Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
I listened to a few of hours of the Kavanaugh hearings yesterday. He came off pretty well there, better than some of the Democrats.
He said he admires Scalia, but then Ginsberg admires Scalia, too. He respects precedent, and explained some of his prior decisions were based on existing precedent. He seems strong on civil rights, he mentioned the importance of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments several times. He thinks Brown v. Board of Education was one of the most important decisions in our history.
He certainly didn't sound like a Trump puppet. Seems like a good chance he'll be another Souter or Warren, someone who might surprise his supporters.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
They get what they want, but they never want it again.
Courtney Love
This is a statement released by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:
He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign.”
Sanders is clueless. She's projecting Trump's failings with a childishly absurd "I'm Rubber - You're Glue" communications protocol.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
Wouldn't it be cool if "Deep Throat II" is actually Sarah!
Not likely.
The Op-Ed author describes himself as being in a position to affect policy. Sanders is the communications secretary, not a policy maker.
Do you like peaches? Well, how do you like them impeaches?
Good Will Humping
More clues about the identity of Good Will Humping:
The New York Times referred to the person with the masculine pronoun "he".
He says he is a Trump appointee, which implies he has a high-level position, and is not a low-level lackey, as the White House wants the public to believe.
He is not a holdover from the Obama Administration. He is a Trumplican.
His seniority and integrity are such that the New York Times is confident that when his identity is finally revealed, the NY Times will not be embarrassed.
The person is a loyal partisan. He believes it is important to protect the image of the party by compensating for Trump's insanity. Removing Trump from office would be the logical, non-partisan action to protect the nation.
The person is not a die-hard Trumplican, but seems willing to shift allegiance to Pence. The Op-Ed implies that the writer is resigned to the fact that Mueller has the goods on Trump, and that it is only a matter of time before his report is released.
So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
We need to come up with a name for the anonymous Op Ed author that will capture the imaginations of the generation they way "Deep Throat" did for Nixon...
Gotta be
Algonquin J. Calhoun
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I listened to a few of hours of the Kavanaugh hearings yesterday. He came off pretty well there, better than some of the Democrats.
He said he admires Scalia, but then Ginsberg admires Scalia, too. He respects precedent, and explained some of his prior decisions were based on existing precedent. He seems strong on civil rights, he mentioned the importance of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments several times. He thinks Brown v. Board of Education was one of the most important decisions in our history.
He certainly didn't sound like a Trump puppet. Seems like a good chance he'll be another Souter or Warren, someone who might surprise his supporters.
Yes, Kavanaugh should make an excellent Justice. The Democrat "resistance" seems based on general dislike for Trump and perhaps a little lingering resentment over the Garland debacle rather than on anything specific to Kav. Sure they don't like that he's conservative, but when there's a vacancy to be appointed by Republican president and senate, what would anyone expect?
Really looking forward to see what SCOTUS can do now that there will finally be a majority that has principled understanding of the proper role of the federal courts. (Kennedy wasn't so hot.) And it seemed to take about 50 years, but I think the Repubs finally have learned what the Dems have known for at least that period of time: you gotta get the ones you want on the court while you can. I don't think we'll have another Souter / Kennedy / Stevens etc. turncoat on our hands with this guy, he's as conservative as the day is long, a true believer / right winger / what have you.
I almost feel sorry for the lib court watchers out there, it's gonna be a lonnnnnng time before you get another activist court to try to ram through polices you can't get through the democratic process! (At least if Thomas can stick around, he's only 70, but he doesn't look real healthy to me.)
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 6, 2018 - 03:29pm PT
|
I don't think we'll have another Souter / Kennedy / Stevens etc. turncoat on our hands with this guy, he's as conservative as the day is long, a true believer / right winger / what have you. People will still be gay, we will refuse to read your religious books, people won't be forced to pledge allegiance, California will continue to sue the Federal government and win the right for clean water and air, women will have abortions and this President will go down in flames. So what makes you happy about this?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Thats your only hope for a right wing activist court.
Umm, think you got that turned around a bit. It's the lefties that are for "activist" courts, the conservatives simply "call the balls and strikes" as Roberts put it.
Sure every now and then they gotta strike down clearly unconstitutional laws like they did in Citizens United (law violated First Amendment / Freedom of Speech) and Heller (law violated Second Amendment / right to bear arms), but come on, those laws weren't even close to being constitutional.
In general, a conservative court will be the model of judicial restraint.
This is all very good news that we should be thankful for, even if you're not a big Trump fan.
So what makes you happy about this? Happy to live in a country with a reasonable court system rather than the travesty we've had under the libs where the judges just make crap up (and often very annoying crap at that).
For example, finding that death penalty violates the constitution, when the death penalty is at least implicit in the very text! Read the freaking Fifth Amendment and tell me that the DP can be unconstitutional (under any reasonable interpretation), I beg of you.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Other than supporting torture and being a liar, what's there not to like about "The Kav". Has all the same qualifications for the Supreme Court as The Nuge.
