The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

Truthfully, the Demos shouldn't have been allowed to get away with that crap. If the Lame Stream would have remained objective it wouldn't never have jumped off like it did.


Let somebody tell their story of allegations without any proof. You just need to hear my story. This is difficult to do.


Repubs should have told them.....look we get the point you are desperate, but get the hell out here with that bullshit.

 

This country isn't a democracy, judges to the federal court aren't elected.

If people take issue with all three branches being controlled by one party they'll vote to balance it out. If the people want that than good, that's how our country works.

If you want more Democrats involved, tell their elected officials to stop sucking. This isn't a coup it's Democrats not voting. Perhaps they aren't voting because they don't care, perhaps they aren't voting because the people running for office are terrible. But there aren't fewer Democrats in office because Republicans are big ole meanies.

 

As I said, it was already obvious. If it took conservatives nominating 'conservative' justices to realize that the SCOTUS is so far away from its original intention then well, I'm glad it happened. You can thank FDR(a democrat) for today's situation. In reality, SCOTUS is an unnecessary 'check' on politics. It doesn't even truly resolve the conflict insofar as only if we accept its fiat rulings. But its human nature, we're not going to accept the 'moral authority' of a court, any court even if you call it a 'supreme one'.

The courts and politics just don't mix. It's always been a war of authority between these two entities. The 'middle ground' was advice/consenting on these judges. But the politicization of the court simply eliminates any pretense of neutrality. If that's the case, become a pure political state and get rid of the court.

Sure, that might mean political decisions that we don't like but that's already happening anyway. At least a bigger, more justifiable group of people made the decision than the 9 Justices.

 

Not sure where you got this from but, it is not historically accurate by any stretch of the imagination ... except perhaps if stretched the the point of fairy tale.

 

Kavanaugh seems to stand for a unitary executive, which is worrisome, but that's hardly the majority opinion of the SC.

 

Perhaps the masses have become so politically illiterate and brainwashed by State propaganda that they have turned into sheep.

 

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."-- Abraham Lincoln--

 

Exactly! Losing elections since 2010 was never really brought to anyone's attention until 2016. Conservative media knew it long before liberal media had an article or two about it.

But now it's about lies and propaganda for dems to win elections again at any cost. And now it's too late for dems to change.

If we all allowed unfounded accusations to rule our lives, THAT'S WHEN the country is ruled like a dictatorship. . . . As in the Kavanaugh confirmation, and Mueller's so-called investigation.

Dems, the lying liberal media, and corrupt bureaucrats are all working hard to help dems win elections again. But the PEOPLE are still in charge and still have the power.

Steve

 

Well that would hardly make him conservative would it?

 

What is your definition of a conservative? Put your cards on the table and type it out.

 

It's not really that.
The Kavanaugh debacle showed me a side of mainstream liberals I only thought was reserved for the far-left zealots: it is okay to propagate a lie if it serves your purpose. We expect this from politicians, we expect it from the fringe maniacs...but the everyday liberal??
I was taken aback by the willingness of the left to pretend to believe Ford, paint her as a hero and the Judge as the devil.
Hell Time magazine have made a martyr out of her.
As individuals I refuse to believe 2/3 of them actually think he did it...they wanted it to be true, and that was good enough. And THAT is fascism 101.

 

A conservative is not going to want a powerful central government, let alone a central powerful individual that can overturn the SCOTUS.
I think that is all hogwash....just another dreamed up accusation to keep the continuous attacks on the guy.

 

I'll be glad to read it again....

Done! Solid arguments. So much so, that you were unable to respond to any of them.

 

the real problem for the left is they use the courts to get their agenda through when they can’t get it done through legislation. what now? harassing elected officials in restaurants only goes so far... time to lay down in the streets again. kind of makes me want to go rent a big truck...

 

Good looking shepherd.

 

In criminal courts. Not in job interviews.

In any case, I think the the testimony by Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford amply substantiated the claim. Kavanaugh lied under oath, Dr. Ford did not.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/kavanaugh-vs-dr-ford-testimony-the-lies.542915/

Dr. Ford was measured and respectful, Kavanaugh acted as a nut slashing against the Judiciary Committe, Senators who "dared", ask him job interview questions and... even the Clintons.

Let's see if you respond to the question nobody on the right dares answer. If you were in his situation... if you were nominated to SCOTUS and falsely accused of sexual abuse of a 15 year old.... would you: a-Not only welcome, but demand a full investigation to clear your name or b- lash out against those trying to find out what happened and make up some conspiracy theory about why you are being investigated?

 

Job interviews defer to criminal courts when a crime is uncovered.

A crime hasn't been uncovered. Unfounded accusations are not evidence of a crime.

But what dems, the lying liberal media, and corrupt bureaucrats are up to, at minimum, are to remove republicans from office in Nov.

If we all allowed unfounded accusations to rule our lives, THAT'S WHEN the country is ruled like a dictatorship.

