Oh well, last comment: I would oppose a judicial finding that there was a constitutional “fetal personhood,” even though I strongly believe there is fetal personhood.
Why? Because I believe that the text of the Constitution never was understood to include fetal personhood, so even though I would love that as s policy, I would reject it as a judicial fiat. I would welcome it FROM THE LEGISATURE.
See how principled decision-making works now?
In contrast, I have never heard you announce a single policy goal that you believe could not be delivered by a compliant judiciary. You want results and don’t care who hands them to you — as long as “social progress” happens, you’re good.
Even if you’re not American (didn’t know that), there’s clearly a side you root for in our politics (which was part of the reason I never considered that). You’re not exactly dispassionate.
Nothing wrong with that; America’s politics have worldwide repercussions, and it’s not surprising that, wherever you live, you might have strong opinions about what happens here.
Just that after throwing in on one side, it’s kinda ridiculous to step back and say, “who, me? Why are you associating me with an American political party? I’m just a furriner.”
I think it’s rather telling about you that you use the word ‘enemy.’
The side I root for is not the religious fundamentalist, anti-gay, anti-choice side that wants to deny healthcare to people. Sadly, neither is it the side that sees poor white men as demons and, instead of wanting to help others improve their situation wants to bring those they see as privileged (somewhat falsely, in the case of the poor and especially the rural) down rather than help them as well. Basically, I’m roughly centrist, somewhat fiscally right wing and socially left. Not a position that seems to get much political representation in many countries currently, and it seems to be getting worse.
I doubt there’s many LGBT atheists that associate with the Republican party. You might not have known those things about me, I don;t post much these days, but I’m not hiding them either.
Am I wrong that you see the Republicans as your enemies? Were I in America, I’m sure I would. I’d probably be a fairly centrist Democrat there. The peoblem is, this board leans so far left that it’s in the territory that’s an enemy of everyone. Most people here would probably consider Jeremy Corbyn a moderate…
So what? The committee can handle the nomination however it pleases.
It’s not the same. The law doesn’t depend on an appearance of personal character – the legitimacy of the SCOTUS does.
It really is the same as that analogy I used before – if in the 60s, there was an allegation that a SCOTUS nominee participated in a lynching as a student, if the Senate didn’t take that seriously, then that would have done incredible damage to the country in terms of the hope that black people (and decent white people) might see the government as legitimate and not tolerant (as it was for a century) of brutalizing black people. Now we have that same opportunity (and chance for backstepping) in terms of sexual assault – for decades, sexual assault victims have been treated like shit, with a very low chance of getting justice. Maybe things are changing in the last year. With a President who’s been credibly accused, and admitted multiple times, to assaulting women and violating consent, I recognize that this is a long shot to hope for, but it’s still the right thing to do.
Because the system, including the FBI, generally hasn’t treated sexual assault very seriously, perhaps?
I don’t even know what we’re arguing about on this point, so I’m going to let this go.
The problem is not what you’re trying to prove. The problem is your ability to prove anything at all after so much time has passed. Most SoL limits are set at 7 years. This is 35 years. There is also the issue of them being minors at the time. You are going to judge a person’s character by what might have happened, but cannot be proven to have happened, 35 years ago when that person was in high school? Do you really think that is a reasonable approach to character judgement?
Just to be clear, I wasn’t asking for an analogy. You said it had been happening for years, so I was asking for an example.
You think the FBI would have investigate the charge had it been: Joe Smith knows a guy who went to high school with BK, and that guy (who shall remain unnamed) told Smith that BK punched him, knocking him to the ground, 35 years ago when they were in high school. The guy did not report the incident and there are no pictures or other evidence. There is one witness, but he says he doesn’t recall that happening.
If your answer is “yes”, then I think it’s best for us to agree to disagree and move on to other areas where there is some common level of assumptions. That is, areas that don’t include this latest charge of sexual assault. For example, I don’t think the whole baseball ticket thing is much of a deal, but at least it’s something that can be investigated.
