People go back to that decision. But it wasn't based on polling. It was based on law and analysis of law. People project their political bias on the opinion because it better suits their narrative. You think Bush was an illegitimate president, therefore the body that found in his favor was biased. If it had gone the other way, you would say that it was an even handed decision.
Judges are skilled at finding precedent and crafting legal rationales consistent with their political predilections. How could they not?
Do judges in general respect and try to adhere to the law? Absolutely yes.
But that does not mean that what they do isn't political.
I hated Gore but thought the decision was a piece of crap.
the tell was that none of them had the guts to sign the opinion.
I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that two people can read a statute or an opinion and come to two different and somewhat legitimate conclusions. Now, I'm not a cons utional lawyer (though I did get an A in con law), but I have studied opinions. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, but if you are a textualist, of course it's going to come against rights that are not enumerated in the cons ution. Likewise, if you believe in a living, breathing cons ution, then you will tend to interpret things as rights. Those two views can be opposed. But they also look at precedent, so it's not just what the Cons ution says or doesn't say.
Judges will tell you, and I believe them, that they do not let their personal beliefs into their analysis. I've wrote legal opinions that I disagreed with personally, but I knew that is what the law required. I think that can and does happen all the time on the Supreme Court.
"It was based on law and analysis of law."
bull
Scalia said SCOTUS didn't have time before 20 Jan to make sure the FL vote elected the right candidate.
"textually", the C says 20 Jan for swearing in, and for extreme right wing activist judges like Scalia and friends, that overrides electing the candidate with the most votes.
That's an outsider's view. I've worked with two Federal Judges before. That is not the case in my experience.
uh huh, and people tend to be textualist or not based on their pre-existing political beliefs.
It goes way deeper than whether you are for or against gay marriage. That's an outsider view. They didn't choose textualism because they wanted to stop abortions. Statutory interpretation is a codified approach. Heck, Texas has a statute that tells you how you are supposed to construe statutes. They choose textualism because they feel that is the best way to approach analysis of whether or not a right exists without imposing their own political views.
Don Jr. tweets a -shaming attack on Christine Blasey Ford's entire high school
Don Jr. retweeted a D’Souza tweet saying that
“No one in the media is covering the culture of hookups and binge drinking the accuser was part of.
Here’s what they’re trying to cover up.”
The article posts photos allegedly from Ford’s high school yearbook that relate to drinking and sex — although
nowhere in the messages is Ford herself actually mentioned as taking part in such activities. [...]
“The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up,” the post states.
“There’s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It’s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a ‘look the other way’ faculty.”
That’s a fun little slide from what Kavanaugh’s yearbooks imply he did himself
to what Ford’s yearbooks imply some of her classmates did. Got that?
Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who Ford credibly alleges sexually assaulted her,
but hey, everyone, look over there!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
And I would add that the more liberal justices do not just conclude that every right is available simply because the cons ution is a living, breathing do ent. Their opinions are based on a methodological approach. It is not a given that it always leads them in the opposite direction of a textualist, though that often is the case on like 1-2% of the opinions. The problem is that the only ones people care about en mass are the 1-2% of the opinions.
and, yet, they did. The man who received the most votes in Florida became president.
How do we know the judge was a heavy drinker? What makes her allegation credible? There is no corroboration. The most convenient thing about her accusation, to me, is the lack of specifics. He can neither say "I wasn't at a party that night" (with potential evidence), or "I've never bee to that house" - again with potential evidence. As long as the charge is "somewhere" "sometime", it is impossible to defeat. Convenient.
You're a lawyer, and you think that Supreme Court nominees are apolitical?
What planet are you a lawyer on? Neptune?
I think the process to confirm them is political, mostly because people make it so. But I don't think judges on the bench on the Supreme Court make political decisions based on their views of politics. I've worked with two Federal Judges, both from different parties. I never once saw them want to look at a political party platform before making a decision. The world behind the courtroom walls is very different than what you think and read on progressive (or conservative) blogs.
John Paul Stevens, the guy that wrote the dissent on Bush v. Gore publicly said it was not a politically biased decision.
I couldn't decide which third party loser to waste my vote on in 2000.
Patrick Buchanan was the closest to what I thought I believed at the time, but I thought he was over the hill and, face it, a political rat er by pedigree. Harry Browne I was sentimentally attached to because of his books on finance and money, but he was just awful as a candidate. Nader was the only one of them with coherent ideas and his head screwed on straight, I agreed with maybe 1/3 of what he said -- a high ratio for me -- so I held my nose and voted for him
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-21-2018 at 01:43 PM.
I just ignore those kind of posts. So in the era a bunch of people drank and were sexually handsy, Kavanaugh grew up in that era, therefore he committed attempted rape.
he's already made a decision. that trump shouldn't be investigated. thats why he picked him.
No one is saying that the justices are making calls to the house whip to find out what the party wants their decision to be on every single decision passed down. Though I would have fair bets about that happening also, on both sides of the aisle, especially when it's a particularly sticky topic.
But they are absolutely chosen for political means and gains. Both appointments by Trump are going to walk the conservative line their entire life with nary a deviation. You can't look at that and say it's free of partisanship -- your viewpoint just doesn't cohabitate with reality, or you're so inured to the system that you can't step out of the box and see the bigger picture.
Frankly I can't even believe we're having this debate. It's such a non-starter for a real discussion that it feels like you're just attempting to flex a heavy-handed "better than the know-nothing hoi polloi" at ude.
Ah, he did something that haunts a woman almost 4 decades later. Might as well just chalk it up to boys being boys. Hey, whites used to lynch black people back in the day cause it was, yanno, the zeitgeist, so why even call those crimes?
I have serious ing doubts about your credentials as a lawyer with that kind of bull tery.
If you think that because Kavanaugh allegedly grew up in an era where partying and the behavior he is accused of is common, ergo, he did it, then I can't help you. But in the law, we don't convict people on such generalities, and thankfully so. Instead we rely on due process and evidence.
The only people writing about "boys will be boys" are the great slayers of straw-men on the left. Kavanaugh's defenders are saying "there is no evidence or corroboration, but there are inconsistencies in her story."
It's a non-starter because I'm talking to someone that sees things only through politics and doesn't understand the complexity of the law and analysis that goes into judicial interpretation of the cons ution.
wtf.
This isn't a criminal court. He's not being arrested. He's not being tried in a court for evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a job interview for the highest court in the land. It's a character review.
Why do I have to delineate this incredibly rudimentary thing to you? Do you actually not understand the difference between criminal court and a judicial nomination review?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote