I mean, Kavanaugh has conveniently already changed his mind on this stuff -- holding conservatives to logical consistency is a lost cause
I mean, Kavanaugh has conveniently already changed his mind on this stuff -- holding conservatives to logical consistency is a lost cause
Yeah, this is in no way about Roe.
The de facto establishment clause test most remembered as used in school-religion cases. He's pretty anti-establishment clause emphasis in general.Damn it my law school days are over don’t make me look shit up...
Exactly, total bullshit, the U.S. currently has a Congress who won't impeach Trump.... What to do then?????Yah that is some massive bullshit, you might as well say that the POTUS is a King.
It doesn't matter if any dems vote for him or not.Should easily fly through confirmation, every Republican (51) will vote for him and its very likely two democrats - Doug Jones and Joe Manchin - will also vote for confirmation.
Offer someone, who’s already a good deal a piece of shit, more power and more money...and voila :/Jesus this guy is the biggest kiss ass since Mike Pence... why are so many willing to straight up lie publicly for Trump?
Originalism is just branding for activist conservative judges.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.
Vote for a different Congress. Blue wave and shit.Exactly, total bullshit, the U.S. currently has a Congress who won't impeach Trump.... What to do then?????
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.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.
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#.qv2J7pWyaKavanaugh wrote that the court had created a “new right” to “immediate abortion on demand” for undocumented, pregnant teenagers in US custody. The panel’s original order was in line with Supreme Court cases that said the government could have an interest in “favoring fetal life” and not facilitating abortions, as long as it didn’t impose an “undue burden” on women who did choose to seek an abortion in the process.
Kavanaugh did not say that Jane Doe, as an undocumented immigrant, had no right to an abortion once she was in the United States. But he concluded that it was not an “undue burden” for the US government to say it wouldn’t “facilitate” abortions for teens in custody, and to transfer a minor in that situation to a sponsor, as long as it was “expeditious.”
Kavanaugh left open the question of what would happen if the government couldn’t find a sponsor. “It could turn out,” Kavanaugh wrote, that the government would be required to allow Jane Doe to get the abortion, noting that the government already facilitates abortions for adult women in criminal and immigration custody. But he argued that the government should first get a chance to try to find a sponsor.
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.
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.
0.0 is the average of the current court, not some absolute value.
That’s a ridiculous reading of his opinion.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.
That is one damning opinion from Kavanaugh, especially in the light of the current investigation.In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.”3
He believes the President is a defacto dictator and he will overturn Roe v Wade given his “originalist” beliefs.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.
Trump rewards those who stan for him because of his mob boss obsession with loyalty.Brett Kavanaugh: "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked to more people from more backgrounds to seek input for a Supreme Court nomination."
Jesus this guy is the biggest kiss ass since Mike Pence... why are so many willing to straight up lie publicly for Trump?
That says "congress might consider a law."That is one damning opinion from Kavanaugh, especially in the light of the current investigation.
What lawsuit is that?
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.)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.
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.Call your senators, march and organize. Don't let these fucks vote to confirm until after midterms.
Still need a source for this metholodolgy.
Neat"But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office" —Brett Kavanaugh
https://twitter.com/thenation/status/1016505599671128065
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.
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.if I am reading that quote correctly, he is all for impeachment but not levying criminal charges against a President until after the impeachment process is complete?
You've extrapolated, but in any case he says to remedy what he sees as issues congress needs to make a law.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.
Yes. That’s not a terribly radical position, either. But it also presumes a functioning Congress that acts in good faith.if I am reading that quote correctly, he is all for impeachment but not levying criminal charges against a President until after the impeachment process is complete?
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.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.
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 electionIt 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.
But again for any problems he thinks there are in those proceedings they can be fixed by congress making a law.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.
Still need a source for this metholodolgy.
“Scores not based on their actual votes” isn’t inspiring confidence.
Finally, some good news for Democrats.It certainly helps Dems with an angle to start peeling back GOP senate support. More of an angle than they would have had.
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/presidentCould have been worse. Then again, if the left was more logical than emotional (and if Hillary had run a better campaign) we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be discussing Hillary nominating her second SC judge, with another in the wings.
Both sides are the same huh. Enjoy the shredding of the voting rights act.
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.Popular Vote Count:
Hillary Clinton
65,853,625 votes (48.0%)
Donald Trump
62,985,106 votes (45.9%)
Remedy what? The fact that the President can be investigated? His solution to that is for congress to make it illegal.You've extrapolated, but in any case he says to remedy what he sees as issues congress needs to make a law.