On Kavanaugh: Do you want the most conservative Supreme Court in a century? Do you agree with them?

Warrantless searches and prosecution of whistleblowers? That's as far as I got. Spooky stuff.
 
xcvbn said:
My point is I believe emotional stability is pertinent to being a competent Supreme Court Justice. Kavanaugh clearly is not, judging by his nonstop whimpering, forceful defense, and partisan shit flinging over something he says isn't true. If he's working a case on the bench where he strongly disagrees with his SCOTUS colleagues, can we expect the same emotional outburst? I'd rather not take the chance.

Am I asking too much?
Click to expand...

I am just saying he is having his entire life scrutinized publicly. His family and himself are being humiliated. He is being forced to undergo nonstop questioning. Its a lot different than what he faces on the bench. He has been a appeals judge for 11 years and he has never acted in a nonjudge like manner at work.
 
However, while Kavanaugh's opinions on social issues like contraceptive rights may be troubling, it's his slavish and shameless devotion to the ruling business class - and complete disregard for workers, consumers, and persons subject to harassment by the police - that is most horrifying.
Click to expand...

What the hell does this mean? Now, I’m strongly against warrantless searches, but I’ll have you know this is a democracy: everyone is subject to harassment by the police.
 
xcvbn said:
My point is I believe emotional stability is pertinent to being a competent Supreme Court Justice. Kavanaugh clearly is not, judging by his nonstop whimpering, forceful defense, and partisan shit flinging over something he says isn't true. If he's working a case on the bench where he strongly disagrees with his SCOTUS colleagues, can we expect the same emotional outburst? I'd rather not take the chance.

Am I asking too much?
Click to expand...
I don't care for his personality and his testimony was cringeworthy but given that he is now being accused by half the country as being a gang rapist, I can excuse the anger and lack of poise.
 
Lord Coke said:
I am just saying he is having his entire life scrutinized publicly. His family and himself are being humiliated. He is being forced to undergo nonstop questioning. Its a lot different than what he faces on the bench. He has been a appeals judge for 11 years and he has never acted in a nonjudge like manner at work.
Click to expand...
Tough shit honestly. I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. He's very successful and accomplished in his own right, but he's not suited for being on the Supreme Court.
 
xcvbn said:
Tough shit honestly. I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. He's very successful and accomplished in his own right, but he's not suited for being on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That's not really the point I am making. You are arguing that his hearing disqualifies him. I am arguing that his behavior during his hearing has no relevance to how he will act on the Supreme Court because it is completely dissimilar to the pressures of that job. However, his time on the D.C. Circuit Court is similar to what he will face on the Supreme Court and there is no evidence that he acted unjudgelike while he has served on the bench.
 
BAM said:
I don't care for his personality and his testimony was cringeworthy but given that he is now being accused by half the country as being a gang rapist, I can excuse the anger and lack of poise.
Click to expand...
I actually appreciated his stern demeanor but he started losing me at the crocodile tears, and completely lost me when he made his political views apparent. Very unprofressional.
 
Lord Coke said:
That's not really the point I am making. You are arguing that his hearing disqualifies him. I am arguing that his behavior during his hearing has no relevance to how he will act on the Supreme Court because it is completely dissimilar to the pressures of that job. However, his time on the D.C. Circuit Court is similar to what he will face on the Supreme Court and there is no evidence that he acted unjudgelike while he has served on the bench.
Click to expand...
What's the point of having hearings to judge prospective judge's character, if only to disregard their character.....?
 
Trotsky said:
Frighteningly, the most ardent and passionate supporters of Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh seem to know and care little about his judicial posture and the likely effect of his appointment to the Supreme Court. However, while Kavanaugh's opinions on social issues like contraceptive rights may be troubling, it's his slavish and shameless devotion to the ruling business class - and complete disregard for workers, consumers, and persons subject to harassment by the police - that is most horrifying.

The Supreme Court has been controlled by moderate conservatives for nearly all of American history, outside of the two decades following the Second World War, the replacement of moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy with far-right conservative Brett Kavanaugh will almost certainly have huge consequences on American judicial precedent.

Now it would be easy enough to dig up precedents from the last time the Court was this conservative - such as the ones that outlawed child labor laws and overtime pay laws, or that said that the government could arrest and imprison people for nonviolent political beliefs, or that permitted laws that banned women from owning property, or that said that Japanese internment was constitutional. And we could very well see such a return to Lochner Era jurisprudence. However, we don't need to conjure up the ghost of James McReynolds to speculate on just how quickly American law and policy could change - by looking at conservative opinions and dissents over the past three decades, as well as some of Kavanaugh's own dissents (highlighted in yellow).



