The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

Good speech by Ben Sasse at the hearing - why congress doesn't work.  Restore proper constitutional balance of power in all 3 branches - stop making the SC the political hot bed - that belongs to the Congress.  







 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
It really is interesting.  I've had the hearings on in the back ground in my office while I work.  There hasn't been a question that the guy hasn't answered very professionally, well prepared, knowledgeable.....etc.....his memory is extremely impressive......until this one.
Click to expand...
See and I found him evasive and long winded to circumvent saying anything of substance.  He could quote things and reference what he'd done but rarely was it related to the question he was asked.  We are in trouble.

ZRod said:
Am I the only one who really doesn't think this Kavanaugh nomination is all that bad? He leans right, but he's fairly centrist from what I've heard in the hearings this week. He's extremely intelligent, and knowledgeable. Is this really that bad?

The only issue I have is that Trump probably shouldn't be nominating anyone at the moment given the ethical implications. Maybe Kavanaugh would recuse himself from any rulings...
Click to expand...
I found his stance on many issues vague by his comments, but his past actions I find alarming.  I think he'd be the worst addition to the SC since Clarence Thomas.

 
NM11046 said:
See and I found him evasive and long winded to circumvent saying anything of substance.  He could quote things and reference what he'd done but rarely was it related to the question he was asked.  We are in trouble.

I found his stance on many issues vague by his comments, but his past actions I find alarming.  I think he'd be the worst addition to the SC since Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
I think that's a little over dramatic. He could clearly reference and interpret many cases (even though he prepaid that's still a tall task to remember all the info). If you listened to his rulings he seemed pretty fair minded. I can't see how he would be that much different than Justice Roberts. What are these past actions you find so alarming?

 
ZRod said:
I think that's a little over dramatic. He could clearly reference and interpret many cases (even though he prepaid that's still a tall task to remember all the info). If you listened to his rulings he seemed pretty fair minded. I can't see how he would be that much different than Justice Roberts. What are these past actions you find so alarming?
Click to expand...


Unabashedly corporate shill. At the expense of the planet. As long as businesses can make more money and have more freedom, all is well. And that's from Ralph Nader, one of the all time great consumer advocates. This is particularly bothersome:

He seems to love government power when it is arrayed against the people, ruling 7 times for police or human rights abuses versus zero rulings for the victims. But he rules against government agencies when they are protecting the interests of the people over those of corporations.

Even more extreme, he does not like human beings to sue corporations or sue the government. But if you are a corporation, the courthouse doors are always open.
Click to expand...


I mean what the hell.

Unabashedly pro-2A.  This argument tries to make him out to be some type of would-be moderate on this issue, but it's on the basis of thing he has said, not rulings he has made. I've heard enough mealy-mouthed wish-wash from Kavanaugh. He appears to have lied under oath no less than 5 times. He is a liar. Liars do not belong on the Supreme Court. Particularly when they cannot stop themselves from lying under oath. 

NM is a woman. Kavanaugh was asked directly whether he agreed with the landmark case that gave women the autonomy to make their own health decisions about their own bodies. He said it was the settled law of the land. Then an email surfaced from 2003 where he wasn't so sure that was the case.

To top it all off, he's a lifelong Republican partisan. He can go up there and offer all the same meaningless fluff we've gotten from every nominee since Bork proved being candid can lose you your seat, but he's been awash in GOP politics his entire career until he became a judge, and it's foolish to think he left that behind when he put on the robe. We're going to get all this drivel about calling balls and strike and interpreting the law independent of politics and "I'm an originalist!", but it's all just a load of crap. He's a been a Republican his whole life,  trained to rule in a way that is amenable to Republican goals, ruled that way as a judge and now will go to the Supreme Court to do things Republicans want him to do. 

This metric used in a FiveThirtyEight article lists him as far to the right of Roberts & just ever so slightly left of Thomas, the most conservative justice.

So, essentially, we got stuck with a dishonest Republican activist who is going to always side with corporations over people, not touch guns whatsoever & tell women what they can do with their bodies. He's a catastrophically bad nominee.

Edit: Also, voting rights bad, voter ID laws good. This guy just gets worst the more you learn about him. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really wish we could get away from these 35 year old charges, when Brett Kavanaugh was only 17, and concentrate on the choices he made as a man, a lawyer, and a political operative.

