Lolwat? Kavanaugh is absolutely a Trumpican. He is open about pardoning the President for crimes he's (allegedly) committed.
So-called Mr Balls n Strikes Roberts is the "swing"vote now,
and we know, with the exception ACA (which he managed screw via the backdoor by making Medicaid expansion a state's option), he ALWAYS swings pro-oligarchy.
Oligarchy SCOTUS5 politicians-in-robes, s 5-4 for decades
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-21-2018 at 11:18 AM.
How would you parse the difference?
LOL shouldn't investigate the president from some piece of who was part of Ken Starr's investigation. This asshole is almost as bad as Bork.
no diff. K will vote with the other 4 right wing extreme activist every time.
Can pay to wrap a bus but can't find more than six women for Kavanaugh. smh
Senate Republicans to propose Wednesday hearing for Kavanaugh, accuser:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...litics+News%29
there are no female Senators or staffers to handle that on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee and they fear the bad optics, so their partisan demand is to have outside counsel to carry water for them.
Are all the "mistaken iden y" gambits from team rape just a coincidence?
He worked in the Bush White House and he was appointed to the bench by Bush. Bush is a moderate Republican. Trump is a....I don't know. But Trump is not a moderate Republican.
That said, people have politicized the bench. The Supreme Court justices don't approach cases like oh I'm a Democrat so I have to support any abortion ruling or Oh I'm a Republican so I have to support the 2nd amendment. They differ in how they interpret the cons ution, be it a traditional, textual approach or a penumbra/living breathing do ent approach. Those approaches tend to go certain ways, but I don't see any of the people on the bench as political hacks. I don't see Kavanaugh as one either. He's opposed because he is a textualist, at essence. Maybe that seems to be a distinction without a difference, but I think there is some difference there.
the bench is inherently political. justices are politically appointed.
the judicial branch is a co-equal sovereign. it's decisions bind the other branches, it wields power.
it's political through and through -- always has been, its conceit not to be totally notwithstanding.
"I don't see any of the people on the bench as political hacks."
I don't see Kavanaugh as one either. He's opposed because he is a textualist, at essence.
You haven't explained the difference between a Bush Republican and a Trump Republican. You just said Trump isn't moderate.
What would a moderate Republican look like?
What made GWB moderate as compared with Trump?
That's the perception. The justices see themselves as non-political. Look for interviews with any of them. 95% of the cases they hear have nothing political to them. They are just interpretations of the tax code or some such. We make it political to explain 1-2% of the cases they hear. There are cases that are politically charged, but the justices don't approach them on politics, they approach the question from what the cons ution says and prior precedent. Sure, that tends to lead to a lot of 5/4 decisions that seem to be split politically, but not always so. Some "conservative" benches have sided with liberals (see Gay Marriage, Upholding Obamacare, etc).
We live in an age where everything is seen through political lens by the media and internet people. These allegations against Kavanaugh are paper thin, as in no concrete evidence. Yet if you are a Democrat, you think he is guilty of rape (generally they go right past attempted rape and call him a rapist), and if you are a Republican, you believe Kavanaugh without a second thought even though there is some credibility to the claim. That's just the world we live in.
Brett Kavanaugh's Female Clerks Had To Have A 'Certain Look' Says Yale Student
A Yale law school student who was seeking a clerkship was told that
Alex Kosinzki sexually harassed his female clerks and
Brett Kavanaugh needed his clerks to have a ‘certain look.’ Huffington Post:
“He did not say what the ‘certain look’ was. I did not ask,” the woman said.She was also encouraged by the professor’s wife, a law professor known as “Tiger Mom”
“It was very clear to me that he was talking about physical appearance,
because it was phrased as a warning ―
and
because it came after the warning about Judge Kozinski.”
“I had mixed feelings,” said the woman, who asked to remain anonymous due to privacy concerns.
“On the one hand, it’s a yellow flag; on the other hand, phew, I hadn’t heard anything else.”
to submit photographs of what she might wear, a request which she declined.
Giving law students advice on what to wear to an interview isn’t terribly odd
“It sounds sexist,” Chen said.
“If you’re going into that kind of detail,
it sounds like the judge has a fetish, frankly, and
that the law professors are feeding the fetish.”
do you suppose any male student contemplating employment with Justice Ginsburg, for example,
was ever encouraged to submit photos of himself modeling garments that he might wear to an interview?
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
it's the reality. the narrative that the bench isn't political is itself a political ideology that masks the operation of power.
it's a fig leaf for thoroughly political animals called judges.
Meh, he would be the white version of Clearance Thomas, tbh...
Well, by today's terms, I don't know what the Republican party is. I mean, tax cuts are traditional Republican policies. But tearing up free trade agreements and imposing tariffs is not. That's pro labor policy. Or building the wall...that's probably far right. But there are people that want sensible immigration policies. I think that is the center of the Dems and Republicans. It's just the extremes in the parties pull a deal apart. Dems to the far left want open borders, which is crazy. I guess it just depends on the issue.
But Kavanaugh is not a Trumper. In fact, I think Trump picked him because he thought he'd be the easiest to confirm.
It's hard today to tell what is a moderate in either party because they have both become more entrenched in their ideology.
The opinions are based on legal analysis of the Cons ution, not what the political platform of the left or right says. That's why I don't think it is an inherently political branch. But I do think that people make it that way to explain the outcomes of the opinions.
GWB was installed in office by an en banc SCOTUS decision that was essentially a political plebiscite of nine justices.
SCOTUS tore that veil off its own face.
"I think Trump picked him because he thought he'd be the easiest to confirm. "
Trash picked him because K said a President is untouchably above the law,
after K's rat ing Clinton as totally vulnerable to the law
The fact that two justices can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same court goes to show that the legal analysis is certainly influenced by the social/political beliefs. Interpreting the Cons ution is certainly not an exact science.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