Steve

 

I'm not talking about "its original intention". SCOTUS did that since they decided to ditch the Preamble as the main guide. I'm talking about the Supreme Court becoming just another partisan government agency. Like the Presidency and Congress. That has been brewing since.... probably 2000 (Bush v Gore) But Kavanaugh''s appointment goes much further than that and makes it outright partisan.

No idea what you're talking about. I have accepted all SCOTUS rulings whether I like them or not. I don't know any rational person who hasn't. I can criticize some of them and show why they are absurd or baseless. But, until they are overturned, they are the Law of the Land.

Ok. There are two different things. One is the political tendencies of the justices. Justices have ideologies. And I have no problem with them being left, right, center... whatever... (I prefer left or center but... that's not the issue) The problem is when the Court becomes Partisan. And, the Supreme Court started making actual partisan decisions in 2000 (at least in my lifetime). Partisan judges have been appointed only by Republicans. And now we have, for the first time in history, a majority of partisan justices I don't want partisan justices. Neither Democratic nor Republican partisans in the Court. There is a difference between having a certain ideology and being partisan. The latter is fine, and unavoidable. The latter is not!

It's not about political decisions that we don't like. It's about political decisions made to benefit one particular political Party.

 

Dred Scott? And then to repeal segregation we needed Brown V Board of Education. The SCOTUS has always been a controversial and ineffective mechanism in our country's history. We've just tolerated it(and I'm going to use that word 'tolerate' again BTW in a later paragraph.) The original intention was for the SCOTUS to resolve political disputes, but not to be involved in them until called upon. The political justices however have made SCOTUS more activist when receiving the cases.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/supreme-courts-legitimacy-intact/ This is a good article on the SCOTUS's history. And it alludes to my point, but I'll make it here: At a point in the 1830's, there was state/civil disobedience to the Court's rulings, and about the only reason today there isn't such activism, IMO is because of Eisenhower's decision to send troops to Little Rock.(And then there's the precedent set by Lincoln's decision in the Civil War, which actually IMO is controversial.)

Because, I think Lincoln should have enabled a peaceful dissolution of the Union. I think we as a union should have an opt-out clause. Especially given our politics in the 21st century and the internet. There's clearly differences between us as citizens that may be unrepairable.

We obviously however don't want to commit crimes against each other, or hurt each other. So we should feasibly be allowed to dissolve the hereto nonexistent "union". Unfortunately, we don't have that right. Just like the Court has been established as the "law of the land" in this country.

For a country that's based on freedom, there's actually quite a few heavy restrictions(that restrict human nature) if our nature were left unchecked, our 'tolerance' of the Court would be unbearable, both ways. Conservatives against Roe, and Liberals against Heller.'

The Court is simply not a remedy for our political woes, in fact it has become now a source of them.

The irony is the old statement that the pen is mightier than the sword.(Or perhaps in Donald's case, the money is mightier than the sword.) He got to become POTUS, with it came the authority to appoint Justices and then it was up to the Senate to 'advise and consent' and ultimately to push Brett Kavanaugh.

(Or to push Elena Kagan, or Sotomoyer. Who are no less partisan.) The real 'upset' is that there are more conservative partisans than Liberal partisans now. And there have been IMO for at least the past 30 years. So what's wrong with a conservative court for a change?

IMO, there shouldn't be a court at all but I'm willing to reserve judgment for the conservative version of the court. The liberal version, has been a complete disaster.

 

Easy enough for you to show. When have the bad guys won in this country in the long run?

-Bad guys wanted slaves... Good guys wanted to abolish slavery. Good guys won.
-Bad guys didn't care if older people lived, died or received medical care. Good guys fought for Social Security. Good guys won
-Bad guys didn't want women to vote... Good guys fought for equal voting rights. Good guys won.
-Bad guys wanted to keep white privilege. Good guys passed Civil Rights Act. Good guys won
-Bad guys don't want gays to have the right to marry whomever they want. Good guys passed marriage equality.
-Bad guys wanted Insurance Corporations to make unlimited amount of money, good guys passed Obamacere.
-Bad guys wanted to build a wall with Mexico. Good guys stopped them.
-Bad guys wanted to separate children from their families. Good guys went to court to stop them. Good guys won
...

There is, of course, many fights still in progress. Bad guys want to destroy the environment, undo the Civil Liberties Act, deny voting rights to minorities, transform SCOTUS into just another partisan agency.... and many similar things. But they are on the wrong side of history and they will lose.

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

And the minority who wants that lost the civil war So it doesn't make sense to even debate that.

Because of the partisanship of the Republicans on it. And it will be much worse now.

You would have to show one, because I have never seen a partisan opinion from either of them. I have seen ideological decisions. But not partisan. I believe you are confusing the two. The Republicans in the court have passed legislation that is clearly partisan.

Now there are 5 Republican partisans, vs 4 non-partisan conservatives and centrists. There are no liberals. So you are right. 5 to 0 is definitely more.

Again: you confuse ideology with partisanship. I have no problem whatsoever with a Conservative Court. I have problems with a Republican partisan court. There hasn't been a liberal justice since Justice William Douglas, who retired in the 1970s. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg are centrists. Kagan and Breyer are moderate-right conservatives.. But none of these 4 are partisan. The other 5 are.

