Justice Kennedy’s retirement allows Trump to become the restorer of GOP values - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14931718
The Democrats might be a post-constitutional party now, but there are still some honest Liberals out there:

A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh

    The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

    In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh. He sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists.

    Judge Kavanaugh, who is 53, has already helped decide hundreds of cases concerning a broad range of difficult issues. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important ideas and arguments — such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats and his skepticism about newfangled attacks on the property rights of criminal defendants — have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.

    Except for Judge Garland, no one has sent more of his law clerks to clerk for the justices of the Supreme Court than Judge Kavanaugh has. And his clerks have clerked for justices across the ideological spectrum.

    Most judges are not scholars or even serious readers of scholarship. Judge Kavanaugh, by contrast, has taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles. More important, he is an avid consumer of legal scholarship. He reads and learns. And he reads scholars from across the political spectrum. (Disclosure: I was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School.)

    This studiousness is especially important for a jurist like Judge Kavanaugh, who prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an “originalist” judge — who also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted — cannot do all the historical and conceptual legwork on his or her own.

    Judge Kavanaugh seems to appreciate this fact, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia, a fellow originalist, did not read enough history and was especially weak on the history of the Reconstruction amendments and the 20th-century amendments.

    A great judge also admits and learns from past mistakes. Here, too, Judge Kavanaugh has already shown flashes of greatness, admirably confessing that some of the views he held 20 years ago as a young lawyer — including his crabbed understandings of the presidency when he was working for the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr — were erroneous.

    Although Democrats are still fuming about Judge Garland’s failed nomination, the hard truth is that they control neither the presidency nor the Senate; they have limited options. Still, they could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible.

    This would be a mistake. Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. So I propose that the Democrats offer the following compromise: Each Senate Democrat will pledge either to vote yes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation — or, if voting no, to first publicly name at least two clearly better candidates whom a Republican president might realistically have nominated instead (not an easy task). In exchange for this act of good will, Democrats will insist that Judge Kavanaugh answer all fair questions at his confirmation hearing.

    Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.

    Everyone would have to understand that in honestly answering, Judge Kavanaugh would not be making a pledge — a pledge would be a violation of judicial independence. In the future, he would of course be free to change his mind if confronted with new arguments or new facts, or even if he merely comes to see a matter differently with the weight of judgment on his shoulders. But honest discussions of one’s current legal views are entirely proper, and without them confirmation hearings are largely pointless.

    The compromise I’m proposing would depart from recent confirmation practice. But the current confirmation process is badly broken, alternating between rubber stamps and witch hunts. My proposal would enable each constitutional actor to once again play its proper constitutional role: The Senate could become a venue for serious constitutional conversation, and the nominee could demonstrate his or her consummate legal skill. And equally important: Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninetysomething Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fiftysomething votes he is likely to get.
#14931720
Zagadka wrote:I'm a "liberal activist" wanting to update the Constitution....

There is a good deal that I, too, would like to see updated in the Constitution -- giving 2/3 of the states a veto on federal court decisions; divvying up the Electoral College by House district with the votes for the senators going to whoever wins a majority of the state; requiring House districts to be united, compact, and contiguous ... the list is long. And we have the Article V amendment process for when we reach a consensus of the states on any changes to be made. And not before. For anything before that point, there is always federal and state laws and state constitutions.
#14931725
The avalanche of lies, bullshit and propaganda has begun with a bang. Mitch McConnell has urged senators to give their vote a fair consideration …… this is from a guy whose idea of fairness is to hold up Obama's pick for the court for a few months so as to deep six it.

Then there is Donald himself weighing in with another meaningless lie that he picked his man not on the basis of his political record but on the basis of picking an independent thinker who could objectively interpret the constitution.
#14931730
jimjam wrote:The avalanche of lies, bullshit and propaganda has begun with a bang. Mitch McConnell has urged senators to give their vote a fair consideration …… this is from a guy whose idea of fairness is to hold up Obama's pick for the court for a few months so as to deep six it.

Then there is Donald himself weighing in with another meaningless lie that he picked his man not on the basis of his political record but on the basis of picking an independent thinker who could objectively interpret the constitution.


You should thank Joe Biden.
#14931764
jimjam wrote:Then there is Donald himself weighing in with another meaningless lie that he picked his man not on the basis of his political record but on the basis of picking an independent thinker who could objectively interpret the constitution.

That’s the beauty of the Republican position — since a judge that objectively interprets the Constitution will return a great deal of latitude to Congress and the state legislatures, and since Republicans tend to do better in that arena (as exemplified by the number of states they have complete control of compared to Democrats), they can take the high road without doing harm to their own agenda. Since the Democrats are the ones that have been using the courts to advance the agendas they couldn’t win in the legislatures, they are the ones that have to go outcome-based post-Constitution to maintain their gains.
#14931891
Democrats opposition to Kavanaugh is ridiculous. They could not have hoped for a better choice. Do they intend to hold up all Trump nominations for 2.5 years? They become more absurd everyday.
#14932016
Zagadka wrote:lol, and you talk about idealistic liberals.