David Brock knew him well and even shared his conservative beliefs. So with all due respect to Dr. Ford, let's consider these adult and job-relevant decisions in Kavanaugh's job application for the most critical swing vote in our lifetime:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

 
I just want to chime in with something here.  This is mostly the anti-kavanaugh crowd that I'm addressing but keep in mind, I can't stand politicians in general so just hear me out.

What is the major complaint about the guy?  From what I can see, the guy has gone through 6 FBI checks already to get to his current position on the US court system.  Don't you think information would have already been made known had those other checks found anything?  

Second, what's the big fear about him being on the court?  It looks as though he's extremely impartial on his rulings in the past.  Now I've heard a lot of stuff in the news about Roe V Wade but that's just fear tactics isn't it?  I mean we were already supposed to be in a war with NK now that Trump is president.  Obama was the anti-christ by some.  Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these smuks in washignton (who own the news networks)? 

Let's look at this objectively.  First, the supreme court can't just pull up old cases and change rulings.  A new case would have to be presented similar to the original RVW case to readdress things.  Second, do we really all believe this is going to be altered?  It's been in the books for a LOOOONG time.  Even if it is, it's likely to just put the choice into the hands of each individual state.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I like the thought of being able to stay in the midwest because we do things differently than the coasts.  The government already mandates way too much of our lives.  The states were originally supposed to have most of the authority.  And even if...big if...the state's have the say on abortion legality, does anyone honestly believe there will be politicians that are going to risk angering half their voting population by trying to change things?  We're talking about politicians here.  They aren't going to jeopardize their big cushy jobs over this.  

So can we just see this thing for what it really is?  Delay tactics.  They had this woman's statement for 2 months.  Plenty of time to run all the investigations (and I'm sure they have already cause why wouldn't you find all that dirt and present it?).  Now it's politics...like a filibuster...but we're talking about messing up people's lives and that makes me sick.  Because now we're setting a new precedent that you are guilty and it's up to you to clear your name with only someone's accusation.  If they can do this to a supreme court judge nominee, they can do it to any one of us.  I've been falsely accused...it's awful.  You feel so helpless.  Thankfully, our justice system doesn't take one person's word over the over....until now.  

I simply can't agree that there should be a different rule of law for a supreme court justice nominee than everyone else.  And that's the argument being made.  We either have a system of law or we have anarchy.  This is anarchy.  This should not be tolerated.  This threatens us regular citizens now as it will eventually become the new law applied to all of us.  As a college professor and single father of 3, this scares the hell out of me.  All it would take with this new set of rules is a single spiteful student throwing an accusation at me over a grade and ruining my kids financial security.  

Just try to keep an eye on the big picture.  These politicians are the very definition of corruption.  Don't trust them or their news programming.  Dig up your own data.  That's the beauty of the internet (until they regulate that too like china), we have the power to make up our own minds by being able to find both sides of the story.  

 
irafreak said:
I just want to chime in with something here.  This is mostly the anti-kavanaugh crowd that I'm addressing but keep in mind, I can't stand politicians in general so just hear me out.

What is the major complaint about the guy?  From what I can see, the guy has gone through 6 FBI checks already to get to his current position on the US court system.  Don't you think information would have already been made known had those other checks found anything?  

Second, what's the big fear about him being on the court?  It looks as though he's extremely impartial on his rulings in the past.  Now I've heard a lot of stuff in the news about Roe V Wade but that's just fear tactics isn't it?  I mean we were already supposed to be in a war with NK now that Trump is president.  Obama was the anti-christ by some.  Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these smuks in washignton (who own the news networks)? 

Let's look at this objectively.  First, the supreme court can't just pull up old cases and change rulings.  A new case would have to be presented similar to the original RVW case to readdress things.  Second, do we really all believe this is going to be altered?  It's been in the books for a LOOOONG time.  Even if it is, it's likely to just put the choice into the hands of each individual state.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I like the thought of being able to stay in the midwest because we do things differently than the coasts.  The government already mandates way too much of our lives.  The states were originally supposed to have most of the authority.  And even if...big if...the state's have the say on abortion legality, does anyone honestly believe there will be politicians that are going to risk angering half their voting population by trying to change things?  We're talking about politicians here.  They aren't going to jeopardize their big cushy jobs over this.  

So can we just see this thing for what it really is?  Delay tactics.  They had this woman's statement for 2 months.  Plenty of time to run all the investigations (and I'm sure they have already cause why wouldn't you find all that dirt and present it?).  Now it's politics...like a filibuster...but we're talking about messing up people's lives and that makes me sick.  Because now we're setting a new precedent that you are guilty and it's up to you to clear your name with only someone's accusation.  If they can do this to a supreme court judge nominee, they can do it to any one of us.  I've been falsely accused...it's awful.  You feel so helpless.  Thankfully, our justice system doesn't take one person's word over the over....until now.  

