Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jeff

    1533

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2413

  • DKTanker

    1600

  • rmgill

    1794

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

There is 2 options for Kavanaugh, he can be bitter about his treatment and try to shaft the left every time he can, or prove his impartiality on any judgements to show the left they were wrong about him.

Or he can bend and try to avoid the wrath of the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three options.

1. Become anti-left (out of bitterness/resentment)

2. Remain impartial (out of professionalism)

3. Become pro left (to show the people at the right parties that he's not what he was made out to be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is 2 options for Kavanaugh, he can be bitter about his treatment and try to shaft the left every time he can, or prove his impartiality on any judgements to show the left they were wrong about him.

Or he can bend and try to avoid the wrath of the left.

 

That's what is meant by the bolded portion of what he wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is 2 options for Kavanaugh, he can be bitter about his treatment and try to shaft the left every time he can, or prove his impartiality on any judgements to show the left they were wrong about him.

I thought we wanted a diverse court. So instead of being raised in the crime ridden projects we have someone who was accused of a crime and whose life is scarred from it. So no snowflake now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three options.

1. Become anti-left (out of bitterness/resentment)

2. Remain impartial (out of professionalism)

3. Become pro left (to show the people at the right parties that he's not what he was made out to be).

Do you really believe the left believes in impartiality? Can you recall the last time one of the leftists on the court broke from the others to vote with the conservatives? Obviously Kennedy broke from the right quite often, but so too did Scalia from time to time, and so too has Thomas and Roberts. As it turns out, only Alito is a solid conservative vote. The reason Leftists don't break ranks is because they hold a sincere, but flawed, belief that theirs is the only correct and thus impartial position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is 2 options for Kavanaugh, he can be bitter about his treatment and try to shaft the left every time he can, or prove his impartiality on any judgements to show the left they were wrong about him.

Or he can bend and try to avoid the wrath of the left.

 

That's what is meant by the bolded portion of what he wrote.

 

 

The left is not looking for impartiality. At least not the rabid leftists.

 

Myself, I don't want a conservative or liberal supreme court justice. Just one who ignores two centuries of precedents -many very questionable- and makes his decisions based on the Constitution. This is where Kavanaugh worries me regarding the 4th amendment. And the circus of the last month has obscured these legitimate discussions about some of Kavanaugh's prior rulings.

Edited by Mikel2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Myself, I don't want a conservative or liberal supreme court justice. Just one who ignores two centuries of precedents -many very questionable- and makes his decisions based on the Constitution. This is where Kavanaugh worries me regarding the 4th amendment.

 

Kavanaugh penned something that I found a bit worrying, an implication that the longer a decision remains unchallenged, the more righteous it becomes. I find this particularly disturbing because the SCOTUS star chamber finds this true only for its decisions, but not for laws and traditions of the people of the nation. SCOTUS has no problem striking down laws that have been on the books for two hundred years, but a SCOTUS decision, even if generally seen as flawed, why they are sacrosanct and beyond question. Yes, this is a problem.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Myself, I don't want a conservative or liberal supreme court justice. Just one who ignores two centuries of precedents -many very questionable- and makes his decisions based on the Constitution. This is where Kavanaugh worries me regarding the 4th amendment.

 

Kavanaugh penned something that I found a bit worrying, an implication that the longer a decision remains unchallenged, the more righteous it becomes. I find this particularly disturbing because the SCOTUS star chamber finds this true only for its decisions, but not for laws and traditions of the people of the nation. SCOTUS has no problem striking down laws that have been on the books for two hundred years, but a SCOTUS decision, even if generally seen as flawed, why they are sacrosanct and beyond question. Yes, this is a problem.

 

You are right on that point. The court doesn't have any problem striking down several thousand years so common law precedence or democratically enacted precedence when they want. But, judicial precedence that's a bridge too far.

 

And look at Justice Stevens. He says Kavanaugh is too starkly partisan. Well, thanks to his making partisan rulings on abortion laws he poured fuel on the fire. He made law when it should of been the people who should of made the law. How are the people going to react to that? The court is reaping what he has sown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Myself, I don't want a conservative or liberal supreme court justice. Just one who ignores two centuries of precedents -many very questionable- and makes his decisions based on the Constitution. This is where Kavanaugh worries me regarding the 4th amendment.

