Any one of the candidates for the Republican primary would have nominated a conservative justice for an opening on the Supreme Court. And most, if not all, would have done a better job of selecting and vetting a suitable candidate even if it was a sure thing because of the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump picked Kavanaugh because Kavanaugh dissented on the decision to let an pregnant teenage immigrant access to abortion, which was part of the larger attack on undocumented immigrants, and because Kavanaugh is a rabid anti-Clinton who worked on the Starr investigation.
And oh, by the way, remember “drain the swamp”? Kavanaugh is so swampy he probably has webbed feet. He has spent his entire career in and around D.C. with the exception of a few years spent at Kirkland & Ellis, working on both the Starr report and for the George W. Bush administration. He’s a Washington insider through and through, and probably has to produce a passport to go outside the beltway.
Getting a conservative justice was not a reason to vote for Trump in the primary election, and although Gorsuch was a credible choice as a conservative-leaning judge with good credentials and a reputation for considering legal nuance (sometimes to a fault), Kavanaugh’s record is a blatantly partisan even before we get into his temperament, teenage and college behavior he denied under oath, and sexual assault allegations.
No, I meant borders; I don’t see a need for a wall — I’m not a Trump voter, after all; that’s just crazy talk — just, y’know, enforcement. Vigorous enforcement, and no love for the idea of open borders, or for the idea of amnesty, and so on.
Near as I can tell, the Supreme Court can rule on the rights of folks who are here illegally; and on whether the White House can put this or that travel ban into effect; and, presumably, on whatever else they conclude they can weigh in on.
There are still a few niggling restraints left even after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, such as that sponsors have to public disclose their identities instead of anonymously hiding behind 527 groups and shell foundations. I’m sure the Kochs and others would like to delete that annoyance from the law.
I was using the definition of liberal that a conservative would use. Not sure why you want to be an asshole about it.
Holy Jesus on a pogo stick you are amazingly fucking stupid. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just another reactionary asshole who gets his rocks off being righteously angry and that you didn’t actually read any of my posts in this thread. Fucking idiot.
It further limits, properly according to the Constitution, the power of the government with regards to restricting freedom of expression. Allowing the government to label content political and then regulate it’s production or distribution is contrary to the charter that formed the government.
Freedom of expression is a right of natural persons. Corporations were not, despite Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. and other modern interpretations, ever intended to be considered natural people with human rights by the original authors of the Bill of Rights, and billionaire donors hiding in anonymity of a 527 is the opposite of transparency and “draining the swamp”. I think what you really mean is that you don’t give a fuck about corruption and oligarchy as long as it is conservatives spending the money and influencing the vote without being held accountable for the truthfulness of their claims.
Freedom of assembly? Why can’t people choose to form a group called a corporation? People can form religions, unions, clubs, etc. and spend money.
And why ask people what they think if you are going to tell them what they *really * think? My main motivation is division and constraint of powerful institutions. The government is the most powerful and needs the most oversight. Sorry that the constitution is an inconvenience.
Set aside for just a moment, please, the question of whether you think corporations have the moral right or “natural” right or legal right to spend money to influence elections. Then, if you can do that, address this question: Does the ability of corporations and the super-rich to influence elections increase or decrease the chance that elections will lead to good policies for the general public?
It seems to me that there are already limits on corporations and what they can say, like in terms of food labeling and such. Do you similarly disagree with those limitations?
This move against immigrants was blocked because it was approached with a political agenda, ignored facts and was motivated by racism. Over and over, the courts block Trump’s initiatives because they are “arbitrary and capricious.” If you want limited government, that is one appropriate line to draw.
The whole concept of the “conservative judge” is someone who won’t make these distinctions. Someone who “ignores facts.” Someone who will adjudicate cases in favor of a political agenda by playing dumb to the standards of their profession.
In a word, corrupt. We don’t need judges who cast a blind eye to “arbitrary and capricious” which is what the while conservative agenda has become and why conservatives have such a hard time coming up with coherent explanations for their positions.