Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

As an example of judicial activism, Kavanaugh wrote that the POTUS should be immune from criminal proceedings and indictments. Not because there's anything constitutional about it, or that the law prohibits it - it doesn't. And certainly not because the framers thought that was the case; Hamilton was pretty happy with the idea. No, it's because he thinks it's bad for the overall presidential power.

That is a good example of judicial activism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 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.

Inversely, you can argue that abortions are medical procedures, which they are, and are therefore protected under numerous rulings on privacy with regards to healthcare.

The thing about your argument that is frustrating is that you assume it goes one way. Many of the major cases over the last decade can be described as examples of conservative judicial activism. Just see Heller or Citizens United. Same thing goes for identity politics. Conservatives are absolute hypocrites for attacking Democrats on these grounds while totally ignoring their own behavior, which is often times more egregious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Inversely, you can argue that abortions are medical procedures, which they are, and are therefore protected under numerous rulings on privacy with regards to healthcare.

What? As far as I know, rulings related to privacy and healthcare apply to the dissemination and protection of protected health information ("PHI"). This has nothing to do with the actual administration of medical procedures. There are many, many medical procedures which have been banned from practice over time due to valid safety concerns. Health privacy jurisprudence does not factor in there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

http://www.newsweek.com/pregnant-women-detained-ice-miscarried-babies-and-didnt-get-medical-care-1015676

Lets see if white anti choicers give a fuck about this. 

Oh wait, they won't, because they only care about white fetuses and children because they are also racists. 

Well, let's not go crazy -- are those children white? Overweight? Straight? Are their parents straight and married? Have they accused a republican of harassment or abuse? Going to need a bit more information before the anti-choicers support children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Week said:

Well, let's not go crazy -- are those children white? Overweight? Straight? Are their parents straight and married? Have they accused a republican of harassment or abuse? Going to need a bit more information before the anti-choicers support children.

I did put the white part in ;)

But yea, they are real selective in what children they support, the eugenics like bigoted scum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

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.  

 

 

If we are going to treat the SCOTUS as a political branch it should be elected.  This is what comes from political tests for a seat on the Court.  I’d almost prefer a seniority system or Justices nominated by a bi-partisan (or even better non-partusan commission.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the idea that judges (and justice) is non partisan is an idea specifically designed to hurt people.

Only in opening our eyes to the partisan nature of both can we begin to remedy the system. 

Believing the nonpartisan judges myth merely prolongs the suffering and injustice served the myth is designed to perpetuate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crypto fascists never fail to amuse me when they call those left of them nerdy, all without a hint of self-awareness. Especially when those crpyto fascists on /pol/ (4chan), The_Donald, Twitter and facebook are mostly scrawny gamers who spend all day making fun of the disabled and every other marginalized demographic on social media platforms while also masturbating to anime and female video game characters.

Also, civil rights issues have always been partisan issues, and it has only gotten worse with who the republicans attract and how they attract them and the rhetoric they use. 

Civil rights shouldn't be a partisan issue, but then you have someone like FE that is anti choice and wants to control the reproductive rights of people with uteruses. There is no way personal choice should be a patisan issue, lgbtq civil rights shouldn't be a partisan issue, but thanks to bigoted white cis straight male republicans and their use of religion to justify their bigotry and oppression, here we are with them being partisan issues. 

They think their religion and opinions outweigh scientific evidence / fact and have no issue paying some hack "scientist" to be their counter and "scientific evidence" to help push their bullshit bigotry and oppressive views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

the idea that judges (and justice) is non partisan is an idea specifically designed to hurt people.

Only in opening our eyes to the partisan nature of both can we begin to remedy the system. 

Believing the nonpartisan judges myth merely prolongs the suffering and injustice served the myth is designed to perpetuate.

