U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Suttree]

29 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

It means you are being led by the nose to oppose a Supreme Court justice who will do what he is supposed to do: interpret the law within the confines of the constitution of the United States. 

Seriously dude. What's up with this fake outrage...I mean President Trump has shown how much he revers the constitution and making sure no one is above the law. It's pretty clear why he made this selection:

"In 2009, Brett Kavanaugh wrote that Congress should pass a law “exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Suttree said:

Seriously dude. What's up with this fake outrage...I mean President Trump has shown how much he revers the constitution and making sure no one is above the law. It's pretty clear why he made this selection:

"In 2009, Brett Kavanaugh wrote that Congress should pass a law “exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”

To be fair to Kavanaugh, the paper was about Congress passing a law. Congress hasn't passed that law so therefore he should interpret the constitution to say the President isn't exempted.

[Frog Eater]

6 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Clearly, what Frog Eater is saying is that the reasonable response is to do what Republicans did last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy, which was to carefully consider the merits of each candidate purely on the basis of their eminent legal scholarship before wait, I think I have this wrong.

You mean like when Elena Kagan was put on the court, despite having never served as a judge? Yes, the Democrats surely weighed her merits, while they turned a blind eye to her ties to the Obama White House. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/politics/06kagan.html

At least with Kavanaugh, I believe that he will weigh the cases that come before him on their merits, and not trying to be an activist judge. 

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

It means you are being led by the nose to oppose a Supreme Court justice who will do what he is supposed to do: interpret the law within the confines of the constitution of the United States.

LOL, anyone that thinks any nominee (for SCOTUS and circuit courts) isn't entirely political but rather "interpreting the law within the confines of the constitution" is quite obviously the one being led by the nose. 

[IamMe90]

19 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

You mean like when Elena Kagan was put on the court, despite having never served as a judge? Yes, the Democrats surely weighed her merits, while they turned a blind eye to her ties to the Obama White House. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/politics/06kagan.html

At least with Kavanaugh, I believe that he will weigh the cases that come before him on their merits, and not trying to be an activist judge. 

This is one of the dumbest responses to @La Albearceleste's post that I could ever envision. I mean, at least they held a fucking confirmation hearing for Kagan. One in which Republican senators were able to participate. Which is infinitely more than you can say about Merrick Garland, given the fact that, you know, Republican senators did nothing at all.

[Frog Eater]

4 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

This is one of the dumbest responses to @La Albearceleste's post that I could ever envision. I mean, at least they held a fucking confirmation hearing for Kagan. One in which Republican senators were able to participate. Which is infinitely more than you can say about Merrick Garland, given the fact that, you know, Republican senators did nothing at all.

Delaying the Garland vote was a mistake, they should have held the hearings.

If the Republicans held the hearings for Garland, and voted him down, would you feel better about Merrick Garland not being on the bench? If they continued voting down Obama nominations until after the election, would you feel better about Gorsuch sitting on the bench?

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

It means you are being led by the nose to oppose a Supreme Court justice who will do what he is supposed to do: interpret the law within the confines of the constitution of the United States. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaughs-impeccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism/

 

Lol he is going to give HIS interpretation. And if you actually give a fuck, that varies from person to person and justice to justice. 

He is a hardlined conservative which means he is going to have hard right views on what is legal and what is not legal, and will allow the republican base and his religious views to dictate such a thing as well.

Bootlicking is a great term for blind support, which is what you are basically calling for. 

This guy is going to be terrible for the LGBTQ community and reprodction rights, but it's obvious you don't give a fuck since you are not apart of demographics that he will target.

So it's not a shocker you keep spewing asinine right wing buzz words like manufactured outrage, which is nothing but projecting from you lot on the right. 

There is an actual reason to be outraged by this nominee, mr privellege. 

[Bonnot OG]

Oh and look, Trump pardon another hard right extremist that broke laws lol. 

Just getting his black shirts ready, instead they'll be called red caps. 

People in concentration camps for crossing some imaginary line constructed on stolen land built up by genocide and slavery, but an arsonist that did a shit load of damage, and people having an armed take over on federal land / in a federal building are given a pardon. 

MAGA = make america white again. 

White people committ crimes they get a pardon from that fuck in the white house. People of color committ the equivalent of a minor moving violation and they are put in cages and tortured.

Leftists respond to people rallying for white supremacy and calling for ethnic cleansing while those white supremacists are chanting nazi rhetoric and sieg heiling and they turn it into a violent assault and kill someone, it's some how both sides with nazis and white supremacists having some very fine people. Yet Antifa are the problem, not the fucking neo nazis and white supremacists calling for violence against those that do not fit their idea of white ethno state.

You still support anything this administration does, you're a fucking racist and a terrible person. End of story. 

This was always the case, but it's just solidified more and more each day with each policy put foward.

[lokisnow]

I predict Kavanaugh will be confirmed Thursday November 8th. McConnell and Trump want to use the vacancy to fire up their voter base. It should be sufficient to stop any blue wave. 

Then, regardless of the election outcome (whether they lose he senate or not), they will still confirm Kavanaugh in the lame duck.

not that it really matters, of the 135 eligible voters under 53 (the non-boomers), only 47 million will vote in November, meanwhile, 55 million of the 90 million boomers will vote in November.

that means the republicans are going to have an extremely good election, regardless of some marginal blue (but ultimately unproductive) momemntum and energy.