Sexual assaults don’t usually just happen once, by my understanding. If there’s anything to this allegation, then that means that Kavanaugh is the type of person capable of sexual assault. If so, then that’s something the Senate certainly ought to consider – and investigate further, to ensure that this wasn’t an intrinsic part of his character.
So yes, at least part of my judgment of his character would include such behavior, even so long ago. As should the Senate. Especially in this time.
I don’t know if the FBI should have investigated further, but that they didn’t tells us very little, IMO. I do know that the Senate ought to, considering the times we live in. I understand why they probably won’t – bullshit political concerns. But that’s not good enough, and it shouldn’t be good enough to you either. Investigating this further wouldn’t cost anyone anything aside from that political bullshit. And when it comes to sexual assault, in the present, the government should take these things very, very seriously, and make absolutely 100% sure that we’re not putting an abuser of women on the SCOTUS.
Never mind hearsay of anonymous accusations, half or better of Congress probably has done things as bad or worse than Kavanaugh has been accused of. If that’s the standard for investigation there wouldn’t be enough of a quorum left to impeach the rest. Which is why this isn’t going to go anywhere.
With all due respect, who the hell are you talking about?
Yeah, I’m sure *somebody *has these views, but it’s not like the Dems want to give healthcare to, or raise the minimum wage of, or unionize, only women or persons of color.
Yes, you are.
They may be my political adversaries, but I certainly don’t regard them as enemies.
I think America, and Americans generally, would be much better off if my preferred policies rather than theirs were implemented. So I vote, call my Congresscritters, and give to political candidates, to try to bring about that result.
And that’s it. It’s not like I want bad shit to happen to them, beyond losing elections and otherwise losing political influence. (Now if certain leaders have committed crimes, I want to see them brought to justice. It’s bad for America, for any democracy, if its leaders are exempt from the laws.) But law-abiding persons who are my political opponents: I do not regard them as enemies. I wish them well. I do not want to see bad things happen to them.
I want workers to be paid well, not just enough to get by. I want universal, all-encompassing health care so that they don’t have to worry about whether they can afford the care they need. I want them to have a decent retirement to look forward to. And I want their right to unionize to be unassailable by employers, so that they have some control over their circumstances on the job.
Yeah, I really have it in for the white working class, don’t I?
The plain text of the constitution does not protect the medium that we are currently using, it requires some level of interpretation to say that our comments here should be free from govt interference. Do you agree with that interpretation, even though it is not in the plain text?
But, that was a dodge on your part. The text of the constitution clearly says that congress can make laws. If congress made such a law, enshrining trump with the regal powers he so feels he deserves, and it were upheld by the supreme court which he appointed and was confirmed by the same congress, how could that be inconsistent with the plain text, which clearly gives them these powers?
Have we found Godot’s flaw?
Right, your nominees will interpret the constitution in the way that you think it should be interpreted, not in the way that those other people think that it should be interpreted.
Do you really believe that Kavanaugh will be one of these judges, or do you think that he will overturn roe vs wade and ban gun laws?
By your interpretation of the process, according to you. The process is the result.
They wanted the unelected appointed members of the judicial system to overturn laws that were passed by the duly elected members of their legislature. What else could it be?
If your legislature was gerrymandered and only represented a small minority of the public’s wishes because the legislature has legislated away the voting power of those who oppose it, you would welcome that as well?
But, what you are saying, is that if Alabama passes a law completely outlawing abortion, and that law makes it up to the new supreme court, then if it is found to be held constitutional, because the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother, then how would that not be based on the “personhood” of the fetus?
What other compelling government interest could you justify in regulating what medical decisions women are allowed to make for their own bodies, if it is not that the fetus is considered to be a person with rights of its own?
Would you really object to upholding Planned Parenthood vs Alabama on the ground that the government has a compelling interest in protecting the rights of fetuses?
I haven’t seen an example of it yet in your posts, no. I see motive driven decision making, while claiming that your motives are the ones that are pure, and therefore, are principled, and the motives of others are corrupt, and therefore, unprincipled.
