Guard Dog Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Kavanaugh was a pretty safe pick IMO. There is nothing radical about him.Other than he was on Ken Star's team back in the Clinton years. That will probably be held against him. But coming from the DC appellate court he has followed a very typical path to the Supreme Court. You know the problem with that tweet Sharpie posted is this: "OMG he's against assault weapon bans!" Well, that is really immaterial how he feels personally. If you even know what he thinks. He may actually feel all firearms are evil and should be melted down. His job is to apply what the law says. The law in this case might butting up against the phrase "shall not be infringed". In that case his job is to protect the "shall not be infringed" no matter how he may feel about it. A justice is not supposed to ask "Is this right?" or "Is this fair?" They are only supposed to ask "Is this legal?" If you don't like a law, take it up with the legislature. That is THEIR job. The problem is people look at judges the way they do politicians. They want them to philosophically opposed to one thing and in favor of another. An ideal justice is dispassionate. They put aside passions, prejudices, politics. And ideally they should apply the smallest remedy in accordance with what the question being asked is with the simplest interpretation of the law in question. Take the Colorado wedding cake case last month. They didn't decide it was OK to refuse the service. They decided the State of Colorado had mishandled the case. You guys realize the most common SCOTUS rulings are 9-0 right? There are a lot more 9-0 that there are 5-4. "Landmark" cases are disruptive. They have the potential to hurt people and break things. Court's should not look for them. At the same time they should not shy away from them either. Sometimes they are needed. But in the last 40 years how many have there been? Not many. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Apparently, the rumor is that he was chosen mostly on the basis that he once said that, in his opinion, the President cannot be indicted. I have also read that he is not at all a sure thing on repealing Roe v. Wade, despite his being comfortably on the right side of the political spectrum in his opinions. I'm thinking that might be something they're just saying to appeal to the Senators that aren't firmly in the repeal camp. In any case, this is an obvious victory for the GOP, assuming the senate doesn't manage to muck things up with the confirmation. His work actually helped indict a President. As far as Roe goes, that gets trotted out every time a Republican President makes a pick. They said that after Stevens, O'Conner & Scalia, Souter & Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Goresuch, and now this guy. 45 years later and it still hasn't even come close to happening. How many times can you cry "wolf" before the villagers stop coming? Besides, even if the Court did reverse Roe abortion would not become illegal. And the Congress & every single State Legislature can make it permanently legal right this very minute if they wanted to and their executives sign it. And there is nothing the courts can do about that. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
smjjames Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Apparently, the rumor is that he was chosen mostly on the basis that he once said that, in his opinion, the President cannot be indicted. Yeah, that's the rumor going around, and it's going to be impossible to determine if he is being truly impartial if something related to the Russia investigation makes it's way to SCOTUS. @GD: He's definetly a safe pick on all fronts. However, he has a MASSIVE paper trail, so long that it's been called unprecedented. This is going to draw out the confirmation proccess even if it went relatively quickly simply due to the sheer amount of paperwork, Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Senate Judicial commitee) has said that he can't promise having hearings start by September. Not to mention that the Democrats can easily draw this out. Also, some conservatives are leery about him https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17548782/brett-kavanaugh-trump-supreme-court-anthony-kennedy , which isn't unexpected due to having been such a public figure and being around for so many conservative causes. The massive paper trail is a double edged sword in this way in that there will be things both sides object to, not to mention possible surprises that come out which couldn't have been discovered during vetting.