 

Kavanaugh penned something that I found a bit worrying, an implication that the longer a decision remains unchallenged, the more righteous it becomes. I find this particularly disturbing because the SCOTUS star chamber finds this true only for its decisions, but not for laws and traditions of the people of the nation. SCOTUS has no problem striking down laws that have been on the books for two hundred years, but a SCOTUS decision, even if generally seen as flawed, why they are sacrosanct and beyond question. Yes, this is a problem.

 

You are right on that point. The court doesn't have any problem striking down several thousand years so common law precedence or democratically enacted precedence when they want. But, judicial precedence that's a bridge too far.

 

Trusting the law to lawyers was a bad idea from the get-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way leftists and spineless centrists are telling it, Judge Kavanaugh, now Justice Kavanaugh, has sole power to legislate from the bench. Do they not understand that Kavanaugh represents but 1/9th of the SCOTUS? He can no more rule as a dictator than can Trump, or Obama before him.

 

And the court rules unanimously or with wide majorities in 90-plus percent of cases anyway. I found it interesting that Senator Collins pointed out that Kavanaugh and Obama's SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland ruled the same way in 93 percent of cases they heard together while at the DC Circuit Appeals Court. Of course on the flip side that means the Republicans could just as well have confirmed Garland. :D

 

Obviously the seven percent are the high-profile cases everybody cares about because they touch basic ideological tenets of the political left and right. But then you never know how SCOTUS nominees will turn out on the court; conservatives have of course long complained that various Republican nominees ended up in the widely-perceived liberal block.

 

There was already a stir some time ago when Gorsuch sided with the liberals on some minor conservative pet issue I don't quite recall. Which doesn't necessarily mean he will be the future swing-voting Kennedy, just that a conservative judicial view of the Constitution doesn't always mean what conservative partisan politics make it out to be. Though judging by the Clarence Thomas precedent, I doubt that Kavanaugh will become a flaming liberal after the circus he's been through. :D

 

Anyway, the above is why I didn't take it all too serious, even disregarding that unlike US foreign policy, it doesn't affect me too much. Politically interesting event with great entertainment value though, and much could be said about the behavior and performance of actors on either side. As a general judgement, the canned Trumpist mantra of WINNING! was certainly true in this instance, though it remains to be seen which camp gets a bigger mobilization boost out of it for the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen! Especially those of a liberal ilk.

 

 

 

 

Myself, I don't want a conservative or liberal supreme court justice. Just one who ignores two centuries of precedents -many very questionable- and makes his decisions based on the Constitution. This is where Kavanaugh worries me regarding the 4th amendment.

 

Kavanaugh penned something that I found a bit worrying, an implication that the longer a decision remains unchallenged, the more righteous it becomes. I find this particularly disturbing because the SCOTUS star chamber finds this true only for its decisions, but not for laws and traditions of the people of the nation. SCOTUS has no problem striking down laws that have been on the books for two hundred years, but a SCOTUS decision, even if generally seen as flawed, why they are sacrosanct and beyond question. Yes, this is a problem.

 

You are right on that point. The court doesn't have any problem striking down several thousand years so common law precedence or democratically enacted precedence when they want. But, judicial precedence that's a bridge too far.

 

Trusting the law to lawyers was a bad idea from the get-go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An excellent opportunity to remove a large part of the cancerous secular liberalism that infects our federal judicial system.

 

Every time I see you disparage the foundations of American society as enshrined in the Constitution, which the US has thankfully and at great cost exported to less fortunate places through two World Wars and one Cold War, I wonder anew how Americans have managed to twist the original meaning of the term 180 degrees out of phase so that it is understood to be some sort of Bolshevism, and they are thus hacking at the roots of their liberty with holy zeal.

 

Overall, the U.S. Constitution was generally founded on Classical Liberalism, ie the rights of the individual have a higher merit than those of the federal government and that these individual rights were ordained by God, not government. Today's liberalism believes the rights of a secular government are higher than the individual, and the more secular of said government, the better. Witness our recent Supreme Court fiasco by these liberals.

