Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

I did not know much about him prior to the nom ... But the facts coming out don't paint him in a bad light. Start with the fact his ruling have pleased and disappointed both ends' the political spectrum. Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard. Apparently his opinions are often quoted in SCOTUS decisions. All of the liberal judges have hired his clerks for themselves.  He won confirmation with a large majority. 

 

I don't think he's 'bad'.  Just uninteresting.  He looks like a very traditional conservative judge.  He went to Georgetown Prep then Yale - meaning he's typical trained.  In any other life, he'd be a CPA or insurance actuary.  I'm sure he's a nice guy.

Just boring.  I see nothing he offers nothing that the other eight don't already offer.  Same ole same ole, kick the can, kinda pick. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I don't think he's 'bad'.  Just uninteresting.  He looks like a very traditional conservative judge.  He went to Georgetown Prep then Yale - meaning he's typical trained.  In any other life, he'd be a CPA or insurance actuary.  I'm sure he's a nice guy.

Just boring.  I see nothing he offers nothing that the other eight don't already offer.  Same ole same ole, kick the can, kinda pick. 

 

Scotus should be boring. After all is is not supposed to be a creative body. Just a referee of the rule book. 

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True.  But I truly wish that the referees would at least bring different perspectives.  The idea that some kid from Iowa could grow up to be a SCOTUS is done.  Harvard, Yale, or don't bother.  Be part of the beautiful people or need not apply.

We're becoming old Europe.  Be born in the right place.  Go to the right schools.  Johnathan Swift, all over again.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, it coulda been worse"

What a pathetic description of something as consequential as a young SCOTUS appointment.

He'll probably be there for 30 years or more - but it coulda been worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

We're becoming old Europe.  Be born in the right place.  Go to the right schools.  Johnathan Swift, all over again.

Becoming? The Ivy League has been running the USA for the last century.

They did a fuck of a lot better job than the proles who are running it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

oboyxray.gif.e8a7354859a16b0de065ca754319da61.gif

Bow? Try annotating this one Jack.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Scotus should be boring. After all is is not supposed to be a creative body. Just a referee of the rule book. 

I heard deputy Whitehouse press secretary Raj Shah interviewed this afternoon.  He was asked if Kavanaugh was picked on the basis of his position on abortion.  Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick. Interviewer Ailsa Chang then plays a recording where Trump specifically makes the promise to put pro-life judges on the supreme court.  Raj then continued to talk as if the recording was never played.

It was a masterful dance in the méthode malarkey.  

Whole interview is here:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627782693/white-house-spokesman-defends-president-trumps-supreme-court-nominee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I heard deputy Whitehouse press secretary Raj Shah interviewed this afternoon.  He was asked if Kavanaugh was picked on the basis of his position on abortion.  Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick. Interviewer Ailsa Chang then plays a recording where Trump specifically makes the promise to put pro-life judges on the supreme court.  Raj then continued to talk as if the recording was never played.

It was a masterful dance in the méthode malarkey.  

Whole interview is here:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627782693/white-house-spokesman-defends-president-trumps-supreme-court-nominee

 

Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick."

He was being honest. It is fair to assume all of the people on Trump's list which was,  after all, public before he was elected are pro life personallyy. (my guess) . Hence that would not need to be a part of the selection process.

More importantly pro life personally does not mean an automatic vote against Roe. And let's not forget that reversing R v W would not ban or restrict Abortion in and of itself. It would simply make each state revert to the laws they have on the books. Massachusetts is already proposing a rewrite of state law in anticipation of a reversal in the future.  

Liberals impose laws on me that i really disagree with. OCARE for example. In a pluralistic society I have to grin  and accept that. If Roe is overturned then you will have to accept the laws the majority in your state pass. 

 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 

Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick."

He was being honest. It is fair to assume all of the people on Trump's list which was,  after all, public before he was elected are pro life personallyy. (my guess) . Hence that would not need to be a part of the selection process.

More importantly pro life personally does not mean an automatic vote against Roe. And let's not forget that reversing R v W would not ban or restrict Abortion in and of itself. It would simply make each state revert to the laws they have on the books. Massachusetts is already proposing a rewrite of state law in anticipation of a reversal in the future.  

