Who you got for SCOUTUS

[BmorePat87]

(07-09-2018, 06:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Is this going to affect me in any way?

No, you're a straight man. 

[BmorePat87]

Solid pick by the Heritage Foundation. Champion of conservative causes and willing to do a complete 180 on his views of indicting sitting Presidents once he is given a job by one from his party.

His past statements supporting very broad charges against Clinton while authoring Ken Starr's report should provide for some interesting confirmation questions, but ultimately Mitch McConnell, being quite stand up and not at all capable of making a mockery of the Senate for petty partisan reasons, will try to shove this confirmation through as fast as he can. After all, it is an election year.

[BmorePat87]

Also, go Maryland native! Suck it, losers.

[*Nately120*]

(07-09-2018, 11:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, you're a straight man. 

True, but I seem to like freedom more than most people I know so I could be bummed regardless.

[*bfine32*]

(07-09-2018, 11:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but I seem to like freedom more than most people I know so I could be bummed regardless.

Strange, I like freedom about the same as most people I know. Given we've never taken a poll. We must run in different circles. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Trump is replacing right leaning Justices with right leaning Justices and the Left is losing their minds.

What's going to happen when RBG retires or dies and Trump replaces her with Barrett?

[Benton]

Guy is pretty much a lobbyist wet dream, not just for what he decides, but how he does it.

Net neutrality — Violates free speech of companies.

Obamacare— You're already paying for it with taxes, but when the government added some transparency and added some price controls... K laid the foundation to have Obamacare overturned because it could be considered a tax. Nevermind the taxes already collected and subsidies spent for the last several decades.

Church and state —Is good with tearing down church and state wall.

Abortion— He's ok with it, as long as companies/groups can still avoid paying for it based on religious views.

Unions — They're bad.

Companies are people — Yup, presumably in line with other partisan judges who think companies have the same rights if not the same responsibilities.

More legislation — In favor, judging by his tendency to say 'that's what should happen but it's up to Congress' on matters ranging from global warming to banking. Instead of agencies with people who know what to do, it's, K has ruled regularly, up to Congress to create more laws. Who those laws are enforced by? Who the heck knows... they'll probably (if they think clean water or risky bank investing are concerns) just create agencies and staff them with people who know what to... er... wait, isn't that what ... egads...

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 12:25 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Trump is replacing right leaning Justices with right leaning Justices and the Left is losing their minds.

What's going to happen when RBG retires or dies and Trump replaces her with Barrett?

I don't think Barrett was considered that seriously. She didn't have as big of a track record with the core issues like net neutrality or unions. Most of what has been publicized about her is her spiritual beliefs, which aren't going to get her nominated by this POTUS, and her desire to overturn previous court decisions, which isn't going to get her confirmed by any Congress. Lobbyists aren't going to pay you if your legislation is going to get overturned in a few years by some crusading judge with morals.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-09-2018, 11:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, they have decades.

They’ve had 4 1/2 decades to get rid of Roe. Still here.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 07:40 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They’ve had 4 1/2 decades to get rid of Roe. Still here.

They have the votes now.

There's a reason Turtle Head wouldn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing.  And there's a reason he will fast forward this choice right in.

It will take time...but the case will get to them.

[Belsnickel]

(07-10-2018, 12:54 AM)Benton Wrote:

Guy is pretty much a lobbyist wet dream, not just for what he decides, but how he does it.

Net neutrality — Violates free speech of companies.

Obamacare— You're already paying for it with taxes, but when the government added some transparency and added some price controls... K laid the foundation to have Obamacare overturned because it could be considered a tax. Nevermind the taxes already collected and subsidies spent for the last several decades.

Church and state —Is good with tearing down church and state wall.

Abortion— He's ok with it, as long as companies/groups can still avoid paying for it based on religious views.

Unions — They're bad.

Companies are people — Yup, presumably in line with other partisan judges who think companies have the same rights if not the same responsibilities.

More legislation — In favor, judging by his tendency to say 'that's what should happen but it's up to Congress' on matters ranging from global warming to banking. Instead of agencies with people who know what to do, it's, K has ruled regularly, up to Congress to create more laws. Who those laws are enforced by? Who the heck knows... they'll probably (if they think clean water or risky bank investing are concerns) just create agencies and staff them with people who know what to... er... wait, isn't that what ... egads...

You're forgetting the major selling point for Trump. Kavanaugh holds the opinion that a sitting POTUS should not be subject to lawsuits or investigations.

(07-10-2018, 08:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: They have the votes now.

There's a reason Turtle Head wouldn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing.  And there's a reason he will fast forward this choice right in.

It will take time...but the case will get to them.

I can't remember which cases, now, but there has been follow-up case law that has strengthened Roe. I do think the concerns over it being overturned are overblown. I'm much more concerned with his pro-corporation views.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2018, 08:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're forgetting the major selling point for Trump. Kavanaugh holds the opinion that a sitting POTUS should not be subject to lawsuits or investigations.