So let's dig into a few areas:

Do you believe that corporations should be able to circumvent collective bargaining requirements by hiring undocumented workers? Kavanaugh does, as did the conservative Court in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, which held that employers could get out of paying backpay to workers aggrieved by an unfair labor practice if those workers were undocumented.


Do you think that the government should be able to expand a warrantless search into one's pockets and inner clothing, even if a stop-and-frisk produced no evidence? Kavanaugh thinks so.


Do you think that consumers and employees injured by corporations should be forced into arbitration proceedings and prevented from litigating the case in court - even if the arbitration proceedings lack substantive due process? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you think that the government should be able to fire, demote, or otherwise silence government whistleblowers? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you think that the government should be able to conduct warrentless search and seizures of cell phone data? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you think that American corporations should be able to escape liability by outsourcing and committing misconduct overseas? Kavanaugh sure thinks so.


Do you think that the judiciary should be able to circumvent the legislature and approve large corporate mergers that violate antitrust laws? Kavanaugh would like to do that, law be damned.


Do you think that corporations, unions, and rich citizens should be able to spend limitless amounts of money toward political campaigns? The conservative Court says yes, and furthermore seems postured to further degrade disclosure requirements so that it's harder to see where political donations and expenditures come from.


Do you think that the federal government should be further restricted from passing environmental laws to address the issue of climate change? The conservative bench seems to favor a race to the bottom by states.


Should states be able to purge limitless voters from voting rolls on the basis of having not voted in recent elections? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you think that employers should be held liable for deaths of employees due to the employer's negligence in delegating an abnormally dangerous job duty? Kavanaugh says no


Do you think that citizens should be allowed by the Constitution to sue the government for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights? The conservative bench says they shouldn't.


Do you think the government should be able to carry out warrantless searches when arrestees are detained? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you believe that the government should be able to penalize non-violent speech given to political entities deemed without due process by the executive branch to be unsavory? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be thrown out as unconstitutional because it has a "termination for good cause" provision? Kavanaugh thinks so.


Do you think that the government should allow congressional redistricting that distorts democracy along the lines of race? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you think that flag burning should be a punishable criminal offense, unprotected by the First Amendment? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you think that net neutrality, which prevented corporations from discriminating against consumers with regard to content and access, should be outlawed as a violation of the First Amendment? Kavanaugh does.


Should the Court be able to disregard stare decisis and outlaw mandatory union dues and enable union free-riding? The conservative Court did just that.


Should the government be able to, without a warrant or due process, seize property it believes to be obscene or immoral? The conservative bench has said yes.


Do you think that the Supreme Court should serve as the de facto arm for one of the major political parties in political disputes? Kavanaugh seems to think that's good.


Do you think that employers should be able to discriminate against former union members and refuse to recognize their employees' union? Kavanaugh says "go ahead."
Click to expand...

Too long, did not read.
 
Trotsky said:
Frighteningly, the most ardent and passionate supporters of Supreme Court appointee Brett Kavanaugh seem to know and care little about his judicial posture and the likely effect of his appointment to the Supreme Court. However, while Kavanaugh's opinions on social issues like contraceptive rights may be troubling, it's his slavish and shameless devotion to the ruling business class - and complete disregard for workers, consumers, and persons subject to harassment by the police - that is most horrifying.

The Supreme Court has been controlled by moderate conservatives for nearly all of American history, outside of the two decades following the Second World War, the replacement of moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy with far-right conservative Brett Kavanaugh will almost certainly have huge consequences on American judicial precedent.

Now it would be easy enough to dig up precedents from the last time the Court was this conservative - such as the ones that outlawed child labor laws and overtime pay laws, or that said that the government could arrest and imprison people for nonviolent political beliefs, or that permitted laws that banned women from owning property, or that said that Japanese internment was constitutional. And we could very well see such a return to Lochner Era jurisprudence. However, we don't need to conjure up the ghost of James McReynolds to speculate on just how quickly American law and policy could change - by looking at conservative opinions and dissents over the past three decades, as well as some of Kavanaugh's own dissents (highlighted in yellow).



So let's dig into a few areas:

Do you believe that corporations should be able to circumvent collective bargaining requirements by hiring undocumented workers? Kavanaugh does, as did the conservative Court in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, which held that employers could get out of paying backpay to workers aggrieved by an unfair labor practice if those workers were undocumented.


