[Sivad]

Nightmare? You realize this is exactly what ‘balance of power’ is all about? This struggle was built into the constitution and has been ongoing since day 1. This hardly makes Kavanaugh an extremist.

He'll balance the scale on freedom of association and the second amendment but he is a pro-corporate anti- fourth amendment, anti- reproductive rights extremist. Balancing the judiciary by loading it up with opposing extremist factions is not wise. I want reasonable people in the judiciary that respect all of my rights and protect my freedoms from both state and private power.

[One Degree]

I am quite sure that ‘stare decisis’ means "it has been decided. That it is settled law.

If he just returns it to the states then that undoes the whole opinion. That is the opposite of "settled law". Any change from the last one is the opposite of ‘stare decisis’.

Do you think that it would be a violation of ‘stare decisis’ if the SC went back to Plessy v Fergison and overturned Brown v board of Education? I do.

No, it wouldn’t. It is my understanding ‘stare decisis’ means legal precedent, not settled law. The latter is just a statement of current popular opinion that is accepted.

[Rich]

The American Constitution was all about balancing the competing interests of the governing elites of the the death camp, deep south, the slave breeding, near south, and the low population northern colonies. This crude abasement before the existing power bases steamrollered over any principle of good governance.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't know, kavanaugh is such a dangerous scumbag that a false rape accusation might actually be justified. If some woman took down hitler or stalin with a bogus rape accusation she'd be a hero in my book. Kavanaugh isn't quite that bad but he's still a pretty fucking reprehensible chud.

And this is exactly the kinds of disturbed and immoral reasoning that brought about Due Process in the first place and why Old Testament made false accusers liable to the death penalty.

"The Ends Justify The Means" have been used to defend every heinous crime against humanity the world has ever known and here you are defending such on a disagreement over a constitutional interpretation of executive powers!

The left views anyone, every remotely right of them, such a great threat to their cause that; false accusations, violence, or anything really, is completely justified in the cause of revolution.

Unless you have embraced communism @Sivad they would not view you differently. Would you like to be falsely accused and have your life destroyed because someone thought left-libertarianism was a threat to humanity?

I would say the same thing about a Hitler or a Stalin, hindsite is always 20/20 and the ends never justify the means, lest we become the people that we are trying to oppose: wicked advocates of tyranny

Once you allow for the criminalizing of the innocent as a precedent, the die has been cast.

We are almost there already in fact. After all, its okay to make false accusations if its not a matter of a formal trial.....Since politics is downstream of culture, its only a matter of time now before the law reflects this immoral change in the population.

[Sivad]

And this is exactly the kinds of disturbed and immoral reasoning that brought about Due Process in the first place and why Old Testament made false accusers liable to the death penalty.

I'm not saying that false accusations shouldn't be prohibited in general, just that they're not always unethical.

"The Ends Justify The Means" have been used to defend every heinous crime against humanity the world has ever known and here you are defending such on a disagreement over a constitutional interpretation of executive powers!

We all adhere to teleological ethics to some degree. Every time you tell a white lie to serve a greater good you're using an ends-means calculus. So there is no objection in principle, what you're really arguing here is just that the means aren't justified in this case.

The left views anyone, every remotely right of them, such a great threat to their cause that; false accusations, violence, or anything really, is completely justified in the cause of revolution.

This isn't really a left/right issue, it's more an authoritarian/libertarian issue. Anyone that threatens my liberty has declared war on me and I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary.

Unless you have embraced communism @Sivad they would not view you differently. Would you like to be falsely accused and have your life destroyed because someone thought left-libertarianism was a threat to humanity?

We're not talking about what's prudent as a matter of social injunction, obviously false accusations should be prohibited by law, the question is whether a false accusation is always wrong under any circumstances and I don't think it is.

I would say the same thing about a Hitler or a Stalin, hindsite is always 20/20 and the ends never justify the means, lest we become the people that we are trying to oppose: wicked advocates of tyranny

So that seems like teleological thinking right there. You seem to be saying we should refrain from doing what's right because ultimately it would lead to a greater evil than it would prevent. Am I reading you right on that?

