From the limited research I've read, Kavanaugh seems to be a "normal" candidate for a republican president to have nominated. For instance if Mitt Romney was president Kavanaugh could have been...
From the limited research I've read, Kavanaugh seems to be a "normal" candidate for a republican president to have nominated. For instance if Mitt Romney was president Kavanaugh could have been his choice. I am in no way pleased with this decision but at this point we have to thank the FSM it wasn't worse.
For as much as the media has made Roe v. Wade the major issue surrounding this pick, I don't see how it could be overturned any easier than it would have been back in the late 1980s.
This was my thought as well. I honestly am a bit relieved. The media is making a big deal about his comments about president's not being subject to investigations and whatnot during their...
This was my thought as well. I honestly am a bit relieved.
The media is making a big deal about his comments about president's not being subject to investigations and whatnot during their presidency. But like so much in the media today regarding Trump (positive or negative) that's a bit misleading. If you look at the context of Kavanaugh's statements it's clear he's saying that he believes that the legislature should change the law, but current law allows such investigations. His comments were made in 2009 and he has a history of respecting precedent. So that's a bit of a relief - the headlines make it sound like he cut a deal with Trump.
Just like Democrats cries of "Abolish ICE," the MSM keeps shooting itself in the foot with sensational headlines. I'd love for both the media and the DNC to be transparent with the truth. There is enough crazy going around that we don't need to sensationalize everything.
To be clear, I vote D, but I'm very disappointed with the party leadership and am mad at them for being limp dicks and not using the nuclear option to make Garland happen.
EDIT: @arghdos pointed out that I was mistaken on the nuclear option re: Garland, Dem's never had the votes for that even.
You seem to be mistaken here, invoking the nuclear option requires 51 yes votes, i.e , a simple majority. The Democrats did not have this in 2016, having lost the majority in 2014. I am conflicted...
am mad at them for being limp dicks and not using the nuclear option to make Garland happen
You seem to be mistaken here, invoking the nuclear option requires 51 yes votes, i.e , a simple majority. The Democrats did not have this in 2016, having lost the majority in 2014.
I am conflicted about the degradation of democratic norms to advance an agenda, would McConnell have nuked the Supreme Court filibuster if Reid had not removed the judicial nominee filibuster in 2013 first? Further the wild, dramatic policy shifts we go through every time the government changes would be much easier to codify in law rather than the more easily reversed executive order: how would we like abortion's legality to flip every 8 years like our current moratorium on funding of health services abroad that provide abortion counciling and referrals, a.k.a. the Mexico City Rule, and having to fight to legislatively fix that every time it happened...
Then again, playing a scorched Earth game while leaving your torch at home often seems inordinately stupid, even if you can convince yourself that it's the morally correct path, especially when the side that at least nominally supports equality seems to play the game so poorly.
I found this article which talks more about his background. Although I would prefer Trump replace a swing vote with another swing vote, I doubt he would ever do that. This makes me less wary about...
I found this article which talks more about his background. Although I would prefer Trump replace a swing vote with another swing vote, I doubt he would ever do that.
A believer in precedent: This could be another thing that upsets the conservative base. In his speech, he also endorsed stare decisis, the practice of following precedent. "We follow precedent," he said. He added that to be a good judge, one has to follow not just the "letter" but also the "spirit" of the law."
This makes me less wary about him. Given what I was expecting out of Trump's nomination, I'm almost relieved (almost. I'm not totally thrilled with him, but also not totally against). I have a feeling he'll be denied by both Democrats and hardline Republicans, though, and that makes me worried Trump will start nominating increasingly conservative judges which appeal to his base more.
I can only hope that means he will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is what I expect from any supreme court justice, no matter if they come from the left or the right.
"Check those political allegiances at the door when you become a judge,"
I can only hope that means he will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is what I expect from any supreme court justice, no matter if they come from the left or the right.
From the limited research I've read, Kavanaugh seems to be a "normal" candidate for a republican president to have nominated. For instance if Mitt Romney was president Kavanaugh could have been his choice. I am in no way pleased with this decision but at this point we have to thank the FSM it wasn't worse.
For as much as the media has made Roe v. Wade the major issue surrounding this pick, I don't see how it could be overturned any easier than it would have been back in the late 1980s.
This was my thought as well. I honestly am a bit relieved.
The media is making a big deal about his comments about president's not being subject to investigations and whatnot during their presidency. But like so much in the media today regarding Trump (positive or negative) that's a bit misleading. If you look at the context of Kavanaugh's statements it's clear he's saying that he believes that the legislature should change the law, but current law allows such investigations. His comments were made in 2009 and he has a history of respecting precedent. So that's a bit of a relief - the headlines make it sound like he cut a deal with Trump.
Just like Democrats cries of "Abolish ICE," the MSM keeps shooting itself in the foot with sensational headlines. I'd love for both the media and the DNC to be transparent with the truth. There is enough crazy going around that we don't need to sensationalize everything.
To be clear, I vote D, but I'm very disappointed with the party leadership and am mad at them for being limp dicks and not using the nuclear option to make Garland happen.
EDIT: @arghdos pointed out that I was mistaken on the nuclear option re: Garland, Dem's never had the votes for that even.
You seem to be mistaken here, invoking the nuclear option requires 51 yes votes, i.e , a simple majority. The Democrats did not have this in 2016, having lost the majority in 2014.
I am conflicted about the degradation of democratic norms to advance an agenda, would McConnell have nuked the Supreme Court filibuster if Reid had not removed the judicial nominee filibuster in 2013 first? Further the wild, dramatic policy shifts we go through every time the government changes would be much easier to codify in law rather than the more easily reversed executive order: how would we like abortion's legality to flip every 8 years like our current moratorium on funding of health services abroad that provide abortion counciling and referrals, a.k.a. the Mexico City Rule, and having to fight to legislatively fix that every time it happened...
Then again, playing a scorched Earth game while leaving your torch at home often seems inordinately stupid, even if you can convince yourself that it's the morally correct path, especially when the side that at least nominally supports equality seems to play the game so poorly.
Thank you @arghdos. I was definitely wrong on that one. Still not happy with the party (lack of) leadership.
Agreed.
It's bad but it's not any worse than the typical news that comes out of this administration. Which is a good thing I guess?
I found this article which talks more about his background. Although I would prefer Trump replace a swing vote with another swing vote, I doubt he would ever do that.
This makes me less wary about him. Given what I was expecting out of Trump's nomination, I'm almost relieved (almost. I'm not totally thrilled with him, but also not totally against). I have a feeling he'll be denied by both Democrats and hardline Republicans, though, and that makes me worried Trump will start nominating increasingly conservative judges which appeal to his base more.
I can only hope that means he will uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is what I expect from any supreme court justice, no matter if they come from the left or the right.