Do you think that the government should be able to expand a warrantless search into one's pockets and inner clothing, even if a stop-and-frisk produced no evidence? Kavanaugh thinks so.


Do you think that consumers and employees injured by corporations should be forced into arbitration proceedings and prevented from litigating the case in court - even if the arbitration proceedings lack substantive due process? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you think that the government should be able to fire, demote, or otherwise silence government whistleblowers? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you think that the government should be able to conduct warrentless search and seizures of cell phone data? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you think that American corporations should be able to escape liability by outsourcing and committing misconduct overseas? Kavanaugh sure thinks so.


Do you think that the judiciary should be able to circumvent the legislature and approve large corporate mergers that violate antitrust laws? Kavanaugh would like to do that, law be damned.


Do you think that corporations, unions, and rich citizens should be able to spend limitless amounts of money toward political campaigns? The conservative Court says yes, and furthermore seems postured to further degrade disclosure requirements so that it's harder to see where political donations and expenditures come from.


Do you think that the federal government should be further restricted from passing environmental laws to address the issue of climate change? The conservative bench seems to favor a race to the bottom by states.


Should states be able to purge limitless voters from voting rolls on the basis of having not voted in recent elections? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you think that employers should be held liable for deaths of employees due to the employer's negligence in delegating an abnormally dangerous job duty? Kavanaugh says no


Do you think that citizens should be allowed by the Constitution to sue the government for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights? The conservative bench says they shouldn't.


Do you think the government should be able to carry out warrantless searches when arrestees are detained? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you believe that the government should be able to penalize non-violent speech given to political entities deemed without due process by the executive branch to be unsavory? The conservative Court says yes.


Do you believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be thrown out as unconstitutional because it has a "termination for good cause" provision? Kavanaugh thinks so.


Do you think that the government should allow congressional redistricting that distorts democracy along the lines of race? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you think that flag burning should be a punishable criminal offense, unprotected by the First Amendment? The conservative bench says yes.


Do you think that net neutrality, which prevented corporations from discriminating against consumers with regard to content and access, should be outlawed as a violation of the First Amendment? Kavanaugh does.


Should the Court be able to disregard stare decisis and outlaw mandatory union dues and enable union free-riding? The conservative Court did just that.


Should the government be able to, without a warrant or due process, seize property it believes to be obscene or immoral? The conservative bench has said yes.


Do you think that the Supreme Court should serve as the de facto arm for one of the major political parties in political disputes? Kavanaugh seems to think that's good.


Do you think that employers should be able to discriminate against former union members and refuse to recognize their employees' union? Kavanaugh says "go ahead."
Click to expand...
For grass-roots conservatives, they certainly want the most conservative Justice they can get. These same folks will also love a Justice that will side with law enforcement against persons alleging violation of civil rights. What the grass-roots would not want - even if they don't realize it , which most of them won't - is a Justice siding with corporate America against the working and middle-class.
 
You nailed it on this post.

My usually rather bright parents that vote Republican strictly to keep their tax rate down were complaining about the democratic manuevering and women coming forward in Kavanaughs hearings. I had to remind them there probably isn't a single thing he would rule that they would agree on, it was quite an ''oh, right" moment.
 
This is what the debate should be about.

I dunno, there's stuff I like and the hiring illegals is something I hate. I'd like to know who else would be considered
 
The democrats poisoned the water with the tact they took.
They saw the me too movement and decided to use that no matter what it would take.
I don't agree with everything he has ruled on but at this point I don't care anymore with the shit that has gone on.
I wanted someone conservative in many but not all things. With center right being more to my liking.
A strong support for the 2nd being at the top with a few others.
 
Crazy that I knew all about his HS yearbook but really hadn't heard much at about his positions on key issues. Great post @Trotsky
 
Anything to keep the Marxists away!!

Hope that answers your question.
 
GOATER said:
]

Cant trust this guy be impartial and fair...He will vote against liberals out of spite.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the thing that Trumptards care about though. For a bunch of idiots always screeching about liberal judges, judicial activism and legislating from the bench those are all the things they want out of Trump's SC picks. They want uber religious people that will make rulings based on feelings and the Bible, not on actual merit of the Constitution. If they could, the right would put Joel Olsteen or Pat Robertson on the SC.
 
GOATER said:
Cant trust this guy be impartial and fair...He will vote against liberals out of spite.
Click to expand...

To me that's the biggest concern . . . and one I would completely understand if liberals are worried about it.

I'd also be worried if we had a similar issue come up with a more liberal nominee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,673
Messages
55,579,149
Members
174,829
Latest member
dbdbxb

Share this page

Back
Top