jimjam wrote:Taken in the perspective of the farcical Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination I really do not see why the Kavanaugh affair is any big deal.
It was an attempt to prevent the rise of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court for what many feel was political reasoning--i.e., that Kennedy was often a swing vote, siding inexplicably with liberals on things like "gay marriage" when the remaining conservatives accurately noted that there was no such right in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else in the US Constitution. The left has used the courts to force social change for generations, and that ability appears to be coming to an end.
jimjam wrote:The so called "Supreme" Court is obviously a tool of the prevailing political winds of the federal government, tool of the plutocracy.
It is "Supreme" in the sense that their rulings coupled with the supremacy clause allow the court to overpower state legislatures. That is why the left likes to abuse the shit out the commerce clause too. America has always been ruled by monied interests. It was founded by monied interests who were upset that their royal government was fucking with their money. I'm not sure what kind of government you are hoping for, but an interest in money is what unites pretty much everyone.
Hong Wu wrote:The Supreme Court in America is the only thing I ever really found tolerable because (1) they're not elected and (2) liberal or conservative, they actually explain what the fuck they're doing, which is not something you usually get from the people running the show.
That's why Kennedy needed to go, and so do the rest of the liberal justices. Rulings like Obergefell have no basis in law whatsoever. This is also true of Roe v. Wade--the idea that the federal and state governments cannot rule on commerce (doctors are commercial actors) when it involves early term abortions is also ludicrous. There is no reason that abortions couldn't be made a not-for-profit activity, impose wage or price controls, etc.
Hong Wu wrote:So for example, even though I don't agree with many of her opinions, I respect Ginsburg because she (see above).
That's why I've broken with respect for the court as a whole over Obergefell. It's also why I do not have a problem with the Democrats wanting to impeach Kavanaugh. I think most of the court's liberals should be impeached and removed from office for deliberate misfeasance.
SpecialOlympian wrote:Why are you afraid to describe how tariffs work, and how they make potatoes or whatever more expensive for Godstud in Thailand?
You're a commodities trader. Why are you afraid to answer such a simple question?
I work in a literal penthouse investment firm btw. I don't even know what floor we're on because the elevator button says PH instead of a number.
Guys, this is a thread about Feinstein referring Kavanaugh to the FBI--and the ensuing Judiciary Committee fiasco. If you'd like to talk about the effect of tariffs and their operations, you can always open up a new thread to that end.
Finfinder wrote:Considering the topic of this thread, such an odd question in replying to my post.
Yes. Can you guys take your tariff dispute somewhere else?
jimjam wrote:To a degree, I agree. However, as in the case of the Warren court's examination of the JFK murder, they did not explain, IMO, that they were engineering a jerry-rigged farce that supported the conclusion they were told to reach.
It was the Warren Commission, not the Warren-led SCOTUS. You know it's a sham, because Warren was a very liberal Republican (i.e., a Progressive like Obama), and the idea that the commission was "bi-partisan" is almost always a telltale sign of a scam. Warren was the quintessential liberal (i.e., Progressive), even though he was a Republican attorney general of California at one time. He may have done this out of feelings of guilt, because he was responsible for interning Japanese-Americans during WWII and also implemented eugenics policies as attorney general. Eugenics in California
Obama and his ilk are loath to acknowledge the history of Progressives in the United States. I always enjoy reminding people that Eugenic abortion is the whole point of Roe v. Wade. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.
Frederick Winslow Hatch: Secretary of the State Lunacy Commission in California, and later became the General Superintendent of State Hospitals.
That's a commission we could certainly use again... Alas, the JFK assassination is also off-topic, but among the reasons for the cover-up is that Oswald was trained by the US military, was an FBI informant and a CIA asset. So even though he defected to Russia and then returned to the United States, it's just as easy to allege that the Kennedy assassination was an inside job. So they cover up his ties to the US government to this day.
Drlee wrote:In a grown up world (rather than the childish snowflake world of so-called conservatives) those serving in national government would believe that they should govern for all of the people. I do not expect this from republicans. But then I know of very few who are capable of understanding that they are simply tools for their oligarch overlords. Simpletons mostly who cheer for their own destruction.
Proponents of abortion, like Margaret Sanger, were eugenicists. They had very race- and class-based purposes. For example, Sanger wanted to use abortion to get rid of blacks, Jews and Southern Europeans. Warren himself was a member of the anti-Asian Native Sons of the Golden West
. It is a very strange irony that California's dilapidated state has almost nothing to do with Asians.
Drlee wrote:This is an extremely shallow interpretation of what ought to happen.
It is an interpretation of what has happened since the Warren Court. Warren sought to shed his legacy of Eugenics in the aftermath of WWII. This is because Eugenics policies were used against Jews--who were big proponents of Eugenics until it was used against them. As such, Warren gave us rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, etc. In fact, Bork was "Borked," for nothing that there was no notion of "one-man, one-vote" in the US constitution as Warren ruled. Bork was right, too.
The media still thinks there is a big anti-Kavanaugh constituency out there:Kavanaugh appointment to Supreme Court foreshadows crushing blow to Republican Party come NovemberKavanaugh isn't popular with Middle America
I don't find it all that interesting, since I don't think most voters actually care. Generally, the pro- and anti-abortion folks are the ones who are most interested. I think, for Darwinian reasons, the anti-abortion folks will inevitably prevail.
"@arianahuff is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man - he made a good decision."
-- Donald J. Trump