Pardon, are you saying Judges shouldn’t make an effort at objectivity?  At avoiding political bias.  Hell refusing to address cases that are openly political under the “Political Questions” doctrine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Pardon, are you saying Judges shouldn’t make an effort at objectivity?  At avoiding political bias.  Hell refusing to address cases that are openly political under the “Political Questions” doctrine?

I think he's saying the idea of a judge being apolitical is so much mularkey that it is not even worth serious consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I think he's saying the idea of a judge being apolitical is so much mularkey that it is not even worth serious consideration.

It was for quite a few years.  Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower.  Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun.  George H. W. Bush appointed Souter.  Justices do not have to be selected for purely partisan reasons.  Hence, I’d love to see a non-partisan commission granted the power to appoint with Senate confirmation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It was for quite a few years.  Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower.  Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun.  George H. W. Bush appointed Souter.  Justices do not have to be selected for purely partisan reasons.  Hence, I’d love to see a non-partisan commission granted the power to appoint with Senate confirmation.

 

What part of 'current' do you not appreciate when discussing current events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

What part of 'current' do you not appreciate when discussing current events?

The fact that just because things are the way they are does not mean they have to stay that way or should stay that way.  

Hence why I recommend the change if the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As an example of judicial activism, Kavanaugh wrote that the POTUS should be immune from criminal proceedings and indictments. Not because there's anything constitutional about it, or that the law prohibits it - it doesn't. And certainly not because the framers thought that was the case; Hamilton was pretty happy with the idea. No, it's because he thinks it's bad for the overall presidential power.

That is a good example of judicial activism. 

Kavanaugh wrote that the POTUS should be immune from criminal proceeding and civil lawsuits in a law review article, not a court decision, so I wouldn't call it an instance of judicial activism.  In his law review article, which I skimmed, he argued that Congress should pass a law that would give the POTUS such immunity.  He explicitly stated that current Court jurisprudence made it clear that the POTUS wasn't immune, and that he wasn't commenting on whether that Court jurisprudence was correctly decided.  He gave himself enough wiggle room to go either way if the issue is ever brought before the Court again.

Kavanaugh has a remarkably clean record on current hot topic issues for someone that has over a dozen years as a Circuit Court judge and many years of service in Republican administrations on many contentious issues.  It's clear that he's prepared his whole life for the possibility of being nominated to the Supreme Court, so I think he's going to sail through his confirmation process with relative ease.  He clearly knows how the game is played during the confirmation process, so he's just going to give generic, non controversial answers to everything.  At a minimum, he's getting all the Republican senators, and I wouldn't be surprised in several Democrats joined.

Not much Democrats can do except make some noise, but I'm worried that when Kavanaugh gets confirmed in October, it's going to drive Democrat enthusiasm down before the November elections, while the Republicans get a bounce.  The timing of this couldn't be worse.  A devastating report from Mueller could counter this, but I'm not sure that such a report is going to come in time, if ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The fact that just because things are the way they are does not mean they have to stay that way or should stay that way.  

Hence why I recommend the change if the current system.

I feel ya. I want the rain to be fruit punch. But I don't condescend at people for pointing out it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It was for quite a few years.  Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower.  Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun.  George H. W. Bush appointed Souter.  Justices do not have to be selected for purely partisan reasons.  Hence, I’d love to see a non-partisan commission granted the power to appoint with Senate confirmation.

 

Eisenhower stated how much he considered Warren to be a mistake. Do not know Nixon with Blackman though I know many Conservative were mad with Souter. One of the driving motivation of the Federalist Society was to make sure those Judges do not happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Honestly seeing this BS is the perfect time to get support for changing the existing system.

From where will you be gathering this support?

I didn't use the rain and fruit punch example on a whim.

With the right application by a determined majority it would be quite possible to lace the air with sugared punch (probably have giant smokestacks pumping high into the atmosphere) that bonded to the water in clouds.

But who the fuck would support that?

Likewise, who the fuck would support 'neutral' judges at this point? The game is broken. You can't just add rules in the middle of play, the winners aren't going to agree and the losers are, well, fucking losers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...