Liberals impose laws on me that i really disagree with. OCARE for example. In a pluralistic society I have to grin  and accept that. If Roe is overturned then you will have to accept the laws the majority in your state pass. 

 

Roe (an emanation of a penumbra) is not likely to be overturned though it would indeed revert to the 50 separate state. Why do the opposition want a Judge who is anything BUT boring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 

Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick."

He was being honest. It is fair to assume all of the people on Trump's list which was,  after all, public before he was elected are pro life personallyy. (my guess) . Hence that would not need to be a part of the selection process.

More importantly pro life personally does not mean an automatic vote against Roe. And let's not forget that reversing R v W would not ban or restrict Abortion in and of itself. It would simply make each state revert to the laws they have on the books. Massachusetts is already proposing a rewrite of state law in anticipation of a reversal in the future.  

Liberals impose laws on me that i really disagree with. OCARE for example. In a pluralistic society I have to grin  and accept that. If Roe is overturned then you will have to accept the laws the majority in your state pass. 

I wish we could just drop this “pro-life” charade. 

These folks are “pro-birth”. One the kid is born, you don’t see these folks advocating for that life.  Cuts to social programs, medical coverage, nutritional programs, etc. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bhyde said:

Bow? Try annotating this one Jack.

giphy.gif

Nah- that was a bone spur attack....;)...shiver up the leg....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I wish we could just drop this “pro-life” charade. 

These folks are “pro-birth”. One the kid is born, you don’t see these folks advocating for that life.  Cuts to social programs, medical coverage, nutritional programs, etc. 

We should just euthanize everyone living in less than Ideal circumstances. And you are patently wrong as there are huge waiting lists for newborns to adopt. 

If you have not figured out that abortion is a crafty form of Black and poor minority genocide you're an idiot.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Becoming? The Ivy League has been running the USA for the last century.

they've always been there but it hasn't been exclusively Harvard & yale until recently. Rehnquist & O'Connor both went to Stanford Law. Stevens Northwestern. Powell - Washington & Lee Law, Blackmun - Howard Law. Souter was Yale, but was also a Rhodes Scholar. Justices in the past had experience in the military, or as politicians. Now the go to Harvard or Yale and get on the judicial/political ladder.

that narrow experience is before we get to geographic diversity for life experience. There are 5 justices in the history of the court born in the western US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Gold medals are heavy. 

Cheap considering the rise in oil prices.

The POTUS curtsying priceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, benwynn said:

I heard deputy Whitehouse press secretary Raj Shah interviewed this afternoon.  He was asked if Kavanaugh was picked on the basis of his position on abortion.  Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick. Interviewer Ailsa Chang then plays a recording where Trump specifically makes the promise to put pro-life judges on the supreme court.  Raj then continued to talk as if the recording was never played.

It was a masterful dance in the méthode malarkey.  

Whole interview is here:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627782693/white-house-spokesman-defends-president-trumps-supreme-court-nominee

 

When you've made a promise like that and then appoint a guy who has been busy defending Emily's List's corporate first amendment rights, you really don't want to talk about it much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Becoming? The Ivy League has been running the USA for the last century.

They did a fuck of a lot better job than the proles who are running it now.

......And as the Ivy League has run the country, internecine conflict therein has become sharper, and something like this: imagine, if you will......

“Oh God, he’s Eli, and the whole place will fall apart!”

“Egads, man, can’t you see it?  Yale graduates are theoretically inclined shape shifters!  We can only guess what Trump sees when he looks at one of, of, them!”

“Eli are calling that place in Cambridge ‘Harvard voc tech’!” ( That one is actually true- :))

“It’s happening right under our upturned noses!

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fake news said:

Can one of you liberals tell me what is causing the Roe freak out when this guy is pro-choice? 

Because Roe was a fragile decision legally & politically.  

And now the right will try something equally shakey to chip away at state’s rights.

All because of willful political indolence.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I freak out if someone at the fish cleaning table slices into a roe.

I've also been known to dive under a fish cleaning table when someone failed to harvest it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I wish we could just drop this “pro-life” charade. 

These folks are “pro-birth”. One the kid is born, you don’t see these folks advocating for that life.  Cuts to social programs, medical coverage, nutritional programs, etc. 