 

Some other quotes by our founding fathers:

 

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" President George Washington, September 17th, 1796.

 

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." President Thomas Jefferson.

 

"Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813.

 

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.

 

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President John Adams.

 

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." President John Quincy Adams.

 

As far as twisting words by liberals, let me give you this example, the word "gay."

Edited by Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And the court rules unanimously or with wide majorities in 90-plus percent of cases anyway. I found it interesting that Senator Collins pointed out that Kavanaugh and Obama's SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland ruled the same way in 93 percent of cases they heard together while at the DC Circuit Appeals Court. Of course on the flip side that means the Republicans could just as well have confirmed Garland. :D

 

Obviously the seven percent are the high-profile cases everybody cares about because they touch basic ideological tenets of the political left and right. But then you never know how SCOTUS nominees will turn out on the court; conservatives have of course long complained that various Republican nominees ended up in the widely-perceived liberal block.

.

Thats just it, you need to look at the impact of the cases where theres a close ideological split.

 

Ive argued that Kavanaughs nomination fight wasnt about hot button social issues like abortion or same sex marriage. Its really about the various cases percolating up through the District and Circuit Courts on election related matters. Voter ID, Redistricting/Gerrymandering, ballot protection, even the Census question aboiut citizenship.

 

Why? Because the outcome of those cases will determine who controls the other two branches of government, and under what circumstances.

 

Theres no doubt in my mind that those WILL break along ideological lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And the court rules unanimously or with wide majorities in 90-plus percent of cases anyway. I found it interesting that Senator Collins pointed out that Kavanaugh and Obama's SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland ruled the same way in 93 percent of cases they heard together while at the DC Circuit Appeals Court. Of course on the flip side that means the Republicans could just as well have confirmed Garland. :D

 

Obviously the seven percent are the high-profile cases everybody cares about because they touch basic ideological tenets of the political left and right. But then you never know how SCOTUS nominees will turn out on the court; conservatives have of course long complained that various Republican nominees ended up in the widely-perceived liberal block.

.

Thats just it, you need to look at the impact of the cases where theres a close ideological split.

 

Ive argued that Kavanaughs nomination fight wasnt about hot button social issues like abortion or same sex marriage. Its really about the various cases percolating up through the District and Circuit Courts on election related matters. Voter ID, Redistricting/Gerrymandering, ballot protection, even the Census question aboiut citizenship.

 

Why? Because the outcome of those cases will determine who controls the other two branches of government, and under what circumstances.

 

Theres no doubt in my mind that those WILL break along ideological lines.

I'm sure that Kavanaugh signaling that a sitting president couldn't be indicted had nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I believe she was assaulted. Kavanaugh has said that he believes she was assaulted also. I also believe she has some form of face blindness

For both Kavavaugh and Judge?

Why not?

Because its FAR more likely that these two were in the room as Ford claims (when judge actually wrote a book about their missdeeds) than Ford have this rare phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe she was assaulted. Kavanaugh has said that he believes she was assaulted also. I also believe she has some form of face blindness

For both Kavavaugh and Judge?

 

Why not?

 

The evidence is becoming quite clear, that if anything did happen to Chrissy, it occurred two or three years after her now claimed 1982. She changed her story* to ensure Kavanaugh could be included. Furthermore, it explains why she says she doesn't recall how she arrived at the party and how she left. It's simple, she drove her own vehicle, but that couldn't be included in the story because again, that would mean she was too old for Kavanaugh to have been her claimed assailant.

*First drafts of her story have her age as late teens and the assault having taken place in the mid-1980s. A time when Kavanaugh was at Yale 300 miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue, DKT, is that without evidentiary standards theres no way to judge whether the evidence supports one side or another.

 

Thats the crux here, lack of defined (let alone agreed upon) evidentiary standards.

 

Ill be the first to agree that this isnt a court of law and the high standards required in criminal cases dont apply.

 

But on the other hand principles like due process, burden of proof and presumption of innocence are in the Constitution and law BECAUSE they are larger societal and cultural principles. So the opposite end of the evidentiary spectrum (guilt by accusation) doesnt apply either.

 

The point being to set the evidentiary standard first, before even starting to talk about the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...