Kavanaugh argued the only Supreme Court case of his career, claiming that he could compel Foster’s lawyer to turn over notes on their conversation shortly before Foster’s death. (The Court rejected that argument, 6-3, with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing that attorney-client privilege precluded the notes’ release, and Kavanaugh’s former boss Kennedy joining the majority.)
the beat goes on
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Umm, think you got that turned around a bit. It's the lefties that are for "activist" courts, the conservatives simply "call the balls and strikes" as Roberts put it.
That has always been such a huge load of simplistic bullsh#t.
Conservatives judges are every bit as activist as liberals.
Supreme Court rarely get easy cases, and all require complex judgments beyond determining the strike zone. Roberts spoke nonsense when he said that at his confirmation hearing.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
DB, I understand your analogy and agree with your assessment, "terribly broken" it is. But to clarify, a general cannot start a war, nor can a president, only congress can. Part of what is happening here is a president that refuses to learn the basic rules of how his position in office should function. The president thinks he can do anything he wants, like start a war or circumvent the basic process of the rule of law. It was pretty obvious from his first month in office that he either didn't understand basic civics or he choose to ignore it. And as his term has wore on It's becoming painfully obvious that the president is mentally compromised. But the 25th amendment is designed more to deal with physical incapacitation of a President, not one that is mentally ill. That's probably why the cabinet didn't evoke it. Since the line of mental illness is a hard one to prove as anyone that has had to deal with a mentally ill relative can attest. I bet those in the WH recognized it sooner and have been trying to cover it up so has not to loose the advantage they have republican white house. I've also wondered if the reason he plays so much golf (as has been reported) is because is staff is encouraging him to get out of the office and otherwise occupied like giving an unruly tot a rattle. The chain of command is broken in the executive branch of our government, that much is sure. And it worries me that there is no transparency while the "hidden resistance" (is this the deep state?) runs things. They may think that are advancing the greater good, but at the cost of undermining the way things should operate. As long as "they" continue to allow his behavior, they enabled it providing and approval it. From Trumps first day in office I did not know why his twitter account wasn't commandeered in the name of national security. I expected all Tweets to be by committee from the White house team... not from an impetuous ranting individual. But he continues to Tweet, to what end? As a smoke screen for something else. either way its terribly broken.
^^^^
McGuzzy, I get what you are saying, and I actually see more gray on this than my post states. I’m glad smart people have avoided several disasters. This is an awful mess and there are no clear cut solutions.
Here is what a conservative never trumper wrote about this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/09/06/were-in-uncharted-waters-dont-be-too-quick-to-condemn-mr-anonymous/?utm_term=.a25cdbd257f3
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
That has always been such a huge load of simplistic bullsh#t.
Conservatives judges are every bit as activist as liberals.
Supreme Court rarely get easy cases, and all require complex judgments beyond determining the strike zone. Roberts spoke nonsense when he said that at his confirmation hearing.
I've been a lawyer now for 32 years. I think I've developed a fair understanding of how courts work.
Dirtbag's comment is plain english, succinct, and accurate.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
As if his nomination will not be nullified.
|
|
10b4me
Social climber
Lida Junction
|
|
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
That is humor right there.
I am so befuddled by it may be treason if you disagree with him and state it anonymously,but ,you know ,liking Russia,is ,patriotic.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Kavanaugh was a top right wing soldier on the starr witchhunt of Clinton, which went on nonstop for 6 years and came up with NOTHING. Starr went on to preside as president of Baylor for 6 years, a period which included the most sexual assaults by a football team in NCAA history, forcing starr to resign.
Later, Kavanaugh now claims to have second thoughts and says the president (who is now a right wing quack) should be exempt from these investigations because they might interrupt his golf, or pussy grabbing, or twitting vile lies, or handing out special treats for his corrupt base, or denying reality, or cutting taxes for the rich, or stopping net neutrality, or stirring up new wars, or fawning towards putin, or other important roles like the space farce.
The right wing activist court has already made numerous poor decisions.
They already reversed precedent and thrown out the first half of the 2nd amendment; the part that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Oddly, Kavanaugh felt free to discuss his opinion on gun control/rights, while on other issues declaring he really couldn't say much.
They also voted to take over the 2000 presidential election, deciding that democracy in Florida was a needless waste of time and an impediment to the corporate takeover of America.
There are a number of decisions that in the past the conservatives were the minority when swing vote Kennedy voted with the liberals. Those will change in the future with this president who lost the popular vote.
One example is the 5-4 finding that the EPA should regulate CO2 as a pollutant since under the clean air act, greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. That decision could easily be reversed with a more right wing crooked court.
Another is the likely loss of abortion rights, habeas corpus protections and protections against search & seizure.
Citizens United is an obvious activist vile decision creating a new type of superhuman: corporations now have constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby case was more quackery deciding that employers religious views are more important than employees right to medical care.
More: http://prospect.org/article/five-worst-roberts-court-rulings
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|