[Steve_American]

I am not sure I understand your question. The best I can tell is you think my comments require him to support all liberal interpretations. That’s not the way ‘stare decisis’ works. Both sides present precedents. Due to his conservatism, he will probably favor the conservative arguments but not blindly ignoring the other precedents. This will result in a more ‘middle of the road’ opinion compared to a justice who devalues ‘stare decisis’.

Let me try to set you straight again. Please.

If ‘stare decisis’ means what you say it means then it is meaningless. When Kavanaugh was asked about abortion he said it was ‘stare decisis’. The Dems took that answer as sufficient. With all due respect to your opinion if the Dems on the committee had understood the legal term the way you do, they would have continued to ask him about it. However, legal terms have precise definitions.

The one you are trying to use here is so wishy-washy that it can mean anything.

I therefore think you need to do a little more research.

My research told me that ‘stare decisis’ means it is settled law, unless some overriding consideration of "fairness" (the word the source used) required the topic to be revisited.
So for example, Plessy v Fergeson was settled law until it was overruled 9 to 0 in Brown v Board of Education.

Sending Roe v Wade back to the states, states make their own law on it, state by state; is totally overruling it. That can not be what the Dems on that committee [who are all or mostly lawyers by the way] thought he meant.

------------------------------
As to the question of the Dems "digging up" dirt, my understanding is that the women came forward all by themselves. That there was no email or twitter campaign to dig anyone up. To me digging requires an effort on the Dems part. If the women come forward then the Dems have the choice in your eyes of being accused of digging up dirt OR of brushing the women off. Neither choice is a good one when it is your guys making the choice. Just as neither is a good choice when it is my guys making the choice. In both cases the women should/would/did get their day to testify.

[Rich]

I would say the same thing about a Hitler or a Stalin, hindsite is always 20/20 and the ends never justify the means, lest we become the people that we are trying to oppose: wicked advocates of tyranny

The ends often justify the means. If burglars / murderers / rapists broke into your house, you would shoot at them right? Although you would never dream of firing a weapon in your house under normal circumstances, putting innocent life at severe risk, including your own family members.

Of course the ends often justify the means. Of course ends can and should be used to justify means that in themselves would be wrong. But at the same time many attempts to use ends to justify means are not just wrong but absurd. It strikes me that both left and right and perhaps even the establishment centre have created fantasy worlds of absolute morality. Those of us on the Far-Centre have the intellectual courage to recognise the messiness and transience of moral conflict.

[One Degree]

Let me try to set you straight again. Please.

If ‘stare decisis’ means what you say it means then it is meaningless. When Kavanaugh was asked about abortion he said it was ‘stare decisis’. The Dems took that answer as sufficient. With all due respect to your opinion if the Dems on the committee had understood the legal term the way you do, they would have continued to ask him about it. However, legal terms have precise definitions.

The one you are trying to use here is so wishy-washy that it can mean anything.

I therefore think you need to do a little more research.

My research told me that ‘stare decisis’ means it is settled law, unless some overriding consideration of "fairness" (the word the source used) required the topic to be revisited.
So for example, Plessy v Fergeson was settled law until it was overruled 9 to 0 in Brown v Board of Education.

Sending Roe v Wade back to the states, states make their own law on it, state by state; is totally overruling it. That can not be what the Dems on that committee [who are all or mostly lawyers by the way] thought he meant.

------------------------------
As to the question of the Dems "digging up" dirt, my understanding is that the women came forward all by themselves. That there was no email or twitter campaign to dig anyone up. To me digging requires an effort on the Dems part. If the women come forward then the Dems have the choice in your eyes of being accused of digging up dirt OR of brushing the women off. Neither choice is a good one when it is your guys making the choice. Just as neither is a good choice when it is my guys making the choice. In both cases the women should/would/did get their day to testify.

