the left-leaning senators. I think in the coming decades, we are going to see his sculpting of opinions that chip delicately away at personal freedom and individual rights. He is no fan of anyone who is an anti-activist.
I'm sure that all the 'crats in the WH pushed this guy, and Trump is getting rick-rolled. He started out gangbusters, but he's turning into GWB more every day. This decision is the most obvious. It's a pick that tells me now, I might have been wrong when I said Trump won't run in 2020. He is becoming a - gulp,,, politician. It may be the downfall of his legacy.
-
According to one report (http://myconnection.cox.com/article/nationalnews/1cd955e4-83df-11e8-bef8-e3d3070e2cc0/ (http://myconnection.cox.com/article/nationalnews/1cd955e4-83df-11e8-bef8-e3d3070e2cc0/)) , Kavanaugh "considers Roe v. Wade binding under "stare decisis" which is Latin for "to stand by things decided." Kavanaugh has said he would support the decision that allows a woman to legally have an abortion in every state in the country."
-
Schumer is against him, so he must be ok.
-
Schumer is against him, so he must be ok.
Schumer is an embarrassment.
-
The Democrats, and their low information Progressive minions would be against Jesus if Trump nominated him.
-
Never seen a Trump position for which Lucifer wouldn't get on all fours. And I mean that literally. I can't remember a single trump position that he/she disagreed with.
Sniff..sniff......Oh, now you've gone and hurt my feelings...... ::)
-
I have a sense that Kavanaugh was the safe, electable, and insider choice. Trump knows he's going to have a fight with this one even among his own side who don't much care for him. He needs every vote standing up tall. True conservatives, and those who strongly oppose abortion(you know who you are) should be screaming about this guy. Everyone said it wasn't a litmus test, but guess what? The first thing we find out about him is his past support and endorsement of RvW.
Cruz isn't happy, but he can't go off the reservation now. All the middle road senators, and the lefty's like McCain are going to be solidly on Trump's side. He is no ones ideal pick, but a compilation of mainstream, insider, 'crat, beltway group-think.
-
Everyone said it wasn't a litmus test, but guess what? The first thing we find out about him is his past support and endorsement of RvW.
His vote in that one instance was more about illegal aliens than it was about abortions in general. But if you leave that part out, it sounds good enough to trigger liberals.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle180710c20180710030234.jpg)
-
Kavanaugh wasn't the top candidate on my list, but I think Trump could have done a lot worse. Those two cases that have been mentioned repeatedly are what give me cause for concern, but I think he's a better choice than Hardiman would've been. Kavanaugh is absolutely qualified and the Democrats won't be able to stop him. Jon Kyl will usher him through the confirmation process and now it's up to McConnell to make that process happen. We'll soon have Justice Kavanaugh.
-
I have a sense that Kavanaugh was the safe, electable, and insider choice. Trump knows he's going to have a fight with this one even among his own side who don't much care for him. He needs every vote standing up tall. True conservatives, and those who strongly oppose abortion(you know who you are) should be screaming about this guy. Everyone said it wasn't a litmus test, but guess what? The first thing we find out about him is his past support and endorsement of RvW.
Cruz isn't happy, but he can't go off the reservation now. All the middle road senators, and the lefty's like McCain are going to be solidly on Trump's side. He is no ones ideal pick, but a compilation of mainstream, insider, 'crat, beltway group-think.
Why would Republicans, and conservatives, be screaming against this guy? Was he the most ideal candidate, in my opinion? No. Were there a lot worse? Absolutely. Remember that he was also a member of the Federalist Society, one of the most conservative groups in the country.
I expect we'll see some good rulings out of him. Until I see otherwise, I'm more concerned about John Roberts than I am about Kavanaugh.
-
Supports RvW
Voted for upholding and reinforcing ObamaCare mandate
Changed ObamaCare 'penalty' to 'taxes', thus becoming a horrible activist
Bush baggage
Starr baggage
DC insider
Conservatives could do much better. I don't care which clubs the guy belongs to. To people like me, who actually value true freedom and liberty, the fact of his insider status and club dues is definitely a negative. But - I can see how it impresses those who are shaped by the cult of personality.
And, why can't we have the 'best(ideal) candidate'? I thought that was what Trump promised us? It's a rhetorical question, I know why we didn't get the best. Because Trump was AFRAID he couldn't get confirmed. Only the best, eh. Some of his choices have failed miserably. We'll see how this guy does, but Trump left a lot on the table with this pick.
