Kavanaugh And The Constitution

[Sunni Man]

Study since you will not trust my comment.

Fake Jake's usual refusal to answer a question about some nonsense he posted. .....

 

[Pete7469]

Looks like somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed. ...

It doesn't matter with Triggered's bed. It has rails on the sides along with the plastic sheets.

Some might call it a crib.



.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Study since you will not trust my comment.

Fake Jake's usual refusal to answer a question about some nonsense he posted. .....

Sunni Man's normal comment shows that he is adverse to learning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Study since you will not trust my comment.

Fake Jake's usual refusal to answer a question about some nonsense he posted. .....

One finds it hard to decide whether that poster is more fueled by duplicity, or by sickness.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He's a big fan of National Security Agency’s warrantless phone records collection program. Also supports Free speech rights of ?Internet service providers over the und user. Deciphered that means he's in favor of blockingaccessto web sited that the political establishment deems dangerous or fake. Which, of course, is always subjective and conjecture.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni Man's normal comment shows that he is adverse to learning.

Ok then Fake Jake......learn me.

What other way can the Constitution be legally changed except by amendment? ....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor PC, a captive of her own fears and misunderstanding about the Constitution and what it means to be an American.

Kavanaugh is a mainstream establishment Republican, and that is good enough for me.

Sunni Man wishes to be instructed.

His first assignment is to define "originalism" and "textualism."

 

[Flash]

The Alt Right once again are stumbling around thinking that the Constitution can't change except by Amendment.

Tough.

What part of that don't you understand Moon Bat?

If judges or politicians can change the rights protected under the Constitution then it isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

The Alt Left thinks they can replace individual liberty with socialism just by appointing extreme far Left judges like Kagan and Sotomayor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Alt Right once again are stumbling around thinking that the Constitution can't change except by Amendment.

Tough.

What part of that don't you understand Moon Bat? If judges or politicians can change the rights protected under the Constitution then it isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it? The Alt Left thinks they can replace individual liberty with socialism just by appointing extreme far Left judges like Kagan and Sotomayor.

Well, that is bittercling by you, Flash. But we are not going back to 1789.

 

[Sunni Man]

Well, that is bittercling by you, Flash. But we are not going back to 1789.

Fake Jake is the gift that keeps on giving. ...

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Noone here, even PC whom I personally respect, seems to be looking at the bigger picture.
We're all so wrapped up in the snapshots, we're forgetting something.

Overall, like it or not, the nation IS moving towards a more "European", Leftist model.
Of course there are some hurdles to clear first such as that pesky 2nd Amendment.

But if you step back and look at the grand picture, it appears there is at the very least, a path to that, even here in the USA.
We got 'Obamacare', remember?

ALL that needs to happen to circumvent the 2nd, is for the Supreme Court (a mere 9 people) to be packed with globalists or Leftist. THAT's IT.
A few people could interpret the 2nd so that you could not legally bear arms.

The Point? The system is broken. It's no longer a representative government. We The People have been reduced to subjects. Even on the State level.
How many times has California totally set aside votes by the people and instead followed it's own Jerry brown, Socialist agenda?

Think about the Founding Fathers underlying premise.....it starts with We The People....not We The Elected Officials or We The Government

That ultimately, it is up to We The People to ensure a more perfect Union. We The People were charged with Protecting the Constitution. You've got it backwards.
I say in the grand scheme of things, too many Americans are failing spectacularly to do exactly that.
And at the same time, too many anti-Constitutionalists are forging ahead one small victory at a time. Aided by government and liberal corporations and deep pockets.

Regardless of this Supreme court decision, the ultimate responsibility for preserving the union rests with YOU and ME. That is the underlying premise of the Constitution.

If this is funny to you, you're an anti-American, anti-Constitutional Communist hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The Point? The system is broken. It's no longer a representative government. We The People have been reduced to subjects. Even on the State level.
How many times has California totally set aside votes by the people and instead followed it's own Jerry brown, Socialist agenda?
Think about the Founding Fathers underlying premise.....it starts with We The People....not We The Elected Officials or We The Government."



I sense your anger, Basic......




I believe you might agree with what I have posted about judges, America's Ayatollahs, earlier....



1.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

They simply stole the power....and it's the rare politician who calls them on it.



2.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




3. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm




4. Is there a reason to believe that this independent, self-authorized department of government, the Judiciary, is a problem….even a danger to America?

You betcha’!!!!

The elites, the judges, claim to know better as to what our values, attitudes, and institutions should be.



“Today, however, for a variety of reasons, they—particularly academics—often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions, and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.”
David Brooks, “Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

ANOTHER ONE!!!

