Supreme Court Pick. . . . Tea leaves say Brett Kavanaugh

a reply to: Xtrozero

We are in complete agreement on that. 99.99% of "da politics" is designed for two things: to keep us stressed via anger and fear and to slowly condition us to accepting fewer personal rights.

a reply to: queenofswords

Perhaps even better, we will as a society value the reasonable rational ways to prevent pregnancy, and support those.

Satire:

I'll say it again ... moderates could have done a LOT WORSE than Kavanaugh.

Pffft. I read their profiles and histories right after they were announced. As soon as I saw he essentially opposes checks and balances for the president, it was a no-brainer who trump would choose.

Dictatorship:

The Canadians ask "Holy Smokes, could this happen to us?"

The Americans ask "How long have we got?"

a reply to: angeldoll

he essentially opposes checks and balances for the president

So you do not believe a Supreme Court Justice should operate by the Constitution?

Interesting...

TheRedneck

a reply to: angeldoll

Give us a timeframe for The BlackPill

www.cnn.com... any one know what this means?

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sent an email Tuesday to the US attorneys' offices around the country requesting help with reviewing documents in connection with President Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, according to a source familiar with the request. "As a result of Judge Kavanaugh's extensive career in public service, DOJ may need to review a large volume of documents," Rosenstein wrote. "In order to complete the project within the time requested, we may need the equivalent of more than 100 full-time attorneys." He requested one to three names from each of the 93 US attorneys' offices. The New York Times first reported the email. The paper trail tied to Kavanaugh, who served in the administration of President George W. Bush as associate counsel and later as staff secretary, has become central to the fight over his nomination in the Senate.

NYT also ran with it and seemed to be unusual? has this ever been done before or is it like a standard operating procedure? or is it just odd due to the number of prosecutors needed?

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: angeldoll

he essentially opposes checks and balances for the president

So you do not believe a Supreme Court Justice should operate by the Constitution?

Interesting...

TheRedneck

I'd say it's challenging to support "Originalism" of a document written 231 years ago.

A document that was, at least in part, pieced together from other documents.

a reply to: Annee

I disagree.

And, if we are to abandon this "document written 231 years ago," what says Trump cannot just stay in power forever?

TheRedneck

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Not unusual according to what I have been reading. The DoJ regularly does it's own vetting and reports it to Congress before the confirmation hearing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

thank you for your reply as this is far from even being remotely in my area of experience,in your opinion will this speed up or slow down the nomination process? assuming nothing like earth shatteringly controversial is found i mean

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

I disagree.

And, if we are to abandon this "document written 231 years ago," what says Trump cannot just stay in power forever?

TheRedneck

Where did I mention abandoning it?

a reply to: Annee

Where did I mention abandoning it?

originally posted by: Annee

I'd say it's challenging to support "Originalism" of a document written 231 years ago.

A document that was, at least in part, pieced together from other documents.

That sounds like you don't believe the Constitution should be followed, which I interpreted as abandoning it. After all, why follow a document the is so old and outdated?

If you do not follow the Constitution in one section, you abandon all sections. It is not an a'la carte menu. It either is the description and restrictions on the US government, or it is not. If it is, the Supreme Court must make all decisions based on it. If it is not, then there is no restriction on the government to force a change in Presidency every 8 years, there is no requirement for a law to be passed by a Congress, no requirement for member s of Congress to be elected, no protection of freedom of speech or religion... we are in a place where anything goes, whether you agree with it or not. We become serfs to a ruling class.

Is that what you want?

Me, I have made my decision. I will support the Constitution, even when I disagree with it, because without it things are much worse.

You make your own decision.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

Where did I mention abandoning it?

originally posted by: Annee

I'd say it's challenging to support "Originalism" of a document written 231 years ago.

A document that was, at least in part, pieced together from other documents.

That sounds like you don't believe the Constitution should be followed, which I interpreted as abandoning it. After all, why follow a document the is so old and outdated?

If you do not follow the Constitution in one section, you abandon all sections. It is not an a'la carte menu. It either is the description and restrictions on the US government, or it is not. If it is, the Supreme Court must make all decisions based on it. If it is not, then there is no restriction on the government to force a change in Presidency every 8 years, there is no requirement for a law to be passed by a Congress, no requirement for member s of Congress to be elected, no protection of freedom of speech or religion... we are in a place where anything goes, whether you agree with it or not. We become serfs to a ruling class.

Is that what you want?

Me, I have made my decision. I will support the Constitution, even when I disagree with it, because without it things are much worse.

You make your own decision.

TheRedneck

No where do I say anything close to abandoning the Constitution.

This - - "I'd say it's challenging to support "Originalism" of a document written 231 years ago" - - says nothing close to abandoning the Constitution.

It is a framework - - that has to evolve in how it views life and situations today.

The reality is - - 231 years ago - - wise as the framers were, could not predict society as it is today - - anymore then we, today, can predict what life will be 231 years from now.

I personally see "Originalism" as an excuse used by Conservatives.