-
Supports RvW
Voted for upholding and reinforcing ObamaCare mandate
Changed ObamaCare 'penalty' to 'taxes', thus becoming a horrible activist
Bush baggage
Starr baggage
DC insider
Conservatives could do much better. I don't care which clubs the guy belongs to. To people like me, who actually value true freedom and liberty, the fact of his insider status and club dues is definitely a negative. But - I can see how it impresses those who are shaped by the cult of personality.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gif)
-
Supports RvW
Voted for upholding and reinforcing ObamaCare mandate
Changed ObamaCare 'penalty' to 'taxes', thus becoming a horrible activist
Bush baggage
Starr baggage
DC insider
Conservatives could do much better. I don't care which clubs the guy belongs to. To people like me, who actually value true freedom and liberty, the fact of his insider status and club dues is definitely a negative. But - I can see how it impresses those who are shaped by the cult of personality.
And, why can't we have the 'best(ideal) candidate'? I thought that was what Trump promised us? It's a rhetorical question, I know why we didn't get the best. Because Trump was AFRAID he couldn't get confirmed. Only the best, eh. Some of his choices have failed miserably. We'll see how this guy does, but Trump left a lot on the table with this pick.
Where exactly do you get your information - Think Progress? You are way off.
Stare decisis is not “supporting” RvW.
Bush baggage, Star baggage, SC insider, all meaningless bullshit.
But where you really swing and miss is about Obamacare and the mandate. Where do you get this stuff?
From the Federalist:
“Unfortunately, being the clear best choice has downsides, including inviting unfair attacks. One came Monday in a lengthy article by Christopher Jacobs claiming that Kavanaugh “wrote a roadmap for saving Obamacare.” That is nonsense, and conservatives should not be misled into thinking otherwise.”
Clip
“Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional.”
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/
-
Never seen a Trump position for which Lucifer wouldn't get on all fours. And I mean that literally. I can't remember a single trump position that he/she disagreed with.
I was OK with any of the choices presented for this round. Kavanaugh wasn't my first, but again, he's fully qualified for the position. And he's not a progressive whack job like Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
And I am thankful this is not Felonious Von Pantsuits making this nomination.
Remember the words of your hero BHO "Elections have consequences".
-
The allegation from conservative critics is rooted in a 2011 ObamaCare case where Kavanaugh dissented against the ruling but acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate provision” could fit “comfortably within Congress’ Taxing Clause power.”
Kavanaugh's detractors say that language helped provide the roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandate a year later.
Former law clerk to Judge Kavanaugh discusses the potential pick for the Supreme Court.
“Even as he avoided a definitive ruling on the merits of the case, Kavanaugh revealed himself as favorably disposed to the mandate,” conservative health care expert Christopher Jacobs wrote for The Federalist. “Worst of all, in so doing, he cultivated a theory that ultimately led Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the mandate.”
Best to quote the whole thing. He was the projenator of the 'penalty is really a tax' theory that Roberts used for his uploading of ACA. Which goes back to the activist problem. As for the rest of the stuff being BS, it is to me as well, but since we have to cover this same ground 573 times, it will matter to the senators who might be sitting on the fence.
Kavanaugh 2006: "If confirmed to the DC Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court. It has been decided by the Supreme Court."
uhhhhhhhhh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, I've said my piece, more than a dozen times. In closing - he's not a bad candidate, but he certainly isn't the best. And saying it once again before leaving - we were promised the best from Trump, and he's let us down on this for expedience, and political partisanship. There were and are better candidates. I'm hoping Trump will be given at least one more chance to appoint a jurist. Maybe he'll do better next time.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-donald-trump-brett-kavanaugh/2018/07/10/id/870903/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=newsmax.com&utm_term=68738&utm_content=2263356
-
Sniff..sniff......Oh, now you've gone and hurt my feelings...... ::)
Nah. You're tougher than that. But I think it's a fair point.
-
Kavanaugh meets my criteria. Constitutionalist and a long public history during which he did NOT drift leftward.
Unfortunately, he’s so inside the Beltway he was actually BORN inside the beltway. But has not drunk the liberal Kool Aid as far as I can see.
-
Nah. You're tougher than that. But I think it's a fair point.
Fair point? After 8 years of progressives like yourself whose heads smelled like Obama's ass?
Yea right.
-
The allegation from conservative critics is rooted in a 2011 ObamaCare case where Kavanaugh dissented against the ruling but acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate provision” could fit “comfortably within Congress’ Taxing Clause power.”