 

Minority?

https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/12/if-californians-want-to-secede

It's increasing more and more with our polarity. Left/right Americans(including leaning-Americans) simply do not concur with each other on fundamental ways of living. Yet, deep down we don't wish ill will against each other(or at least, speaking for myself I don't wish ill will on you.) Our values are just simply incompatible.

And save for moving to another country, the best bet is dissolution. Hell, the anti-Federalists argued for not unifying in the first place. And in lieu of the history/present, if we were to have unified, Washington should've accepted the crown.

Reading the various papers and applying 21st century history, I saw Lincoln and the North as aggressors, whereas the South invoked self-determination. One of the big factors was Van Buren creating the two party system. As I said, I'm a Fascist(a Fascist-Technocrat, in my terms.) And I do think the one thing that Hitler ever got right was:

"One State, one Party, one Leader." The political divisions accomplish nothing, but strife and civil unrest and the only thing is, the degree/level of the strife and unrest. But no matter what, there would be strife and unrest in society. Having called myself a Fascist-Technocrat, it's just important to slightly note here that Fascism is Benito Mussolini's toy and has a far different philosophy than Hitler's Germany. Me, I've incorporated several aspects of both, throwing away what I found inconvenient(namely, political violence in the 21st century. I'm admittedly somewhat of a pacifist, which both of them would despise. Not so much out of cowardice, but out of the known consequences of violence. If they saw the destruction of their empires, they would think perhaps even a little 'was it worth it'?)

So rather than use force, I find persuasive arguments much more compelling. If I can convince people that the ideology is right, and to be ideologically committed to the State, that would be much more long lasting. As we are ideologically committed to the Republic(not really IMO) or to democracy(which has quickly become a political plutocracy IMO.)

So we have been an ideologically committed country. I just want to change our ideology.

In the worst case scenario, if Roe V Wade is overturned(or Casey), then it goes back to the state level. And if that's really undesirable for Democrats, when/if they win the House, they should consider writing legislation that etches it into law even beyond the Courts. Hell, a constitutional amendment.

Then at least they'd be doing something productive other than Kavanaugh's impeachment(or more Russia investigation.) The Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING to show that they're better at Republicans in any facet of government since the 2016 elections.

Not a decision, but Kagan refused to recuse from ACA hearings. I'd call that partisan. Ms.Ginsberg's comments on Trump(that she had to take back) were clearly partisan as well. Not a court decision per say(I don't normally pay attention to the Courts.) In fact, I think that's when the SCOTUS is at its best, when we don't pay attention to it. It should have no political relevance to the nation. Even Justices admit as much. But here's where the hypocrisy lies: If one acknowledges the ideal state of the Court is where it has no political relevance, why have the Court to begin with?

I would love to hear a Justice argue on behalf of the sanctity of the SCOTUS, for the good of the nation.

I don't think anyone thinks Ginsburg is a centrist. Kagan definitely isn't a centrist. Breyer is, and Justice Kennedy was. On that note, Kavanaugh concurred with Garland over 93% of the time(Source: Ms. Collins). So if you're upset about Garland, if we presume Kavanaugh will continue to rule as he has, this is as good of a pick as you can hope.

 

Ha ha .. and the PT Barnum - "A sucker born every minute".

The thing about elections is that you do not need to fool all the people. All you need to do is fool a fraction of half of the people. At the end of the day if you can get 30% of the total to vote for you - you win. Turnout in 2016 was 58%. Trump won with less than 29%.

 

I do not think it was all mainstream liberals. That is not what I get from talking to people. These extremist nazi fembots who are going around making the claim that "the victim should be believed" - basically saying the man is guilty in every instance - I think is shocking even to most liberals.

What was bizarre to me - was this dwarfed the discussion of whether or not Kavanaugh was qualified based on is record. It simply wasn't discussed in any detail. Instead the focus was on purported actions of some teenager in high school from 35 years ago - and that was pretty much it.

Then there was the nonsense about drinking in college. IMO - someone who did not get drunk a few times in college has no business being a Judge .. never mind a SC Justice. These people should have an understanding of the people - and most of us have gotten stupid drunk on more than one occasion.

Do we live in a nation where there is no forgiveness ? Where someone can not change. Where doing one stupid thing in high school ruins your entire life ? Is that where we want to go. Now that we are in the age of "meta data" everything you have ever said electronically can be tracked - an perhaps used later against you.

There was little discussion of his actual record as a Judge, his politics, agenda and so on. Apparently this no longer matters.

There was no discussion of "Tyranny of the Majority" moving the bar from 60% to 50+1 - simple majority. It used to be 67% which is where it is supposed to be.

Where were the Republicans on this. 50+1 = Tyranny of the Majority is one if the prime tenets of Republicanism .. well and Classical Liberalism for that matter (the ideology on which the founders based the founding principles of this nation).

Its a clown show through and through .. on all sides.

There a few primary reasons why Kavanaugh should not have been confirmed - Drinking in college and the Ford allegations are not one of them.