Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, 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. 

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.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, 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.

 

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.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
14 hours ago, 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.

 

Thats pretty typical of these hearings no matter who the nominee is. 

 

I actually tjink the guy guy is very impressive and qualified. I don’t have a problem with him as a Justice......other than his ability and possible willingness to do whatever it takes to protect the dear leader. 

Link to comment

15 hours ago, 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?

I guess it was the lying about his past involvement with guiding other judicial nominees and then saying that his own feelings are "not something he can disclose" - his calling birth control "abortion inducing drugs".  I find it alarming that anyone about to be put into the highest court in the land is ok with how the paperwork and evidence is being provided or held back - Durbin made an excellent point in my opinion, to say that he should be looking at this from a judges position - would he be ok with the info being shared with the defense at three am (40k pages?) before trial?  Would he be ok with so little being available?  

 

If he's proud of his past, why is it that he is concerned with sharing this?  If I was a judge on the up and up and proud of what I'd done, as a judge and as my time in politics I'd want everything out there.  What little we've seen shows fibbing, outright lies, involvement in activities that are questionable at best (ie. torture) and we'll see Monday how the courts view his perjury - documents were just filed this morning to discuss that, and wait for it ............... the presiding judge is Merrick Garland.    We're lucky that HIS record is one of fairness and non partisan positions.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

49 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

That doesn't seem all that slimy to me? That seems like PR 101.

 

I just don't like the fact that no one (D or R) brought forth this allegation when it was originally made known in July. It makes one side look guilty for trying to hide it, and the other side guilty for trying to *sabotage the confirmation with a last-minute Hail Mary.

 

*The fact that we're even having confirmation hearings at all is beyond me, especially given the recent developments in the Mueller case.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...