Kavanaugh's detractors say that language helped provide the roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandate a year later.
Former law clerk to Judge Kavanaugh discusses the potential pick for the Supreme Court.
“Even as he avoided a definitive ruling on the merits of the case, Kavanaugh revealed himself as favorably disposed to the mandate,” conservative health care expert Christopher Jacobs wrote for The Federalist. “Worst of all, in so doing, he cultivated a theory that ultimately led Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the mandate.”
Best to quote the whole thing. He was the projenator of the 'penalty is really a tax' theory that Roberts used for his uploading of ACA. Which goes back to the activist problem. As for the rest of the stuff being BS, it is to me as well, but since we have to cover this same ground 573 times, it will matter to the senators who might be sitting on the fence.
Kavanaugh 2006: "If confirmed to the DC Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court. It has been decided by the Supreme Court."
uhhhhhhhhh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, I've said my piece, more than a dozen times. In closing - he's not a bad candidate, but he certainly isn't the best. And saying it once again before leaving - we were promised the best from Trump, and he's let us down on this for expedience, and political partisanship. There were and are better candidates. I'm hoping Trump will be given at least one more chance to appoint a jurist. Maybe he'll do better next time.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-donald-trump-brett-kavanaugh/2018/07/10/id/870903/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=newsmax.com&utm_term=68738&utm_content=2263356
The article I quoted and linked was written a day later than Jacobs’ article, and refuted Jacobs’ premise very well. The author was clerking for Kennedy during that case so he had greater insight into how Kavanaugh impacted the dissenters’ opinions.
-
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Ppm1SsUXGI2gU/giphy.gif)
-
Oh this just gets better, and better.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396251-amash-slams-kavanaugh-over-views-on-government-surveillance
Kavanaugh supports NSA mega-surveillance of the people.
2015 opinion written by Kavanaugh while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, that found “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.”
Kavanaugh: “Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need—preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”
Keep up the snarky snide. Zero credibility. Just like the new boy-toy Kavanaugh conservo-RAT. Drown in it, swampers.
-
And, why can't we have the 'best(ideal) candidate'? I thought that was what Trump promised us? It's a rhetorical question, I know why we didn't get the best. Because Trump was AFRAID he couldn't get confirmed. Only the best, eh. Some of his choices have failed miserably. We'll see how this guy does, but Trump left a lot on the table with this pick.
Acknowledging a truth and acting accordingly is not necessarily being "AFRAID". What good would it do him to nominate a candidate that he knew that two or three R's would vote against, when he needs every single R vote to counter the block "NO" vote coming from the Ds. If he nominated someone and couldn't be confirmed, it would do him even more damage, and people like you would point out that he can't get his nomination confirmed even though"he controls Congress".
Other than that, almost every one of your objections is a positive in my book. I can't figure out though, if you are pissed because he is to far right, or not far right enough, or simply because Trump nominated him (as you indicated). Whatever your reasons, they all sound invalid in my mind.
-
I hope someone is archiving the lies and hype for posterity. ::)
Hillary Clinton Retweeted
#StopKavanaugh
#StopKavanaugh
@WeDemandJustice
Jul 9
BREAKING: Trump just announced his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Anti-abortion. Anti-healthcare. Thinks Trump is above the law. Here's what you need to know to take action now: (link: http://www.stopkavanaugh.com) stopkavanaugh.com #StopKavanaugh
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Kavanaugh%20600%20LA20180711014908.jpg)
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz071118dAPR20180711054511.jpg)
-
Acknowledging a truth and acting accordingly is not necessarily being "AFRAID". What good would it do him to nominate a candidate that he knew that two or three R's would vote against, when he needs every single R vote to counter the block "NO" vote coming from the Ds. If he nominated someone and couldn't be confirmed, it would do him even more damage, and people like you would point out that he can't get his nomination confirmed even though"he controls Congress".
Other than that, almost every one of your objections is a positive in my book. I can't figure out though, if you are pissed because he is to far right, or not far right enough, or simply because Trump nominated him (as you indicated). Whatever your reasons, they all sound invalid in my mind.
The block NO vote from Dems is not a given. If a Republican Senator votes no, it would really really suck to be that Republican Senator; you can pretty much count on getting yourself re-elected without party help. It would suck only slightly less if a red state Democrat votes yes and saves the day anyway.