Gromnir Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Apparently, the rumor is that he was chosen mostly on the basis that he once said that, in his opinion, the President cannot be indicted. I have also read that he is not at all a sure thing on repealing Roe v. Wade, despite his being comfortably on the right side of the political spectrum in his opinions. I'm thinking that might be something they're just saying to appeal to the Senators that aren't firmly in the repeal camp. In any case, this is an obvious victory for the GOP, assuming the senate doesn't manage to muck things up with the confirmation. His work actually helped indict a President. no. he helped investigate, not indict. clinton avoided criminal indict 'cause Congress went ahead with impeachment and starr let the indictment drop. Congress did the impeach and there never were no indict. investigate only. also, judge is a whole different set o' responsibilities compared to lawyer. Gromnir has defended the actions o' white supremacists, gang members and religious groups o' questionable repute. we have vigorously advocated for such folks. is admitted a bit different for criminal prosecutors, but regardless, am thinking it would be presumptuous to draw too many conclusions 'bout kavanaugh's guiding legal principles based on his work as a lawyer involved in the starr investigations. am also thinking there is a misunderstanding regarding kavanaugh comments regarding Presidential protections from prosecution. the justice department olc were convinced both in 1973 and 2000 that a President could not be criminal indicted. kavanaugh comments is thus inline with longstanding olc doctrine. nothing surprising. am personal unconvinced. olc reasoning regarding Presidential immunity is not based on any explicit text o' the Constitution. instead, the olc argues the President's unique status as the sole embodiment o' the executive branch authority, coupled with a seperation o' powers rationale, leads to conclusion a President would not function as the Constitution directs while subject to a criminal prosecution. (as an aside, am personal amused when avowed textualists such as judge kavanaugh support such a reading o' the Constitution given how it relies on the same fuzzy penumbral reasoning which is at the heart o' the roe v. wade kerfuffle.) however, regardless o' the olc determination, judge kavanaugh's comments should not be taken as a presumptive get out of jail free card for trump. ... am suspecting the mueller investigation is not gonna end as many folks envision. special counsel responsibilities beyond the investigation is minimal: need present a confidential report to the ag (deputy ag in this case) with findings and recommendations. the mueller report is potential only gonna need be seen by rosenstein and a couple senior members o' Congress. the special counsel investigation could lead to impeachment. the investigation could lead to trump being cleared. the investigation could remain confidential, which would leave everybody angry but might be necessary particular if the doj decides to pursue prosecution o' trump. etc. neither clinton nor nixon were actual indicted. as to kavanaugh. meh. kethledge were our guy, though we knew he were kinda a darkhorse option. too libertarian and absent ivy league pedigree made kethledge a tough call. kavanaugh is, by all accounts, a capable judge and smarty lawyer. he ain't in kagan's or robert's class as far as his writing is concerned, but he is likely superior to alito and sotomayor. converse, am believing kethledge woulda' been a unique voice on the Court rather than simple a capable Justice. missed opportunity for us all. 'course one need not look too far back in Court history to find warrens and brennans and even souters. "best-laid plans," and all that, eh? HA! Good Fun! Edited July 10, 2018 by Gromnir 1 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Guard Dog Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Yeah, impeached was the correct word. Not indicted. I don't know most of the names on Trump's list. I knew nothing of Kavanaugh prior to him making the short list. I do know William Pryor and Diane Sykes. They were my personal preferences from the list. If I were President my pick, well it WOULD have been Janice Rogers Brown but she has retired. Richard Leon from the DC Appellate, Johnathan Turley from GWU, Diane Sykes on the 7th Circuit. Those would be my top 3. Oh yeah, Leah Ward Sears. She was on the Georgia Supreme Court a while back. I think she stepped down. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Hell Yes!!! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/trump-pardon-hammond-oregon.html I'm still not a big fan of Donald Trump. I didn't vote for him in 2016, not voting for him in 2020. But he gets a big round of applause from me on this. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Volourn Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) case or not, it is beyond ridiculous a president can intevere in a case and demand to retry someone who was already found guilty because 'sentence wasn't long enough'. That is beyond retartet. Talk about abuse of power. Obama (like others) has no problem stealing land. EVIL. I'm sure Trump is no better though. P.S. Comments there are funny sicne they make it a 'race' thing whining about hwo they were pardoned because they were white... yet.. Trump has pardoned blacks .. and it was in the news. LMAO Edited July 10, 2018 by Volourn DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Gromnir Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) case or not, it is beyond ridiculous a president can intevere in a case and demand to retry someone who was already found guilty because 'sentence wasn't long enough'. That is beyond retartet. Talk about abuse of power. Obama (like others) has no problem stealing land. EVIL. I'm sure Trump is no better though. P.S. Comments there are funny sicne they make it a 'race' thing whining about hwo they were pardoned because they were white... yet.. Trump has pardoned blacks .. and it was in the news. LMAO our modern President is not what the founding fathers envisioned when the pardon power were granted. the President were seen as even less political than the Supreme Court given how the electoral college were intended to function. the nation would choose wise men who would then select a President. those wise men who could not hold public office and whose authority were transient held the trust o' the nation and the solemn duty o' selecting a chief executive. in terms o' actual executive power granted to the President, with no standing armies and only tiny bureaucracy (secretary o' state, war, treasury and an attorney general were full first cabinet) the possibility o' a tyrannical President, while obvious a fear o' the founding fathers, were the most unlikely of unlikelies. so, the senate were viewed as too political for pardons. supreme court obvious weren't ideal as were the judiciary branch which woulda' been sentencing those in need o' pardon. leaves the largely apolitical executive branch which is embodied in a single person: The President. there were a suggestion during constitutional convention to require senate approval o' Presidential pardons. suggestion were defeated. 8:1? am not recalling exact numbers. 9:1 maybe? am recalling less than all states voted on the issue. were not given much debate. more concern were whether exceptions should include treason as well as impeachment. the notion o' a trump or obama using the pardon power to appease or energize their respective political base would never have occured to the founding fathers as even a possibility given the structure o' the office o' the chief executive as described in the Constitution and given separation o' powers as they understood it. HA! Good Fun! ps as to the hammond pardon... the bundy family is a bunch o' grade-a d-bags and we don't feel bad for 'em. there were many folks who deserved a pardon more than the hammonds. the law, sadly, is a bit heartless. with sentence guidelines and minimums, the law may even be soulless at times. worse, judges in most jurisdictions is elected officials, and is all too often the case they is not thinking o' justice when they is in the public eye. pardons is indeed a suppression o' the rule o' law, but the law does fail people all too often. the notion a wise and honorable Chief Executive correcting the inevitable injustice o' o' the justice system has appeal to us. but the hammonds is d-bags, so... the thing is, the hammonds were done shiesty by the fed government. no, weren't the land issue which generates sympathy from Gromnir. the hammonds were tried for their crimes, but the fed weren't satisfied with the sentences the hammonds received. so the obama admin fed uses terrorist legislation to punish the hammonds beyond what were decided by state court? the hammonds and bundys give rednecks a bad name, and we don't feel pity for 'em, not one bit. also, there is indeed folks with convictions far more deserving o' pardon than were the hammonds. nevertheless, am gonna admit the obama approach to justice in the hammond case smelled o' tyranny. were not justice to sentence 'em using terrorism legislation. Edited July 11, 2018 by Gromnir 2 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Guard Dog Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 The punishment did not suit the offense in the Hammond case. There was no malice, the fire was a controlled burn on private property that jumped a firebreak when the winds changed. It burned about 7 acres of high desert scrub. To charge them with Arson implies they deliberately set out to burn property that wasn't theirs. It was a heavy handed government over reach from the get go. And of course Obama doubled down on that with the sentence appeal. And there was more than a whiff of tyranny about the Obama admin. Especially in it's dealings with citizens in western states. They damn near provoked an armed revolt sending BLM agents to do a job lawyers could (and should) have done. In the Hammond case they had a history of negative dealings with the government over land issues. The heavy handed treatment was a little payback. You might even say they really went to prison for thoughtcrime. I don't pretend to know why Trump involved himself in this. Electorally I don't see how it helps him. He's not going to win Oregon. And the people west of the mountains think the folks east of the mountains are all white trash anyway. And the people who supported the Bundy's were all so hostile to Democrats now they are going to support the Republican no matter who it is. So, once again I don't see what's in this for him. But I'm glad he did it. No one was hurt, nothing was damaged. The Hammond case could have been handled with financial reparations. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gromnir Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 The punishment did not suit the offense in the Hammond case. There was no malice, the fire was a controlled burn on private property that jumped a firebreak when the winds changed. It burned about 7 acres of high desert scrub. ... you made a funny. https://www.google.com/search?q=herd+deer+slaughter+hammond&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS699US699&oq=herd+deer+slaughter+hammond&aqs=chrome..69i57.7176j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 HA! Good Fun! 1 "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)
Malcador Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Strzok really should have said the "we" was the Reptilian-Masonic Alliance. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Agiel Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) Re: NATO Spending As Mackenzie Eaglen (who is about as hawkish on defence spending as it gets) points out: Edited July 12, 2018 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
smjjames Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 The most entertaining NATO summit ever. Trump roasting Germany, Jean-Claude Juncker channeling his inner Jelcyn. Absolute awesome. Who is Jelcyn?
