Yea, they’ve been fine, nothing spectacular. NYT places Kavanaugh a little to the left of Gorsuch, so he’s probably as moderate a justice as Trump will nominate. The Roe v Wade boogeyman gets propped up every time a Republican gets to nominate a justice. He’s said multiple times that it’s settled law, similar to what Roberts said during his confirmation.
What the US Supreme Court needs is judges that weren’t born in a time that their parents rode horses to work. And get rid of this “lifetime position” nonsense. Our brains do not function when we’re old. I remember a Supreme Court Justice saying he “Didn’t know the difference between a pager and email”. In this day and age, should the people creating laws be slightly more in touch with technology.
The Supreme Court shouldn't be creating any laws. The purpose of the Court is to uphold the Constitution, irrespective of technology.
Its all Federal judges, not just the Supreme Court. The lifetime appointments was to free them from political backlash like being fired by Congress or the President if they make an unfavorable ruling, also from favoritism when they leave office (like what happens with Congressman and Senators). It also prevents a lame-duck scenario.
The idea is sound, but old is old. These people need to retire before they are 80, there is way too many senile lawmakers which is a reason why so many ridiculous, draconian laws/bylaws still exist. The people who drive their cars through storefront windows should not be in charge of a country. They should be falling asleep in front of the Golf Channel. There needs to be a limit.
Right, but again, they aren't lawmakers. Unless another Constitutional Amendment is passed, the document on which they are judging laws isn't changing.
Obviously it's never getting overturned, but the democrats need to pretend it's perpetually imminent. They have a huge base that votes on "women's rights" every election, no matter how imaginary the problems are. You gotta love Vox. Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it. It's not just them though. A lot of outlets are doing it. Some like, like Vox, link him saying that it's binding precedent and then just run with the apocalypse scenario anyway. I would actually be in favor of this. Make the appointment for life so they can make decisions without political backlash, but force them to retire at 75 or 80. We don't need justices on the bench so fucking old they can't even feed themselves or wipe their own ass.
You go from saying that justices just make shit up due to their personal beliefs to saying that obviously Roe v Wade will never be overturned. Pick a lane and stay in it.
Did you read what his beliefs on the law were? It was in both the post I quoted and the post I wrote. Maybe that was pertinent. Sigh.
Irrespective of the whole Roe v Wade discussion, if you at all care about your internet access and experience you should be firmly against this pick. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/tru...-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-unlawful.html Hope everyone enjoys paying per website they'd like to access each month.
Every modern justice (to my knowledge) has said they are committed to stare decisis and yet precedents keep getting overturned anyway. How is that possible? Trump promised to end roe v wade. If this guy wasn’t open to doing that why aren’t all those pro life voters kicking up a huge fuss about his nomination? You’re letting your desire to own the libs prevent you from seeing writing that is clearly on the wall.
Ok, that's just hysterical. What a fucking jackass. This is what I mean by justices just making shit up. The idea that the first amendment outlines how the internet should be regulated fails on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. Regardless, I think this is an issue the senate needs to fix. I don't think you could actually get 5 supreme court justices to overturn a senate bill on how the internet should be regulated, but who the fuck knows...
Even more confusing is the Safe Harbor doctrine... ISP's, forums, etc, have been held immune to the content of their system as long as they don't moderate or take editorial responsibility for it. As soon as you do, you're now partially liable for the content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act If the ISP's start editorializing the content on their site, they can't pick and choose... and that will be a huge technical can of worms, or cost them more lobby money to get the laws changed so that they CAN pick and choose. Fucking gong show. Hell... even INDIA has now legislated net neutrality. You guys are seriously fucking backwards on so much stuff, all because of big corporations owning your politicians.
Trump made promises to the anti-choice crowd to throw them some red meat because that is literally all they care about...until their kid gets knocked up by a black guy. He picked this guy because Kavanaugh is of the mentality that a president shouldn't have to be bothered with pesky things like following the law and be subjected to prosecutions or investigations. He doesn't feel the court should be able change that and thinks congress should make the change, however. But if he's already drank the Koolaid, and judging by his statement after the announcement, he has, Trump is counting on him for protection. Its a self preservation move if it goes before the court in any way. Not to mention the obvious fuckery surrounding Kennedy's retirement, the supposed meetings and consultation with the outgoing justice, and Kennedy''s son being directly related to Trump's finances at Deutsche Bank currently under sanctions and investigation for money laundering. Trump doesn't give a fuck about abortion. Its a base play.
The Vox article completely disproves their own point. They make an assertion without taking context into consideration at all. Multiple Justices avoid answering those questions specifically to avoid being perceived as biased including Ginsberg among others. I also don't believe that Kagan would have hired him at Harvard if he was incompetent. As xray mentioned above, this is nothing more than posturing to his base. He has something very real to gain from this.
Why is that obvious? Appointing pro-life judges and overturning Roe is the raison d'etre for a good chunk of the Republican base. Without the prospect of overturning Roe Trump never sniffs the presidency, nor do half the Republicans in the Senate hold their seats. You think they've fought this hard, compromised this many morals, and cheated this aggressively just to take a knee at the five yard line and say "well guys, looks like we need to respect stare decisis"?
There are no coincidences this high up in the world. The dems who are making this whole thing about abortion are missing the real story here. Trump isn't some grand conspirator. He only knows lying and obfuscation I think he's rotten and narcissistic to his core. I also believe he has surrounded himself with people just as shitty as he is but who stand to gain as much from this investigation going away. Speaking of... Today, the senate confirmed a lawyer from Alfa Bank to be in charge of the DOJ criminal division. One step behind Rosenstein. But I'm sure thats also just a coincidence as well. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/poli...onfirmed-senate-justice-department/index.html
I agree that this is a huge issue for the GOP base. At least they say it is. As long as they make some attempts at rolling back women's health rights and a few shitty public statements against abortion, they are safe. Even if nothing gets overturned, it looks like they tried.
I disagree with this in reality. Most of the folks I know that consider themselves part of the GOP base don't really have any interest in overturning Roe v Wade or encouraging their representatives to do so. Rather, the commentary and campaign questions are used as more of a litmus test to see if generally the candidate thinks the way they do. On a day-to-day basis, most regular people who call themselves Republican don't think much about actually overturning Roe v Wade. Discouraging funding of Planned Parenthood, or federal tax dollars spent on healthcare that pays for abortions, yes, but not overturning the decision or specifically changing the ruling of if the Constitution supports abortion. I think they are more interested in economic boosting, eliminating regulations that slow business growth, securing the borders, changing Obamacare, etc.