The Dems did continue to question him on it extensively. You are using different words to say the same thing I did. It is ‘settled law’ until it is overturned. So ‘settled law’ doesn’t really have a legal definition. It is an opinion it may not be overturned in the near future. This does not exclude the possibility it will be.
The Dems were asking him if he would rely on ‘legal precedent’ in deciding to overturn or not. The Supreme Court is not required to rely on legal precedent.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I'm not saying that false accusations shouldn't be prohibited in general, just that they're not always unethical.

But I am not arguing about legality, I am arguing about the ethical foundation for the law itself. So that is exactly what is in mind here.

We all adhere to teleological ethics to some degree.

Thats a bit strong, people inconsistently make such calculation if they hold to, lets say, a normative system; however, all ethics do have teleological elements, but that is not my critique. My critique would be against utilitarianism at its root. The notion that teleology is justification for moral standards is highly problematic, even IF we didn't take into account that such ethical systems were not already fallaciously derived from observation, which they are.

This isn't really a left/right issue, it's more an authoritarian/libertarian issue. Anyone that threatens my liberty has declared war on me and I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary.

Would you say even at the expense of liberty itself?

This is a question that should be pondered carefully. How many "marxist intellectuals" supported Stalin's reign of terror because they believed it was necessary for the eventual liberation and empowering of the working class to govern themselves?

Should we embrace tyranny and evil as a means of advancing liberty?

Has history born out that liberty ever really returns once we sacrifice it in the short term under the "claim" that we wish to see it in the long term?

I have serious doubts on this.

We're not talking about what's prudent as a matter of social injunction

Actually I am, my example addressed to you had nothing to do with legal proceedings, you can have your life destroyed by false accusations without ever suffering any actual penalty under law. What says you about the ethics of such?

I think such is abhorrent and objectively so, and no utilitarian calculus will save it, not without sacrificing liberty on that altar altogether.

This of course, being part of the reason I believe dueling should be decriminalized. So that those who have been falsely accused can at least regain their honor through natural justice.

So that seems like teleological thinking right there. You seem to be saying we should refrain from doing what's right because ultimately it would lead to a greater evil than it would prevent. Am I reading you right on that?

No, I am actually turning your own argument around for you to face it in the mirror.

Part of the justification you used in your case as to why false accusations would be acceptable was in bringing up known tyrants like Stalin and Hitler as if no one would challenge you on it.

You were banking on the fact that it would "be obvious" that in order for such genocidal tyranny to be stopped, a false accusation would've been retroactively justifiable.

I turned this around with a warning, that if you believe such tyranny was so evil, then why would you engage in it yourself in the attempt to stop it?

That is why you become what you claim to oppose, for such regimes use false accusations and turning-neighbor-against-neighbor as a means for their destruction of liberty. I am not using teleology, I am arguing that given your examples, your argument has ad-reductio or contradictory elements in it.

If Hitler and Stalin are so evil, then why would you presume to mimic them?

Thats the point.

My own argumentation ethic and biblical ethic suffices for my reasons against false accusations. Actual standards rooted in logic and command that do not reduce to some nebulous calculations founded in a naturalistic fallacy that can be twisted to suit ones own pragmatic aims whatever they may be.

The idea of good men, liberty loving men, taking the tool-box of the tyrants as if that would further the aims of justice should disgust and concern us all and you should really know better.

Seriously.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The ends often justify the means. If burglars / murderers / rapists broke into your house, you would shoot at them right? Although you would never dream of firing a weapon in your house under normal circumstances, putting innocent life at severe risk, including your own family members.

I believe I can kill such persons because they violated the logically derived principle of the NAP and because Scripture authorizes my use of lethal force in such situations (Exodus 22:2-3).

I reject teleological ethics because they are ad-reductio, ambiguous, and fallacious.

[Steve_American]

The Dems did continue to question him on it extensively. You are using different words to say the same thing I did. It is ‘settled law’ until it is overturned. So ‘settled law’ doesn’t really have a legal definition. It is an opinion it may not be overturned in the near future. This does not exclude the possibility it will be.
The Dems were asking him if he would rely on ‘legal precedent’ in deciding to overturn or not. The Supreme Court is not required to rely on legal precedent.