I can't remember which cases, now, but there has been follow-up case law that has strengthened Roe. I do think the concerns over it being overturned are overblown. I'm much more concerned with his pro-corporation views.

I think we're going to see a little of both to be honest.

I am not sure RVW will be overturned ever.  I am on record saying the GOP talks a good game about it but they never do anything on the federal level except try to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which is more about their hating funding for social programs than abortion.

But I know this increases the possibility that the SC will make changes.

I've already accepted that corporations will see the biggest gains.  I just believe we will see a sudden interest in "religious rights" overriding every other right.

[jj22]

Why people hate politics, but should be mad at themselves for so willingly playing the fool.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-impeachment.html

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2018, 10:31 AM)jj22 Wrote: Why people hate politics, but should be mad at themselves for so willingly playing the fool.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-impeachment.html

I honestly don't get your point.  

[Benton]

(07-10-2018, 08:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're forgetting the major selling point for Trump. Kavanaugh holds the opinion that a sitting POTUS should not be subject to lawsuits or investigations.


I can't remember which cases, now, but there has been follow-up case law that has strengthened Roe. I do think the concerns over it being overturned are overblown. I'm much more concerned with his pro-corporation views.

To the bold, I hadn't really looked into it that much. I assumed there was more to it given his flip on Clinton. Or maybe he realized how sleazy it was to about Clinton's ejaculation habits, and how much damage that did to the office.

To the rest, I don't think Roe V. Wade is in any danger from the nomination. But I do think the direction we're heading of 'corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, so they can deny you on those grounds' is going to be the issue. Which is going to further cement the odd bedfellows of organized religion and corporate profits.

[jj22]

(07-10-2018, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I honestly don't get your point.  

People hate politics because they say one thing (Presidents who attempt to avoid testifying should be impeached) and then say another a couple years later (Presidents can't be impeached, and don't have to testify) dependent on party.

They should be mad at themselves for falling for it. Not Politicians who know what works.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2018, 12:14 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Strange, I like freedom about the same as most people I know. Given we've never taken a poll. We must run in different circles. 

People around me are pretty zealous about the government limiting social or economic freedom.  Hell I only know one other libertarian.  The others I know joined one of the "winning teams" for their own reasons. I'd imagine you agree with more people about stuff like this because you don't argue with liberals that people shouldn't be forced to bake "gay cakes" and you don't argue with conservatives that we shouldn't limit freedom because some old book says we should. I'm just a big fan of anarchy according to some.

Hell, my rural PA hometown is all about freedom and American flags but all the local bars are begging the government to keep alcohol out of grocery stores and gas stations so they don't lose money. It's just a larf to see someone blather on about how awesome this country is because it's so free and then try to talk people into making things less free so they can make more money. God bless the fact that we live in a country where people are free to be such self-serving hypocrites.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2018, 11:03 AM)jj22 Wrote: People hate politics because they say one thing (Presidents who attempt to avoid testifying should be impeached) and then say another a couple years later (Presidents can't be impeached, and don't have to testify) dependent on party.

They should be mad at themselves for falling for it. Not Politicians who know what works.

They listed those as possible impeachable offenses, and nobody knows if he agreed.  Nobody said Presidents can't be impeached.  He said they shouldn't be criminally indicted while in office.  And whatever change of stance he had was in 2009 when Obama was just beginning his first term.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I feel forced to say this, did anyone expect him to pick a liberal candidate?  I certainly agree that the way Garland was handled was underhanded.  If you look at it from an ideological perspective replacing Scalia with Gorsuch merely kept the current balance in the SCOTUS.  Now replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh will certainly move the court to the right, but was anyone expecting Trump to nominate a liberal justice? 


Let's, for arguments sake, say Garland was confirmed and Hillary won the presidency.  She'd be nominating a left leaning justice and shifting the court to the left.  In that scenario everyone kvetching right now would be ecstatic and vice versa.  The court was bound to shift in an ideological direction at some point.  What concerns me is all this talk now of packing the court FDR style.  Dangerous ground if you ask me.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2018, 11:03 AM)Nately120 Wrote: People around me are pretty zealous about the government limiting social or economic freedom.  Hell I only know one other libertarian.  The others I know joined one of the "winning teams" for their own reasons.  I'd imagine you agree with more people about stuff like this because you don't argue with liberals that people shouldn't be forced to bake "gay cakes" and you don't argue with conservatives that we shouldn't limit freedom because some old book says we should.  I'm just a big fan of anarchy according to some.

With the possible exception of SSF walking up and shooting me (I can't remember who he used to say that to when they would bring up anarchy), anarchy has an appealing nature.  It can't work, but it's fun to think about sometimes.