I just heard Vice President Pence speaking about Kavanaugh....and he used that same wholly inappropriate term....
"....he will interpret the Constitution...."


Perhaps because English is my second language, I am Über sensitive to the use of 'interpret' when referring to what jurists do.


Interpret
Explain the meaning of (information or actions)

‘the evidence is difficult to interpret’
interpret | Definition of interpret in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Bulletin:
The United States Constitution is written in English!!!!!
It is to be applied.....not interpreted




The Constitution must be applied....not interpreted.
Apply
Be applicable or relevant.

‘prices do not apply to public holiday periods’
apply | Definition of apply in English by Oxford Dictionaries



Perhaps Democrats/Government School Grads require English to be interpreted for them.....those of us with a facility in the language do not.


One promises to obey the written text, uses same in deciding whether questions that come before the court are
a. consistent with the language of the Constitution
or
b. not covered by the Constitution, and allow lower courts to pass judgment.





Stop attributing mystical powers to these men in black robes!!!!

 

[SavannahMann]

The Constitution is known as 'the law of the land."

Why, then, do Democrats show such disdain toward it????

1. Here is the Democrat poster-lady, formerly lead attorney for the communist-inspired ACLU, spitting on the Constitution:

"Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. Just last week, for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt’s new government.

The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
Justice Ginsburg: "I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution"



2. Here are constitutionalists, and pro-America Justices berating the Liberals who use foreign law in making decisions:

Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas wrote: “I do not believe that approval by ‘other nations and peoples’ should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than…disapproval by other ‘nations and peoples’ should weaken our commitment. More importantly,” foreign sources were being cited “not to underscore our fidelity to the Constitution” or to the American heritage, but rather “to set aside the centuries-old America practice- a practice still engaged in by a large majority of the relevant states- of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether, in a particular case, youth should be the basis of withholding the death penalty.” ROPER V. SIMMONS

Scalia pointed out that Supreme Court Justices who cite international opinion do so only when it conforms to their own, liberal, preferences.


3. To be pro-America, a Justice must use the text, the written words of the Constitution...not biases and 'penumbras.'


4. "Judge Kavanaugh once wrote, “The judge’s job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution. Don’t shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the Constitution.”
WHITE HOUSE: Brett Kavanaugh Info | Law Clerk | Judge

A long time ago, you red white and vomit mf's could throw the constitution and it meanings around all damn day long, and people listened.....but when you sit buy and watch and allow a sitting president to do pretty much what he gotdamn well pleases, with both branches of the law equal to his power, ie the congress and the judiciary, co signing onto his shit....you, your comments and your creds DON'T MEAN A GOTDAMN THING...NEXT!!

What the Devil are you ranting about? The news has a Judge’s decision about every week overturning this or that that Trump has done. In the end, the question, as all Judicial questions can, goes to higher courts to determine what the Constitution actually says.

Trump’s Travel Ban is one example. The Constitution doesn’t say he can’t do that. It has been done before, and probably will again. But Judges overturned it, and then it was appealed up the chain of courts until the Supreme Court made a decision.

Congress shouts no if Trump asks if they would like to stop by and have a converstation over a cup of coffee about if it is a nice and sunny day.

Your only remaining problem has to be that Trump is still in the White House, while there is NO legal precedent to march someone you hate out of the building. There are a lot of means of making this happen, none of them have sufficient evidence to begin yet.

Without the evidence, you’re left just hating the man. I’d like to see something different. I’d like to see Washington actually learn to speak to one another again. To comprimise. I mean, Trump basically told the Democrats he’d sign any reasonable bill on Immigration regarding the Dreamers. Yet, the Democrats didn’t agree to shit. Are you telling me that you hate Trump folks could’t find a dozen Republicans in the House who are always screaming that they hate Trump too? God, you could have thrown a rock and hit at least twelve like a pachinko ball.

So why not act to save the Dreamers? Because you wanted this nonsense you decry. You wanted it and well you have it.

Counting down to you telling me that I’m a racist, sexist, homophobic, Putin troll.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Judge Kavanaugh turns out to be the textualist, the originalist, that we are promised, he will be a welcome return to what the Constitution was meant to be: the law of the land.


"Starting in the 1950s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren began discovering rights and powers in the Constitution never previously identified…. in accordance with what the justices labeled the “penumbras” of other constitutional rights.


The Constitution was never intended—either by those who wrote it or by those who ratified it—to have the effect given it by the Warren Court. “A constitution that is viewed as only what the judges say it is no longer is a constitution in the true sense,” said attorney general Edwin Meese in a landmark 1985 speech to the American Bar Association. Words have meaning, Meese said, and judges can discern those meanings. Judges will always have predispositions, but this can’t mean that anything goes. The Reagan administration in which he served, Meese promised, would “endeavor to resurrect the original meaning of the constitutional provisions and statutes as the only reliable guide for judgment.”


