Do you support Mr. Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Sep 21, 2018.

?

Should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed by the Senate?

Poll closed Sep 21, 2019.
  1. Yes, and I'm a Democrat

    4.5%
  2. No, and I'm a Democrat

    18.2%
  3. Yes, and I'm a Republican

    9.1%
  4. No, and I'm a Republican

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Yes, and I'm neither Democrat nor Republican

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. No, and I'm neither Democrat nor Republican

    54.5%
  7. I don't want to respond to the poll. Just show me the results.

    13.6%
  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    it certainly looks like the Republicans are attempting to play both sides of the personality politics game.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,436
    OK. Can a Supreme Court judge be tried, convicted and given a custodian sentence?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Yes, as long as the courts allow it. There is nothing in the law preventing it. But the law is whatever the court says it is. There is nothing in the law preventing a sitting president from being indicted and tried for his crimes. In fact, there is legal precedent for the indictment of a sitting president. Yet some Republicans, like Kavanaugh, believe the president is above the law. The law is whatever the court say it is.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,532
    Isn't it the congress that writes laws?
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,737
    Well, they certainly should:

    Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
    Section 1
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    However, it seems that most laws are written by lobbyists.

    And, then: If the constitutionality of a law is questioned, the courts weigh in on the law. The final arbiter is the supreme court.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,532
    Who can make a constitutional amendment or something?
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,737
    Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment)
    The Congress, whenever Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures ofthree fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...

    "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,"
    was added by the folks who gave us the "bill of rights"

    And, then we have "legislating from the bench" a.k.a. Judicial activism
    (normally in reference to the supreme court)
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    The standard for changing the Constitution is so high it's virtually impossible to do. In the 231 years since its ratification, it has only been changed 17 times. It's much easier to stuff the courts with your stooges as Republicans and their financial supporters have done.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,737
    We have 27 amendments
    After the 1st 12 were ratified it took 61 years before the next one
    since then we have had roughly one amendment every 10 years
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Yes, we do have 27 amendments. The first 10 were packaged together as the Bill of Rights and passed together as a package. The Bill of rights was one change, not 10. Two, the last time the Constitution was changed was May 5, 1992, more than 26 years ago, and it only took 202 years and 7 months to ratify it and for it to become part of the Constitution, and it was a rather innocuous change to the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution are very difficult.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
    sculptor likes this.
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,436
    Er, not quite, surely. They are bound by statute and precedent, are they not?
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    No, they aren't bound by statues. The statues are whatever they say they are. The Constitution is whatever the court says it is. The courts can and have reversed their decisions and the previous decisions of other courts. The Supreme Court isn't bound by statue or by previous court decisions, e.g. Bush v Gore.
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,737
    sometimes
    sometimes not
    Judicial activism has been a relative constant
    circa 1800 Jefferson had a problem with Marshals federalists leaning judgements
    and referred to him as a despot and the court as despotic.
     
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,094
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,532
    Aside, didn't Clinton get people nominated for something by talking to like some republicans beforehand to make sure they were cool with his pick?
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    He did, but Clinton wasn't a Republican. That's not how Republicans roll.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,133
    The Bill of Rights was passed simultaneously and identically with ratification. It was not a change to a previously ratified Constitution, but part of the original document.
    Thank you Ronald Reagan - for behold, the legacy of that Presidency passeth down from generation to generation, and abideth with us unto the ends of our days. Apparently.
    It's an odd concept, this "activism".

    In some cases it refers to legally correcting gross errors of legal judgment - such as in overruling previous denial of Constitutional rights to various citizens of the US. In these cases it is - invariably - the correction that is termed "activism", while the original abrogation of the Constitution and judicial overruling of its provisions is termed "originalist" or "conservative" or something.

    On the other hand, blatant examples of judicial creativity and unsupported invention and overruling of precedent in recent times
    - such as the Citizens United ruling, which extended Constitutional rights to entities that are not US citizens, not human beings, not in existence when the Constitution was written, and in general (had they existed) would have been prosecuted as criminal enterprises at the time the Constitution was written -
    are not routinely labeled "activism".

    So the term is - let's say - flexibly and operationally defined, in practice.

    But even given the state of the current Court, sad though it may have become in the wake of Bush v Gore, the nomination of someone like Kavanaugh to sit on it and rule on such significant matters for decades to come is nauseating. There is no way to hide the smell. There is no way to support Kavanaugh's nomination and stay clean.
     
  21. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,532
    Erm, when it comes to the news I usually like to wait for some cross reference. The media attention Michael Avenatti has been getting, however, suggests to me that this can get more political.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...anaugh-gang-rape-avenatti-20180923-story.html

    :EDIT:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ugh-exposed-himself-to-her-at-yale-party.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2018
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,133
    The cross references already available here go back a couple of years - to things like dark money reports from 2015 and 2016.
    And it cannot get "more political" - it's a Republican partisan political story from the gitgo.
     
  23. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanau...ter-9337f417-1078-4334-8a81-c2b4fc051f99.html

    Understand that legally complaint means something specific: it means one has, with a law enforcement organization, filed an affidavit identifying an unlawful wrong that one suffered. AFAIK, Dr. Ford hasn't filed an affidavit with any law enforcement organization. AFAIK, all Dr. Ford has done is share information.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018

Share This Page