Are social programs the only way for a government to promote life? I could make the case that reducing the need for social programs is promoting life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Amati said:

Because Roe was a fragile decision legally & politically.  

And now the right will try something equally shakey to chip away at state’s rights.

All because of willful political indolence.....

Wouldn't deferring to the states on the question of abortion be advancing states rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are social programs the only way for a government to promote life? I could make the case that reducing the need for social programs is promoting life.

When you are a socialist with a hammer, everything looks like a nail....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

When you are a socialist with a hammer, everything looks like a nail sickle....

FIFY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fake news said:

Why does a SC that is pro choice make you think that? 

We don’t know what this guy will do when this ambition is satisfied.  No one does.  He has been very successfully political- that’s all we really know.  His decisions are kind of all over the place....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Amati said:
1 hour ago, Fake news said:

Why does a SC that is pro choice make you think that? 

We don’t know what this guy will do when this ambition is satisfied.  No one does.  He has been very successfully political- that’s all we really know.  His decisions are kind of all over the place....

what about the other 8 members?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick."

I would agree with that. What a Trump likely finds compelling about Kavenaugh is his stance on Executive power and his belief that a President shouldn’t be bothered with pesky subpoenas while in office.  

(This one’s for you Hermetic)

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-trump-mueller-subpoena.html

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON — It is not every day that a potential constitutional showdown over a presidential subpoena coincides with a confirmation hearing for a crucial Supreme Court seat. Less likely yet is a nominee who has written extensively about the very question at the heart of the dispute.

But that novel historical moment is here.

“It is not at all far-fetched to think that the question of whether President Trump must respond to a subpoena could come before the Supreme Court shortly after the confirmation process,” said Walter Dellinger, who served as acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration.

Mr. Trump’s choice for the court, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, has expressed strong support for executive power, hostility to administrative agencies and support for gun rights and religious freedom.

Those are all conventional positions among conservative lawyers and judges. But there is one stance that sets Judge Kavanaugh apart, and it could not be more timely: his deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

I would agree with that. What a Trump likely finds compelling about Kavenaugh is his stance on Executive power and his belief that a President shouldn’t be bothered with pesky subpoenas while in office.  

(This one’s for you Hermetic)

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-trump-mueller-subpoena.html

Excerpt -

WASHINGTON — It is not every day that a potential constitutional showdown over a presidential subpoena coincides with a confirmation hearing for a crucial Supreme Court seat. Less likely yet is a nominee who has written extensively about the very question at the heart of the dispute.

But that novel historical moment is here.

“It is not at all far-fetched to think that the question of whether President Trump must respond to a subpoena could come before the Supreme Court shortly after the confirmation process,” said Walter Dellinger, who served as acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration.

Mr. Trump’s choice for the court, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, has expressed strong support for executive power, hostility to administrative agencies and support for gun rights and religious freedom.

Those are all conventional positions among conservative lawyers and judges. But there is one stance that sets Judge Kavanaugh apart, and it could not be more timely: his deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases.

Interesting how Judge Kavanaugh came to that realization AFTER he was primary author of the Starr Report.

"Who knew the Presidency was such a busy position?" (likely Kavanaugh quote)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

yup, you need to peen the blade

 

I think she'd break my arm off if we arm-wrestled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

what about the other 8 members?

Fairly predictable, but even Roberts has pissed off the faithful every now and then, as have most of them, so there you go!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

FIFY

 

And yet, all those socialists with  their hammers and sickles were recruiting righties for the cause (starting in the 50’s) because they couldn’t trust lefties with socialist secrets long term....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So - listened a little to Levin and y'all yesterday. This guy looks to have been picked ONLY because he's stated, based on his time on the Starr team, that sitting presidents shouldn't have to deal with any legal issues till post-service.

Now, Levin is a rabid rightie, and he's clearly not happy. The Left has breathed a collective "meh" sigh. And the little nationalists on this board dance. 

Maybe that Trump-as-a-cult-figure is close to the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

So - listened a little to Levin and y'all yesterday. This guy looks to have been picked ONLY because he's stated, based on his time on the Starr team, that sitting presidents shouldn't have to deal with any legal issues till post-service.