Regardless, the president has a long list of people to keep nominating. If it rolls into next year, there will be a new composition in the Senate and I can't see it getting worse for the Republicans since Democrats have wasted their momentum on temper-tantrums. Each of the red state Senators stands to lose big if they stand against their constituency on the vote. So they either vote with the president now or a Republican from their state will vote with him in January.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c15863320180711120100.jpg)
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2018/07/12/filling-the-swamp-n2499337
Trump chickened out. He's been on a big winning streak for months. His game plan has been to be controversial, but stick to his plan, even in the face of adversity. Frankly, I don't care if this session of the senate confirms a new judge or not. Taking the worst, worst case - Trump picks a person who believes in individual liberty. He is not confirmed this session. Then, the Rs lose the senate, and a new name is put up. The new guy is not confirmed. He fails, and we get a third candidate. Then we get to near the 2020 elections, and have been without a new jurist for more than two years. The political capital going into the 2020 elections, with Dems blocking every candidate sounds like a bonus to me. 8 sitting judges for the next 2-3 years would do wonders for the republicans going into those elections. It is strategic thinking, unless Trump is afraid he'll lose both the senate, and the 2020 elections. Then - the only 'safe' play is a swamp 'crat like Kavanaugh. He's playing(picking) to lose, not to win in the future. Just - like - the - swamp.
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2018/07/12/filling-the-swamp-n2499337
Trump chickened out. He's been on a big winning streak for months. His game plan has been to be controversial, but stick to his plan, even in the face of adversity. Frankly, I don't care if this session of the senate confirms a new judge or not. Taking the worst, worst case - Trump picks a person who believes in individual liberty. He is not confirmed this session. Then, the Rs lose the senate, and a new name is put up. The new guy is not confirmed. He fails, and we get a third candidate. Then we get to near the 2020 elections, and have been without a new jurist for more than two years. The political capital going into the 2020 elections, with Dems blocking every candidate sounds like a bonus to me. 8 sitting judges for the next 2-3 years would do wonders for the republicans going into those elections. It is strategic thinking, unless Trump is afraid he'll lose both the senate, and the 2020 elections. Then - the only 'safe' play is a swamp 'crat like Kavanaugh. He's playing(picking) to lose, not to win in the future. Just - like - the - swamp.
Other than he is on the D.C. Court of Appeals, why do you think he's a "swamp 'crat"? What cases, specifically, has he ruled on that make him such a horrible candidate?
I've already outlined the two with which I think his critics have some points on, but even they agree that despite those two cases, he's still an excellent candidate.
-
Other than he is on the D.C. Court of Appeals, why do you think he's a "swamp 'crat"? What cases, specifically, has he ruled on that make him such a horrible candidate?
High level explanation - I'm not digging out the details, but I trust Judge Napolitano that they're there.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/10/judge-napolitano-disappointed-dc-establishment-trump-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh
Personally, I haven't been all that excited about Kavanaugh. I don't think he is an originalist and I don't think he is in favor of liberty.
-
Other than he is on the D.C. Court of Appeals, why do you think he's a "swamp 'crat"? What cases, specifically, has he ruled on that make him such a horrible candidate?
I've already outlined the two with which I think his critics have some points on, but even they agree that despite those two cases, he's still an excellent candidate.
There are plenty of comments previously, or - one could read the linked article. I grow weary of repeating myself to people who choose not to pay attention to what has already been covered in detail.
-
One of the latest attempts by the Democrats to block the Kavanaugh nomination is to say that he shouldn't be confirmed until Mueller's investigation is complete. National Review has a piece out on that today:
In other words, Clinton appointed not one, but two, Supreme Court Justices while he was under investigation. The second appointment came while he was actually “under subpoena.” If Democrats care as much about precedent as they pretend, this one blows their Mueller-Kavanaugh argument out of the water.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-democrats-mueller-excuse/
-
The sims are throwing every piece of shit against the wall hoping something will stick.
-
One of the latest attempts by the Democrats to block the Kavanaugh nomination is to say that he shouldn't be confirmed until Mueller's investigation is complete. National Review has a piece out on that today:
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-democrats-mueller-excuse/
"If they care"...key phrase. No, they don't care at all. They desperately want to stop anything Republican and they don't even know why. They just know that they hate Trump because that's what they've been told to hate and 90% of them cannot phrase a rational policy decision why. Yes, I'm being generous at 90%.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955289/Newspapers-run-IDENTICAL-letters-slamming-Trumps-Supreme-Court-pick.html
-
lol
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2807.0;attach=682;image)