There are too many double negatives in that paragraph to parse, so I apologize if I misunderstood. You’ve never heard me do what now? Is it that you have not heard me do this, or that you have some sort of evidence that I have never done this? I encourage our legislators to pass laws that I find further the progress of social and economic equality and opportunity. When they get it wrong, when the legislators pass laws that remove or inhibit the rights of those who do not have the legislative majorities to fix those inequalities on their own, I agree that the courts are a useful place to ensure that the majority does not tyrannize the minority.
OTOH, you are supporting a SCOTUS nominee not because he is going to find cases in favor of the constitution, but because he will find them in favor with your ideals, otherwise, you would have just as much defense for anyone who is “qualified”. You know, people like Garland, who you didn’t think to be qualified enough to defend.
Is it really the qualifications, or the fact that he will find in favor of the policies that you like?
I would lean towards the latter on that one. More or less, most of the time you are impugning motives onto your interlocutors, you are starting from the point of being mistaken, and are heading in the diametrically opposed direction towards being right.
Maybe your confusion comes from never having read the Constitution?
The Constitution does not give Congress the power simply to “make laws.” Art VI Clause 2 has a limitation: the laws must be pursuant to the boundaries the same Constitution imposes on Congress.
Now, does any part of the Constitution forbid making Trump a King?
Yes. Art II Sec 1:
Read the damn document.
It’s not productive to discuss more subtle details about the document with someone who genuinely believes that the power of Congress to make Trump a King is perfectly consistent with the text of the Constitution. Read the whole thing. Don’t shy away.
Do that first, and then I will be happy to continue this dialog.
I’m not touching the rest of the discussion, because I’m largely on Team Bricker here (or at least understand where you’re coming from and know where my points of disagreement are).
But this is problematic to me. This format, and the internet as a whole, is not “the press” by a literal reading of the term. Nor, indeed, is it comparable to “the press” as understood by the Framers.
Now, I agree that this falls under the free press clause. I agree that this is a logical grandchild of 18th century publishing. I agree that most of the authors of the Constitution would concur.
But those are my interpretations. It requires judgment and interpretation to decide that “the press” includes this particular format of exchanging information. Or, indeed, “speech.” A purely literal, plain text reading of the words, without considering context and intent, would not so blithely assert as much.
A possibility that’s far more theoretical than practical.
So yes, there is an infinitesimal excluded middle between ‘nothing’ and 'delaying the vote. And given that the harm of delaying the vote is negligible (pretty clear that the GOP in 2016 regarded it as nonexistent), there’s no meaningful reason not to delay the vote.
If votes such as this can be delayed indefinitely just because the GOP doesn’t feel like having a hearing, let alone a vote, then this vote can be delayed for a few weeks or months to give more time to look into this allegation, into the issue of Kavanaugh’s mysteriously disappearing debts, into the documents from the Bush Administration pertaining to his work there, and what he said about it back in 2006.
The word “press,” can indeed mean multiple things. But I don’t agree that the Founders’ use and understanding of the term fails to encompass this present media.
For example, the men who ratified the First Amendment would have agreed it protected hand-written documents, even though no “press,” was used to generate them. They would have agreed that the meaning of press was dissemination of words and drawings, not the literal use of a printing press. This is not interpreting outside the text — this is reading the text and knowing what it meant.
Howzabout ol’ Pat Leahy, that wild-ass radical? You know all about that, right? Its not that they carefully examined the evidence and ruled on it, its that they refused to look. Just glancing it over, which is just about all we can do, given the intense R concern with keeping things humming along quickly…just on that basis…it looks like a plain ol’ typical Rovian rat-fuck. Nothing unusual there, just them giving the D’s the business, as usual.
They voted, 11 to 10, they don’t want to know. They don’t want you to know. Is that OK with you? Hell, they don’t want me to know, even if I promise not to tell you! If you got a minute, tell me why you’re cool with this.