Malcador Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Yeltsin, perhaps. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
smjjames Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 I did think that it might be Yeltsin as it's phonetically similar, but I'm not sure how to interpret that, channeling his inner drunk?
Zoraptor Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 I can't imagine Juncker getting drunk and dancing in his underwear like Jelcyn though. Or maybe my mind refuses the image. Trump's obvious negotiation tactics- gotta play one side against another- and grandstanding are obvious, and about as subtle as a herd of elephant in a bottle store. After all what are they going to do, kick the US from NATO?
smjjames Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Looks like you were thinking the same thing I did, zoraptor. Not the dancing in his underwear part though.
Volourn Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) "Re: NATO Spending As Mackenzie Eaglen (who is about as on defence spending as it gets) points out:" RE: Isn't the push for 4% new and set to attain it by 2024? Right now the 'goal' is 2$ish which the US (as shown above) and a few others are above it. This 'cumback' is silly. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that coutnries such as mine have no honour and can't follow through with promises. Edited July 13, 2018 by Volourn DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Guard Dog Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 In other news. Some clown wanted to give St. Strzok a purple heart. Wow, way to insult US veterans. They said Purple Heart? I'm sure that was sarcasm. That is a military decoration for being wounded in combat.. Anyway this whole Strzok thing sounds like all hat no cattle to me. And FBI agent that can't keep his opinions to himself and behaves unprofessionally is a thin reed to weave a conspiracy basket from. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Seeing Gromnir's avatar reminds me of something. 214 years ago yesterday Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. So as we watch folks on capital hill snipe at each other using veiled insults and exaggerated parliamentary procedure language the vice President once shot and killed the Treasury Secretary over who won what election. 2 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Malcador Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Seeing Gromnir's avatar reminds me of something. 214 years ago yesterday Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. So as we watch folks on capital hill snipe at each other using veiled insults and exaggerated parliamentary procedure language the vice President once shot and killed the Treasury Secretary over who won what election. The US sure has come a long way. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Guard Dog Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) Never mind. Link does not work Edited July 13, 2018 by Guard Dog "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Guard Dog Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 In other news. Some clown wanted to give St. Strzok a purple heart. Wow, way to insult US veterans.They said Purple Heart? I'm sure that was sarcasm. That is a military decoration for being wounded in combat.. Anyway this whole Strzok thing sounds like all hat no cattle to me. And FBI agent that can't keep his opinions to himself and behaves unprofessionally is a thin reed to weave a conspiracy basket from. I know what PH is. And I don't think the guy was sarcastic. https://www.google.pl/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/12/democratic-lawmaker-says-peter-strzok-deserves-purple-heart-for-enduring-hearing.amp.html Yeah, it was sarcasm 2 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Azdeus Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) The US sure has come a long way. dont know about you but i think it should be put to law Any lobbyists should be forced to be seconds! Edited July 13, 2018 by Azdeus Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken
Malcador Posted July 13, 2018 Posted July 13, 2018 Congress decides by ThunderDome with chosen champions ? 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Recommended Posts