OK, I'll leave it there, except ---

It is my opinion that if about 4500 people were polled and there were asked these 2 questions [hidden in among many others], that the results would surprise you.
My gut tells me that about 25% would be in favor of overturning Brown v Board of Education.
IIRC, polls have shown that about 75% are in favor of basically leaving Roe v Wade alone. I think the imaginary poll above would give us that percentage.

That is, just as many Americans would favor overturning Brown as would favor overturning Roe.

[Steve_American]

Another point on the "cheating in a Constitutional way" question.

My side is appalled by the way that the Repuds are ignoring the traditional rules that we have lived under all my life. For example, always moving forward on judicial appointments in a timely way. They all get an up-or-down vote and the filibuster is in effect. Meaning you need 67% and then 60% to approve judges, meaning you need some from the other party.

IIRC, the Constitution has wording that in effect lets Congress make the rules for the US SC. So, how about Congress by majority vote and the Pres. signs a law that makes the SC have to vote 6-3 whenever it is overturning a law or SC presedent that has stood as is for 20 or more years. And vote 7-2 whenever it is overturning a law or SC presedent that has stood as is for 40 or more years.

[Finfinder]

KARMA = Michael Avenatti

Michael Avenatti arrested in Los Angeles, denies domestic violence accusations

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 006582002/

[One Degree]

Another point on the "cheating in a Constitutional way" question.

My side is appalled by the way that the Repuds are ignoring the traditional rules that we have lived under all my life. For example, always moving forward on judicial appointments in a timely way. They all get an up-or-down vote and the filibuster is in effect. Meaning you need 67% and then 60% to approve judges, meaning you need some from the other party.

IIRC, the Constitution has wording that in effect lets Congress make the rules for the US SC. So, how about Congress by majority vote and the Pres. signs a law that makes the SC have to vote 6-3 whenever it is overturning a law or SC presedent that has stood as is for 20 or more years. And vote 7-2 whenever it is overturning a law or SC presedent that has stood as is for 40 or more years.

I too think it should be harder to pass all laws in theory to prevent over legislation, but in reality nothing would ever get done. You would never get a justice appointed and they would never overturn anything. This may seem like a good thing to you now, but what if we had done it 60 years ago? This is the same mistake Dems made that is allowing Trump to push his appointments through.

[Steve_American]

I too think it should be harder to pass all laws in theory to prevent over legislation, but in reality nothing would ever get done. You would never get a justice appointed and they would never overturn anything. This may seem like a good thing to you now, but what if we had done it 60 years ago? This is the same mistake Dems made that is allowing Trump to push his appointments through.

I confused you. Sorry.
I was just suggesting the last point about overturning long standing presedents. Mostly, it is 5-4 decisions that seem unfair or like 'legislating from the bench'.
Yes, other than that, for now what we have is pretty good, given the political atmosphere. Which sucks, though.

[Victoribus Spolia]

KARMA = Michael Avenatti

Michael Avenatti arrested in Los Angeles, denies domestic violence accusations

That did make me chuckle.

Let me be the first to say, that no one should believe his accusers until evidence is provided.

Both in and out of Court, both under the Law, and in regards to public opinion.

No one's life should be destroyed on mere accusation.

I stand by that principle, even for this dickhead.

[Finfinder]

That did make me chuckle.

Let me be the first to say, that no one should believe his accusers until evidence is provided.

Both in and out of Court, both under the Law, and in regards to public opinion.

No one's life should be destroyed on mere accusation.

I stand by that principle, even for this dickhead.

Very true I agree have to be consistent. I think many are holding off until we see some evidence. Its a felony charge so very serious.

[Ter]

Yes, the time that nagging bitches could be slapped around is gone.

Maybe this incident is the start of his campaign for President of the USA. He tried to copy Trump

[Libertarian353]

I stand by that principle, even for this dickhead.

He's a dickhead cause he doesn't hate women?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Does it matter?

Women are screwed anyway.

According to UK government figures:

Barely one in 10 rapes are reported to police.

Only one in 10 rapes reported to police goes to trial.

And of that one in 10 going to trial, in only 7% of cases is a man convicted.

This is the very reason why it does matter.