I simply can't agree that there should be a different rule of law for a supreme court justice nominee than everyone else.  And that's the argument being made.  We either have a system of law or we have anarchy.  This is anarchy.  This should not be tolerated.  This threatens us regular citizens now as it will eventually become the new law applied to all of us.  As a college professor and single father of 3, this scares the hell out of me.  All it would take with this new set of rules is a single spiteful student throwing an accusation at me over a grade and ruining my kids financial security.  

Just try to keep an eye on the big picture.  These politicians are the very definition of corruption.  Don't trust them or their news programming.  Dig up your own data.  That's the beauty of the internet (until they regulate that too like china), we have the power to make up our own minds by being able to find both sides of the story.  
Click to expand...
You haven't been reading this thread just based off your first question. Also Kavanaugh is not impartial. He is a partisan hack and the only reason they are trying to ram him through is so Trump has some cover on the SC bench. It's obvious getting Kavanaugh in there has been a disaster so far. Why do they keep pushing when they could just put forth another nominee for confirmation? My guess is because Trump likes Kavanaughs moral flexibility.

You also realize this is a job interview right? Innocent until proven guilty only applies to our judicial system. I know plenty of employers who would want nothing to do with hiring Kavanaugh

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford Franklin said:
Unabashedly corporate shill. At the expense of the planet. As long as businesses can make more money and have more freedom, all is well. And that's from Ralph Nader, one of the all time great consumer advocates. This is particularly bothersome:

I mean what the hell.

Unabashedly pro-2A.  This argument tries to make him out to be some type of would-be moderate on this issue, but it's on the basis of thing he has said, not rulings he has made. I've heard enough mealy-mouthed wish-wash from Kavanaugh. He appears to have lied under oath no less than 5 times. He is a liar. Liars do not belong on the Supreme Court. Particularly when they cannot stop themselves from lying under oath. 

NM is a woman. Kavanaugh was asked directly whether he agreed with the landmark case that gave women the autonomy to make their own health decisions about their own bodies. He said it was the settled law of the land. Then an email surfaced from 2003 where he wasn't so sure that was the case.

To top it all off, he's a lifelong Republican partisan. He can go up there and offer all the same meaningless fluff we've gotten from every nominee since Bork proved being candid can lose you your seat, but he's been awash in GOP politics his entire career until he became a judge, and it's foolish to think he left that behind when he put on the robe. We're going to get all this drivel about calling balls and strike and interpreting the law independent of politics and "I'm an originalist!", but it's all just a load of crap. He's a been a Republican his whole life,  trained to rule in a way that is amenable to Republican goals, ruled that way as a judge and now will go to the Supreme Court to do things Republicans want him to do. 

This metric used in a FiveThirtyEight article lists him as far to the right of Roberts & just ever so slightly left of Thomas, the most conservative justice.

So, essentially, we got stuck with a dishonest Republican activist who is going to always side with corporations over people, not touch guns whatsoever & tell women what they can do with their bodies. He's a catastrophically bad nominee.

Edit: Also, voting rights bad, voter ID laws good. This guy just gets worst the more you learn about him. 
Click to expand...
I really hope you're not going to rely on. That hit piece as a source of evidence....

It's pretty difficult to tell what his actual record is. My understanding is that as a member of the D.C. circuit he is to uphold Supreme Court president, and not create it.

If Goursich never came about I don't think you would be seeing nearly the amount of outrage we are seeing today.

 
ZRod said:
I really hope you're not going to rely on. That hit piece as a source of evidence....

It's pretty difficult to tell what his actual record is. My understanding is that as a member of the D.C. circuit he is to uphold Supreme Court president, and not create it.

If Goursich never came about I don't think you would be seeing nearly the amount of outrage we are seeing today.
Click to expand...


He said he's going to respect precedent... until he doesn't. Because that's what you say.

My contention is that he is an unashamed Republican masquerading as an nonpartisan Originalist. Originalism is kind of just cover to rule in a conservative fashion anyhow.

I really hope you're not going through this appointment thinking Kavanaugh isn't going to trample on the rights of everyday people for the benefit of those in power and corporations. Because he is.

 
I'm sure you would have felt the same about Roberts, and yet he upheld Obamacare. Not much we can do about this nomination, so we'll see what happens.

 
Back
Top