I mean, Kavanaugh has conveniently already changed his mind on this stuff -- holding conservatives to logical consistency is a lost cause
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump announces federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh as nominee for Supreme Court
- Thread starter ZiggyPalffyLA
- Start date
I mean, Kavanaugh has conveniently already changed his mind on this stuff -- holding conservatives to logical consistency is a lost cause
2016 was such a fucking disaster, I can't believe the GOP nominated Donald fucking trump and yet the Dems still managed to find the one candidate shitty enough to lose to him.
The de facto establishment clause test most remembered as used in school-religion cases. He's pretty anti-establishment clause emphasis in general.
Exactly, total bullshit, the U.S. currently has a Congress who won't impeach Trump.... What to do then?????
So acco
So according this SCOTUS nominee the Mueller investigation is illegal.
So according this SCOTUS nominee the Mueller investigation is illegal.
The closest I'm seeing to real consensus on his approach if that he's an "originalist".
I'm not a legal scholar but I assume that means he follows the text and context of the constitution to the letter.
Wouldn't this suggest his broader approach is by definition conservative?
I mean we knew we were getting a right leaning nomination, and at least he doesn't seem hard right insane, but I'm curious if my reading of originalist = traditional/conservative is right.
I'm not a legal scholar but I assume that means he follows the text and context of the constitution to the letter.
Wouldn't this suggest his broader approach is by definition conservative?
I mean we knew we were getting a right leaning nomination, and at least he doesn't seem hard right insane, but I'm curious if my reading of originalist = traditional/conservative is right.
One absolutely fascinating thing about the Supreme Court
5 members are Catholic
3 are Jewish
1 was raised Catholic but is now an Episcopalian I think (Neil Gorsuch)
The nominee is Catholic as well. They were all appointed by various presidents but its pretty fascinating that in a country that is majority protestant, there is only 1 on SCOTUS.
Of the 113 justices appointed to date 91 have been protestant, 12 catholic, and 8 Jewish (1 had no affiliation).
5 members are Catholic
3 are Jewish
1 was raised Catholic but is now an Episcopalian I think (Neil Gorsuch)
The nominee is Catholic as well. They were all appointed by various presidents but its pretty fascinating that in a country that is majority protestant, there is only 1 on SCOTUS.
Of the 113 justices appointed to date 91 have been protestant, 12 catholic, and 8 Jewish (1 had no affiliation).
Your president just put someone in superme court that he believes would never indict him.
You scared yet?
You scared yet?
Offer someone, who's already a good deal a piece of shit, more power and more money...and voila :/
Its amazing that he saw the light only after serving in Bush's administration. This is the guy who co-wrote and pushed for Clinton's impeachment, then when he was in Bush's administration he had a completely different legal/ethical perspective. That is some damn hot shit.
It shouldn't matter if the Supreme Court has various religious backgrounds. The Constitution has Separation of Church and State which means that anything religious needs to be fully separated from political and legal stuff in the U.S.
His dissent in the Jane Doe appeals court decision. He suggested that a woman has a right to an abortion. He's against "unfettered access" to abortion (which is basically how abortion stands currently), but not against it completely.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zoetillman...-nominee-brett?utm_term=.mfoNd5YPp#.qv2J7pWya
Ugh, awful for the future of this country.
But this was at least the "best" possible choice, right? Just basing that on what I heard on The Daily podcast this morning.
But this was at least the "best" possible choice, right? Just basing that on what I heard on The Daily podcast this morning.
I can't, I live in Maryland, my district already has Democratic representation in both chambers of Congress who already is fully against Trump so no Republicans to vote out.
0.0 is the average of the current court, not some absolute value.
That's a ridiculous reading of his opinion.
A lower court can't overrule the Supreme Court. His dissent was as hardline anti-abortion as his position allowed.
Last edited:
That is one damning opinion from Kavanaugh, especially in the light of the current investigation.
He believes the President is a defacto dictator and he will overturn Roe v Wade given his "originalist" beliefs.
This is a dangerous man and will be the most far right judge to sit in the SCOTUS.
It just blows my mind that I'm about to have a son in a month or so and that son might be older than I currently am when Kavanaugh is finally off the court. Fucking three decades of power put there by a guy that lost the popular vote and is under criminal investigation for that very election.
Trump rewards those who stan for him because of his mob boss obsession with loyalty.
It just shows how many people have no conscience or shame, that they will bark like a seal and clap their flippers for one of the most feeble men alive.
It really makes me very angry that the Electoral College is what put Trump in the White House.
If our system of electing the President was different, for example, using the popular vote, right now Clinton would be in the White House as President because she did win the popular vote.
If our system of electing the President was different, for example, using the popular vote, right now Clinton would be in the White House as President because she did win the popular vote.
Nah. By all accounts, best possible would've been Hardiman. Worst would've been cult lady: she's in her early 40s and has no judicial experience, really. (She was an academic, and that's fine, but still.)
That said, he's exactly the kind of SCOTUS pick a "normal" Republican would make — the Wittes comment is accurate in that respect.
Small comfort, but be happy it's a middle-aged white man instead of a white woman — she's 10 years younger and, that aside, would probably live much longer.
There's no amount of marching that will stop it unless people are willing to spill blood (and even then, I dunno). They killed the filibuster to make sure they got the first pick, they are one step from the lifetime conservative goal of compromising the court. Protests won't make them stop.
Still need a source for this metholodolgy.
"Scores not based on their actual votes" isn't inspiring confidence.
Red states are currently arguing that since the individual mandate was ripped out of the ACA (by republicans) the law is now unconstitutional. Somehow.
He also quoted himself saying that no attorney general or special counsel has enough credibility to investigate the President.
He essentially thinks the Mueller investigation should end and ultimately such investigations should be illegal.
Wondering how #conservative #Kavanaugh is? I just estimated preferences from all voting by DC Circuit judges on en banc cases. I estimate he is the fifth most conservative of the 47 judges for whom I have data.
https://twitter.com/tom_s_clark/status/1016499931517980673
https://twitter.com/tom_s_clark/status/1016499931517980673
How can you hold impeachment hearings if you don't have a criminal investigation? What evidence is congress going to use against the President? Subpoenas from congress and being held in concept by congress is meaningless.
You've extrapolated, but in any case he says to remedy what he sees as issues congress needs to make a law.
Yes. That's not a terribly radical position, either. But it also presumes a functioning Congress that acts in good faith.
He doesn't think a sitting POTUS should have to worry about civil and criminal charges, he doesn't think that special prosecutors should be employed into the actions of a sitting POTUS. I think that is as I said a pretty damning opinion, given our current situation.
I mean being actually charged with criminal actions until after the impeachment process is over.
If the U.S.A. was a rational country with actual politicians that cared about the consequences of their actions, they would have looked back at the 2000 election
and seen the various messes that Dubyah managed to get us into and worked to create a new system.
I was 15 at the time and unable to vote, and even I knew the system was fucking stupid when Bush managed tow in despite having less overall votes.
Instead, we are getting screwed by the electoral college for the second time, and with worse and much more long-term consequences.
But again for any problems he thinks there are in those proceedings they can be fixed by congress making a law.
Finally, some good news for Democrats.
Something needs to be done about Trump & his Supreme Court picks.
If the U.S. used the popular vote to elect a President, we would have Clinton in the White House right now: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
But we don't use the popular vote, we use something called the Electoral College which put Trump in the White House, a Presidential candidate needs 270 or more electoral college votes to become President and Trump got more electoral college votes than Clinton.
Remedy what? The fact that the President can be investigated? His solution to that is for congress to make it illegal.