Now, Levin is a rabid rightie, and he's clearly not happy. The Left has breathed a collective "meh" sigh. And the little nationalists on this board dance. 

Maybe that Trump-as-a-cult-figure is close to the truth?

Close? It’s why the Evangelicals adore the man!  It’s purely a cult of personality!  He is them.  They are him.  They are one, fighting Liberal Marxists, backed by the only true fortress of Christianity, Russia!  This is about Faith and Feeling, not reason!

If any of this group changes their feelings, they lose their identity, friends, family, and community.  It is an existential fear.  It is real.

It is the end of the enlightenment, pure and simple.  Rip up the Declaration of Independence. Goodbye to the rule of law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you got nothin’.  

As I expected!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 

Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick."

He was being honest. It is fair to assume all of the people on Trump's list which was,  after all, public before he was elected are pro life personallyy. (my guess) . Hence that would not need to be a part of the selection process.More importantly pro life personally does not mean an automatic vote against Roe.

Did you not listen to the clip or read the link, therefore not knowing what you are talking about, or just completely ignoring Trump's statement as Raj did?

"CHRIS WALLACE: Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be - that's - will happen. And that'll happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

Did you not listen to the clip or read the link, therefore not knowing what you are talking about, or just completely ignoring Trump's statement as Raj did?

"CHRIS WALLACE: Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be - that's - will happen. And that'll happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

This will be one of those rare times NHHMT will ignore what President Trump said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fake news said:

Can one of you liberals tell me what is causing the Roe freak out when this guy is pro-choice? 

It's a quote made by Trump that I posted that you need to pretend does not exist. That being said I can't provide an answer to you that is not grounded in reality. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fake news said:

Can one of you liberals tell me what is causing the Roe freak out when this guy is pro-choice? 

Well, since the libs won’t answer, I will.  The D establishment knows they can’t stop Kavanaugh, and he is unlikely to support overturning R v. W in any case. But Roe is what gets progs all hot and bothered and pro-abortiony ie:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/396047-michelle-wolf-salutes-abortions-god-bless-abortions-and-god-bless-america

So the D establishment amps up the anti-(fill-in-the-blank) fund-raising hysteria knowing the libs will open their wallets/purses and fill the coffers of said establishment.  Win/win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Did you not listen to the clip or read the link, therefore not knowing what you are talking about, or just completely ignoring Trump's statement as Raj did?

"CHRIS WALLACE: Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be - that's - will happen. And that'll happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

It is a given that every justice on Trump's list is pro life. It is not something he has to verify or question the person in the interview about. So it is perfectly honest to say the matter was not raised with the nominee. 

You think you know what context he had in mind when he answered the question.  I read his commnet to mean in picking from the names on the list it was not an issue. 

 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, J28 said:

In other words, you got nothin’.  

As I expected!

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Amati said:

Exactly.

In post 136, you write this:  ...”If any of this group changes their feelings, they lose their identity, friends, family, and community.  It is an existential fear.  It is real.”  Quite an insight into a whole bunch of folks you don’t know anything about, except that you hate them and believe they are morally and intellectually inferior to  you and your elk.

So I post a link to a article about a Harvard law professor with impeccable liberal bona fides who has the audacity to not toe the D line on impeachment, which has caused his liberal friends on MV to ban him.  Your response:  Alan Dershowitz is an attention whore.  You’re doing the same thing as his “friends”.  He wanders off the reservation on one issue, and you ridicule him.  

The left actually does what it imagines the folks on the right are like.

You can’t make this shit up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It is a given that every justice on Trump's list is pro life. It is not something he has to verify or question the person in the interview about. So it is perfectly honest to say the matter was not raised with the nominee. 

You think you know what context he had in mind when he answered the question.  I read his commnet to mean in picking from the names on the list it was not an issue. 

 

 

Perhaps we should review our exchange:

On 7/10/2018 at 7:00 PM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Raj said that Kavenaugh's views on abortion had nothing to do with the pick."

He was being honest. It is fair to assume all of the people on Trump's list which was,  after all, public before he was elected are pro life personallyy. (my guess) . Hence that would not need to be a part of the selection process.

