SCOTUS

We will win this too...Dems blew their defense and can also blame Grandma Ginsberg for not retiring when Obama was in power, she?s next...idjuts!!

Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump has picked Brett M. Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge with extensive legal credentials and a lengthy political record, to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh, 53, is an ideological conservative who is expected to push the court to the right on a number of issues including business regulation and national security.
But he is also considered a safer pick than some of the more partisan choices on the president?s shortlist.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html
 
eyephone said:
Ready2Downsize said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ng-choosing-up-to-five-supreme-court-justices

Dems better pray Trump doesn't get re-elected and get some senate seats to block even more conservative picks down the road.

Ginsberg shoulda retired years ago when Obama could have filled her seat.
Click to expand...

What is the relationship between the Trumps and Justin Kennedy?
Click to expand...


Don't know, don't care. Election ain't now and the only news I see is a headline which I rarely click on because they are mostly opinions and not facts.

I rather spend my time on seeing new crafts to make and finding out when Better Call Saul is coming on again.

After not voting for years, I did vote last election and you bet I'll be voting again.

If you are interested in getting the dems out to vote, you can always get involved in the postcards to voters movement. I got no problem taking blue money.



 
kavanaugh is a great pick! can?t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman?s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn?t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)
 
Fake news...

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that "can easily get confused and lumped together."

"While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context," she said. "A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked."

Citing two former members of senior management, Ruhle said, "a lot of the recent lending comes from the private bank...most of which was done after Justin left the bank."

"The business Mr. Kennedy ran was part of a real estate team that did some business. It was not part of the private bank business
 
Kings said:
kavanaugh is a great pick! can?t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman?s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn?t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)
Click to expand...

LOL!

No matter who the Don picked, it wouldn't be any good and would be worthy of trashing and protests out the wazoo.

Dems better hope Ruth doesn't have to step down.
 
despite all the excessive media coverage  this scotus thing is getting (and the MAGA high fives here) , this is very much a partisan issue and will activate the base on each side.  The right doesn't have any moral leg to stand on except "hey we owned the libs" after the treatment given to merrick garland (was he "good" or "bad" ? I don't know and I don't care as much) . 

The independents will get tired of this soon and move on to the next trump dumpster fire...
 
fortune11 said:
despite all the excessive media coverage  this scotus thing is getting (and the MAGA high fives here) , this is very much a partisan issue and will activate the base on each side.  The right doesn't have any moral leg to stand on except "hey we owned the libs" after the treatment given to merrick garland (was he "good" or "bad" ? I don't know and I don't care as much) . 

The independents will get tired of this soon and move on to the next trump dumpster fire...
Click to expand...

When the dems get back in power, they'll just add more seats to the supreme court and move it back to the left and they can legislate thru the supreme court instead of the legislature.......... basically back to two branches of the government.

FDR tried to do it when he couldn't get his New Deal bills passed but it didn't work, but since when is that a reason to not try again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

By then, I'll be a whining senior complaining social security needs to be raised and of course the dems will make sure that happens. Won't be especially good for those still working to give me my entitlements but oh well........ who cares, right? As long as the liberals are back in power.
 
This is getting old, headlines at every confirmation hearing...13 years later, it's still here...boy who cried wolf...again.

Justice Roberts Hints He Could Overturn Roe


Alito argued to overturn Roe v. Wade

Feinstein sees Judge Gorsuch as a threat to Roe vs. Wade and the right to abortion

Yes, Susan Collins, Brett Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade

 
Ready2Downsize said:
Kings said:
kavanaugh is a great pick! can?t wait to hear the outrage about the time he glanced at a woman?s cleavage out the corner of his eye, only tipped 15% at a mexican restaurant, and didn?t recycle a plastic bottle  ::)
Click to expand...

LOL!

No matter who the Don picked, it wouldn't be any good and would be worthy of trashing and protests out the wazoo.

Dems better hope Ruth doesn't have to step down.
Click to expand...

dems are going to have to pull a weekend at bernie's to keep good ol' ruth on the bench for the next 6 years of trump's presidency
 
You ever wonder why Liberals are so paranoid about Roe v Wade?

It's because they know there is no sound legal basis for the decision.

The Roe SCOTUS held a state denying early term abortions to be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Go and read the US Constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy. The court said the right to privacy is found in a penumba of the constitution, not in actual text of the document and any state that restricts abortions violates that penumbra. So what is a penumbra? It is whatever the unelected judges say it is.

In other words, a different court can easily find a different penumbra. Or you might get a court who doesn't believes in penumbras at all and will instead look to the actual text of the constitution. Either of these would be a disaster for Liberals.
 
For most conservatives, the US Constitution is a sacred text.

For most liberals, the US Constitution is a flawed document because it's framers possessed the original sins of being white, male, and slave owners. Therefore, liberals have no problem finding things that don't exist in the Constitution (Abortion Rights) and ignoring things that do exist in the Constitution (2nd Amendment).

Liberals take the Marxist view of constitutions: a document to empower the government to carry out its current policies rather than the conservative view of an eternal unchanging restraint on government power.
 
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench. There will be other justices to decide to keep or toss it that aren't even on the court yet.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c
 
Happiness said:
You ever wonder why Liberals are so paranoid about Roe v Wade?

It's because they know there is no sound legal basis for the decision.

The Roe SCOTUS held a state denying early term abortions to be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Go and read the US Constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy. The court said the right to privacy is found in a penumba of the constitution, not in actual text of the document and any state that restricts abortions violates that penumbra. So what is a penumbra? It is whatever the unelected judges say it is.

In other words, a different court can easily find a different penumbra. Or you might get a court who doesn't believes in penumbras at all and will instead look to the actual text of the constitution. Either of these would be a disaster for Liberals.
Click to expand...

I hate the "read the Constitution" argument.  Constitution was written 237 years ago...Constitutional Law has been in existence of 237 years and SC rulings are just as "constitutional" as the Constitution. 
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench. There will be other justices to decide to keep or toss it that aren't even on the court yet.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c
Click to expand...

Oh good...I guess women in the other 20+ states are just going to have to deal with it.
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
That Genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of legal maneuvering will ever put it back. So if Roe is overturned, there's plenty of other case law to allow the procedure to be continued. It would take 4-5 years for any court case to wind its way through the system anyway and by then RBG and perhaps another justice will have shuffled off the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario for someone who supports Roe, if it's overturned and "sent back to the States"... does anyone really think Cali, New York, Florida, et al are going to ban it?

Calm your tits everyone. This is not the apocalypse people think it is.

My .02c
Click to expand...

Good point no one ever mentions. If Roe is overturned, that just means each states gets to regulate abortions not that abortions will be banned. If Roe gets overturned and some states don't allow it, there will be a big abortion tourism industry in California. MAX ROI for us!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top