However, the 2022 midterms in Trumps second term with 59 million non boomer votes and 45 million boomer votes might be somewhat different. However all the coming republican elimination of voting privileges could probably make that election very Winnable for them as well.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

How is it manufactured outrage when all three of them are young, further right than almost everyone on the court and have a documented history of being against the fundamental issues that Democrats believe in? Gone are the days when you needed to nominate a more moderate judge to get 60 votes in the Senate. Now it's all about young, hyper partisan judges who can be passed with 51 votes.

This is why I think you can argue that the judicial filibuster is more important than the legislative filibuster. A bad law can be undone. A bad justice on the other hand……

[Mexal]

6 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

This is why I think you can argue that the judicial filibuster is more important than the legislative filibuster. A bad law can be undone. A bad justice on the other hand……

Yup. There needs to be term limits on justices, like 18 years. Lifetime appointments is and will continue to be ridiculous when there is no need for bi-partisan support.

[Larry of the Lawn]

51 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

You mean like when Elena Kagan was put on the court, despite having never served as a judge? Yes, the Democrats surely weighed her merits, while they turned a blind eye to her ties to the Obama White House. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/politics/06kagan.html

At least with Kavanaugh, I believe that he will weigh the cases that come before him on their merits, and not trying to be an activist judge. 

The idea that Justices are apolitical is nonsense and always has been.  There is more than one way to interpret something or we wouldn't need them in the first place.  

What the fuck is an activist judge?  They rule for or against a suit.  It's not like there's another option when a case comes before them "make you whatever law you like" and there are some judges who opt to do this and others who opt not to.  

 

 

[Frog Eater]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What the fuck is an activist judge?  They rule for or against a suit.  It's not like there's another option when a case comes before them "make you whatever law you like" and there are some judges who opt to do this and others who opt not to.  

 

 

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues.

Which is an example of judicial activism?

Case Example: Roe v. Wade. There are significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are believed to be examples of judicial activism. One good example is Roe v. Wade. ... The majority of the Supreme Court decided that an individual's right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion.

[Bonnot OG]

Black Shirts, Tan Shirts and Red Caps. That is what this recent pardon has me thinking. It's another wave to the republican base, hey, you can do anything as long as you support this administration.

If you're a white right winger you can get away with arming yourselves and pointing your guns at FBI agents and threatening their lives as well as arson that does a shit ton of damage.

If you're a person of color you can not be legally armed, you can not be skate boarding, you can not cross some imaginary line drawn in the sand without being shot, tossed into a concentration camp and demonized by white people. And you can not follow another religion besides christianity without the worry of being banned from entering the US.

If you oppose racism, fascism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, bi erasure, capitalism, state sanctioned violence, you are a problem. They say both sides are bad, but they don't consider it both sides because they think there are only some very fine people on the right even if they are nazis, child molesters and rapists.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Frog Eater said:

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues.

Which is an example of judicial activism?

Case Example: Roe v. Wade. There are significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are believed to be examples of judicial activism. One good example is Roe v. Wade. ... The majority of the Supreme Court decided that an individual's right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion.

Per the part I underlined, so it's just a political term for a SC ruling that you don't like? 

[Bonnot OG]

3 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues.

Which is an example of judicial activism?

Case Example: Roe v. Wade. There are significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are believed to be examples of judicial activism. One good example is Roe v. Wade. ... The majority of the Supreme Court decided that an individual's right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion.

Just gonna keep proving your a anti choicer and want to control people's bodies? 

And news flash, you don't think your right wing justices are politically motivated lol? 

You're fucking naive and a supporter of partisan hackery that you try and claim you're against.

[Rippounet]

Sandra Day O'Connor once said she used to think an activist judge was one who got up in the morning and went to work. 

2 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Which is an example of judicial activism?

Case Example: Roe v. Wade. 

There's also Bush v. Gore and Citizens United... so much for whatever you'ré trying to say.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Delaying the Garland vote was a mistake, they should have held the hearings.

If the Republicans held the hearings for Garland, and voted him down, would you feel better about Merrick Garland not being on the bench? If they continued voting down Obama nominations until after the election, would you feel better about Gorsuch sitting on the bench?

Not to pile on, but the point is they wouldn’t have had any ethical grounds to vote him down. He was the top non-SCJ judge in country. None of his rulings had ever been overturned by the SC. He was fairly moderate. He wasn’t young. The only reason to vote him down would have been political, so you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  

17 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yup. There needs to be term limits on justices, like 18 years. Lifetime appointments is and will continue to be ridiculous when there is no need for bi-partisan support.

This is when I again have to point to the plan Rick Perry floated. 18 year terms, staggered every two years. That means each president is guaranteed at least two nominees, and after 18 years, the justice can be renominated if their jurisprudence proved sufficient.

[Crazydog7]

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

Did something else happen or is this about the SCOTUS appointment?

 

More of a comment that I can't keep up with the political bullshit in this country on a day to day basis anymore. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

It means you are being led by the nose to oppose a Supreme Court justice who will do what he is supposed to do: interpret the law within the confines of the constitution of the United States. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaughs-impeccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism/

 

It means that the game has changed, and unlike 20 years ago partisanship is #1 in court picks, period. That's how it works now. That's all that matters. Gone are the days when both Scalia and Ginsburgh can win with 90+ votes. 

Because gone are the days when the SCOTUS rulings were only occasionally useful in deciding policy issues. Now, the way things work is that congress passes almost zero laws, Executive Orders and policies are what changes, and litigating those determines what can and can't happen in the country. 

It sucks, for everyone. But it's incredibly stupid to think liberals shouldn't play the game, especially after Garland.