More importantly pro life personally does not mean an automatic vote against Roe. And let's not forget that reversing R v W would not ban or restrict Abortion in and of itself.

 

If I read this correctly, your claim, in the context of Trumps pick of Kavenaugh for the SC, was that the position of pro-life does not necessarily reflect a vote against Roe v. Wade.

In response, I posted the direct quote from Trump where he infers that it DOES:

 

8 hours ago, benwynn said:

Did you not listen to the clip or read the link, therefore not knowing what you are talking about, or just completely ignoring Trump's statement as Raj did?

"CHRIS WALLACE: Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be - that's - will happen. And that'll happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

 

Now... I know you, as a Trump supporter, cannot directly acknowledge anything Trump says.  He doesn't, so why should you?  So instead you post this:

 

7 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It is a given that every justice on Trump's list is pro life. It is not something he has to verify or question the person in the interview about. So it is perfectly honest to say the matter was not raised with the nominee. 

 

I agree, it is perfectly honest to say the matter was not raised with the nominee. The problem is that was not the question.   It could be perfectly honest to say "My favorite steak is a Ribeye."  But it does not necessarily count if the question is, "Do you know how fast you were driving?" 

The interviewer never asked whether "the matter was raised with the nominee".  She asked these two questions:

"Did the White House choose Kavanaugh because of its confidence that he would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Are saying that Kavanaugh's views on abortion were not part of the calculation in choosing him?"

Raj basically answered in the negative to both of these questions, along with the same deflecting flourish that you employ here, including stating that Trump never asked Kavenaugh about specific issues or rulings, even though that was not the question. 

So how do you reconcile the fact that Trump made a campaign promise to appoint pro-life justices on the supreme court with the assumption that overturning Roe v. Wade be "automatic" as a result, with your claim that the issue apparently played no part in the nomination of Kavanaugh?

Was he lying when he made the promise?  Hyperbole?  Exaggeration?  Give it your best shot.  Raj did, and he failed miserably.  You can do better.  We both know you are the smartest guy in the room. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, J28 said:

So I post a link to a article about a Harvard law professor with impeccable liberal bona fides who has the audacity to not toe the D line on impeachment, which has caused his liberal friends on MV to ban him.  Your response:  Alan Dershowitz is an attention whore.  You’re doing the same thing as his “friends”.  He wanders off the reservation on one issue, and you ridicule him.  

what the fuck are you babbling about??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J28 said:

In post 136, you write this:  ...”If any of this group changes their feelings, they lose their identity, friends, family, and community.  It is an existential fear.  It is real.”  Quite an insight into a whole bunch of folks you don’t know anything about, except that you hate them and believe they are morally and intellectually inferior to  you and your elk.

So I post a link to a article about a Harvard law professor with impeccable liberal bona fides who has the audacity to not toe the D line on impeachment, which has caused his liberal friends on MV to ban him.  Your response:  Alan Dershowitz is an attention whore.  You’re doing the same thing as his “friends”.  He wanders off the reservation on one issue, and you ridicule him.  

The left actually does what it imagines the folks on the right are like.

You can’t make this shit up!

You don’t know anything about my experience with the right, and yet you insist you do. You know Dershowitz on many levels, and you swallow his conservative bullshit.

You make my argument for me, you hallucinating, phlegmatic, Russian whore.

Move to Siberia for five years, and show us you have some big pink hairy cajones... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

what the fuck are you babbling about??

It requires an 8 y.o.’s level of comprehension and logic, so it is way over your ability. You may get there someday if you try really hard, but I doubt it.

Go back to your coloring books, you’ll be less frustrated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amati said:

You don’t know anything about my experience with the right, and yet you insist you do. You know Dershowitz on many levels, and you swallow his conservative bullshit.

You make my argument for me, you hallucinating, phlegmatic, Russian whore.

Move to Siberia for five years, and show us you have some big pink hairy cajones... 

Dershowitz conservative? 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Next up, right wing Karl Marx!

You can’t make this shit up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J28 said:

Dershowitz conservative? 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Next up, right wing Karl Marx!

You can’t make this shit up!