You may have heard this term "conservative"... what do you think it means? Almost by definition, liberals are activists, because there is an order to act against, which conservatives struggle to keep.

What, you expect them not to turn over Roe V. Wade? Rule correctly on religious issues? Just because... conservative?

Do they just want to stand around self flaggating over the Constitution? I mean, we had this argument last week. I'm a "liberal activist" wanting to update the Constitution, you are a conservative seeking to follow every comma placed in positions that meant different things 250 years ago.

None of it means different things 250 years ago. We just have people today trying to convince others that the words don't say what they say.

Dems Don't Fear Brett Kavanaugh, They Fear the Constitution

For example, the founders were overwhelmingly natalists. If they thought Roe v. Wade would ever come to pass, they more than likely would have put a ban on abortion in the constitution. Even the authors of the 14th Amendment would have done that. Many of the constitution's authors would be mortified with the idea of women holding high office, as they were resoundingly sexist by today's standards. That's a long way from being misogynist, which is a separate matter altogether. However, the modern left conflates these issues. A lot of the founders were racist, but not particularly hateful to blacks. Many of them regretted slavery, but thought that they were benevolent masters and in time blacks would develop enough that emancipation would naturally follow. Thomas Jefferson proposed limiting the penalty for sodomy to 20 years, from life in prison.

If you want to write a new constitution, the provisions for a constitutional convention are already in the constitution. It's just that the political will isn't there to get you to things like gay marriage or abortion universally throughout the United States. You also don't need universality throughout the United States. If New Jersey bans abortion, just go to New York and have it done there.

Doug64 wrote:The Democrats might be a post-constitutional party now, but there are still some honest Liberals out there:

Well, they are very poorly led by Pelosi and Schumer right now, and I think the rank-and-file is beginning to understand that. However, they do not agree on who should lead. That's why Ocasio-Cortez was able to beat a high ranking incumbent with 1/10th of the funding, not unlike Trump in 2016.

Zagadka wrote:Yea, because the GOP didn't spend 8 years doing the exact same thing.

They didn't. Kagan and Sotomayor got up-or-down votes. They did oppose a lot of the radical judges Obama wanted appointed to the lower courts--many of the same ones who have been screwing with Trump's executive orders only to be overturned pretty frequently.
#14932681
Kavanaugh lied about knowledge of Cheney's illegal torture policies. Leahy wrote a letter to the effect in 2003. Lying under oath needs to be an immediate disqualification. This allowing of high level personnel to break the law with impunity, beginning with Iran Contra, continuing through Iraqi War lies, 2008 crash, the taking of impeachment off the table when clear illegal activity is obvious has led us to this point.

Failure to punish lawbreaking because of interruptions in government, in which this nominee seems to believe, is the equivalent in private business of "too big to fail." Which literally means, so powerful law no longer applies. And. Ignoring this simple reality, in the end, is much more costly than taking action when action is absolutely warranted.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
#14932712
blackjack21 wrote:Basically, the only reason they can oppose Kavanaugh is because they clearly want an activist left wing judge. There frankly is no other reason. The 50 years or so of forcing social change through the courts may be coming to a bitter end for the political left. Their fear, however, is that social change will be coming from the right. Just like their abolition of the filibuster, they are afraid that their own tactics will soon be used against them.

#MAGA :rockon:


Be real.

Everyone wants an activist judge. Scalia was the most activist judge of the past half-century. He's up there with William O. Douglas. Judges have always been appointed to achieve specific political ends.

Also, what's up with the "social change" nonsense? Social activism (on both sides) is for chumps. This is not at all why Kavanaugh was appointed. He was explicitly chosen by the elites (via the Federalist Society) to cement corporatist control over the levers of power.

They'll give you abortion control, sure. It's crumbs to them, because they don't give a shit. They'd choose a candidate to abort every fetus in the blink of an eye, if that gave them what they wanted.

There's no "disruption." The establishment is stronger than ever. You're cheering on one side of a fight between two factions of the Deep State, and they're laughing at you.

Literally laughing.
#14932720
jimjam wrote:Kavanaugh lied about knowledge of Cheney's illegal torture policies. Leahy wrote a letter to the effect in 2003. Lying under oath needs to be an immediate disqualification.

Citation, please.
#14932895
One Degree wrote:Yes, an American using credit cards is unthinkable.

An American foolish enough to wrack up tons of credit card debt should probably be carefully considered before being given one of the biggest positions in the government.
#14932898
Zagadka wrote:An American foolish enough to wrack up tons of credit card debt should probably be carefully considered before being given one of the biggest positions in the government.


I didn’t read the story because it seemed too petty. Did he file bankruptcy? Why does someone else know about his purchases? Did he default?
#14932970
One Degree wrote:I didn’t read the story because it seemed too petty. Did he file bankruptcy? Why does someone else know about his purchases? Did he default?

He ran up a lot of credit card debt buying tickets for him and his friends, his friends paid him back, he paid off the credit card debt, end of story. Yeah, if he'd had to declare bankruptcy or still had the debt years later it might be serious, but as it is it's not much of a story.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

The link and quote has been posted. As well as l[…]

Nobody is trying to distract from the humanitarian[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]