Dershowitz is a civil rights attorney- while politically he professes to be liberal, intellectually he operates outside of politics, however politics may be influenced by what he does, and there are people who use his work for their own ends all over the spectrum.  Add to this his addiction to celebrity, and I would argue that he is in sum apolitical, surfing whatever media will give him attention- so yes, conservative bullshit, because it gets him what he wants- attention- but if he cares about civil rights any more at all, those arguments are getting lost in the noise of  a riot he is helping to stoke:  do you really believe Hannity is thinking deeply about Trump’s civil rights?

https://www.politico.com/hard/story/2018/05/11/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-what-happened-218359

And Marx is being twisted into a right-wing scree, and it’s hard not to believe you are in it up to your neck whether you’re cognizant of it or not....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One test of an apolitical lawyer: is his name commonly known?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

One test of an apolitical lawyer: is his name commonly known?

You be the judge-  here’s a short list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 7:14 AM, Amati said:

And now the right will try something equally shakey to chip away at state’s rights.

What do state's rights have to do with Roe v. Wade? A case that explicitly overturned state laws and declared abortion a "right" in the US...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:

What do state's rights have to do with Roe v. Wade? A case that explicitly overturned state laws and declared abortion a "right" in the US...

I asked my lawyer for some clarity:  if Roe is struck down, then state law takes effect- if a state has legalized abortion, then anti abortion federal forces can try to make state laws illegal, whether by federal judicial activism or federal legislation.

Of course, states can pass legislation either way, or, more likely, indulge in state level judicial activism, which all sides indulge in with wicked glee...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:

What do state's rights have to do with Roe v. Wade? A case that explicitly overturned state laws and declared abortion a "right" in the US...

You need to read up on Roe v. Wade.

Privacy and States rights were the core of the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 4:42 AM, Dog said:

Are social programs the only way for a government to promote life? I could make the case that reducing the need for social programs is promoting life.

You couldn't make a case for a satisfying morning dump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

You couldn't make a case for a satisfying morning dump.

He couldn't make a case if he worked for Samsonite.   

:rolleyes::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 9:30 AM, Saorsa said:

You need to read up on Roe v. Wade.

Privacy and States rights were the core of the case. 

No kidding. Did you read what I was responding to?

On 7/11/2018 at 7:14 AM, Amati said:

And now the right will try something equally shakey to chip away at state’s rights.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the issue to the states, which is not "chipping away at state's rights"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

No kidding. Did you read what I was responding to?

Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the issue to the states, which is not "chipping away at state's rights"

Sorry what I said was confusing- I meant to say they’ll start chopping away after it’s gone, federally....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh Claimed He’d Overturn Constitutionality of Independent Counsel

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nomination, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, is coming under fire for comments he made two years ago. Kavanaugh said at the time that he wants to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that upholds the constitutionality of an independent counsel.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mid said:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, is coming under fire for comments he made two years ago. Kavanaugh said at the time that he wants to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that upholds the constitutionality of an independent counsel.

An opinion he shares with noted right wingers Janet Reno and Elena Kagan, among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above link:
 

Quote

 

Finally, the bipartisan condemnation of the Morrison majority, and praise for the dissent, extends to Justices as well. Justice Elena Kagan, in an event at Stanford,

called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s lone dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), in which he argued that the Independent Counsel Act should be struck down because it was a wolf in wolf’s clothing, “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.”

It is familiar that a case may be good law in some senses but not in others. Morrison v. Olson remains on the books, not formally overruled. Then again, so do other cases that have long since entered the anticanon, like Palmer v. Thompson. The bipartisan condemnation of the majority opinion, and elevation of Justice Scalia's dissent to canonical status, means that in all likelihood the Court would discard Morrison or distinguish it into oblivion, should another occasion present itself. Both in the departmentalist sense of law, and in Holmes's sense of law as a prediction of judicial behavior, Morrison is discredited.

 

The author of the article is right, and...

Quote

Adrian Vermeule is the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law. Before coming to the Law School

If you don't know which one is "the" Law School, it's one of those "if you have to ask" things.

Mid, if you're going to attack this nominee as extremist, it's probably best to pick an opinion where he disagrees with the likes of Elena Kagan and Haaahhhvahhd law guys.

Share this post


Link to post
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