…originalists emphasized the “original public meaning” of a constitutional provision that those who ratified the Constitution would have understood it to have. Neither the secret personal intentions of the individual Founders, nor their collective intentions, nor even the intentions of those who participated in the ratifying conventions matter under this approach. All that matters is how people understand the written words of the Constitution at the time it was adopted."
The Case for Originalism

 

[usmcstinger]

Soon the Dems will be attacking Kavanaugh because he is a Roman Catholic. The KKK and the Dems both hate Catholics. However, the Dems go much further and despise all Christians. 79 percent of Black Americans are Christians and the vast majority of Hispanic Americans are Catholics. Food for thought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soon the Dems will be attacking Kavanaugh because he is a Roman Catholic. The KKK and the Dems both hate Catholics. However, the Dems go much further and despise all Christians. 79 percent of Black Americans are Christians and the vast majority of Hispanic Americans are Catholics. Food for thought.

I like the way you've put those groups together....and, of course, you are spot on.

a. The KKK was the military arm of the Democrat Party
b. KKKer Hugo Black was Franklin Roosevelt's first pick for the Supreme Court
and
c.Hugo Black was the one who wrote 'separation of church and state' into our jurisprudence because of the Klan's hatred of Catholics



"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..." Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]

 

[saveliberty]

Before you burst into song and dance over Kavanaugh, consider he was a clerk for Kennedy, not exactly a true conservative. Also hired by Kagan as a professor, which I would consider a warning sign. Finally, in his acceptance speech he referred to the job as interpreting the Constitution THREE times. The Constitution is applied, not interpreted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before you burst into song and dance over Kavanaugh, consider he was a clerk for Kennedy, not exactly a true conservative. Also hired by Kagan as a professor, which I would consider a warning sign. Finally, in his acceptance speech he referred to the job as interpreting the Constitution THREE times. The Constitution is applied, not interpreted.

"Before you burst into song and dance over Kavanaugh..."


Please read more carefully.

Does this sound like bursting into song and dance?

From post #19
On the other hand......

Kavanaugh may not be the perfect choice for conservatives.

1."His nomination is dividing conservatives....Kavanaugh, 53, once clerked for Kennedy. He then worked as an aide in the George W. Bush administration, before Bush nominated him to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003.

2. In a 2011 ObamaCare case where Kavanaugh dissented against the ruling but acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate provision” could fit “comfortably within Congress’ Taxing Clause power.”
Kavanaugh's detractors say that language helped provide the roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandate a year later.

3. Other conservatives balk at his close relationship with the Bush family, which gives him "establishment" status."
Kavanaugh: 'Extremely Conservative' or Too 'Establishment?'




4. And....the cynical view that Trump simply saw a vote against the Mueller attack...

"...Kavanaugh, a man who holds strong opinions on whether a president should be indicted or impeached.

In 1998, Kavanaugh wrote extensively on the matter of impeaching a president, writing that independent counsel investigations can take "too long," easily become "politicized," and investigations can go beyond their original scope. He also seemed unconvinced that a president can even be indicted while in office.

"Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable," he said.

The report laid out 11 possible grounds for impeachment, including how misleading the public and lying to staff amounted to obstruction of justice. These findings have become particularly relevant as special counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the Russia investigation, considers actions Trump has taken that could possibly be considered obstruction of justice.

But despite his experience co-authoring the report, or rather because of it, Kavanaugh has become an ardent supporter of a president's power."

Kavanaugh reiterated this belief in the Minnesota Law Review saying, "a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office."
Trump's Supreme Court pick is against investigating or prosecuting a sitting president

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before you burst into song and dance over Kavanaugh, consider he was a clerk for Kennedy, not exactly a true conservative. Also hired by Kagan as a professor, which I would consider a warning sign. Finally, in his acceptance speech he referred to the job as interpreting the Constitution THREE times. The Constitution is applied, not interpreted.

"In his acceptance speech he referred to the job as interpreting the Constitution THREE times. The Constitution is applied, not interpreted."



Please read more carefully....;


From post #33

I just heard Vice President Pence speaking about Kavanaugh....and he used that same wholly inappropriate term....
"....he will interpret the Constitution...."


Perhaps because English is my second language, I am Über sensitive to the use of 'interpret' when referring to what jurists do.


Interpret
Explain the meaning of (information or actions)

‘the evidence is difficult to interpret’
interpret | Definition of interpret in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Bulletin:
The United States Constitution is written in English!!!!!
It is to be applied.....not interpreted




The Constitution must be applied....not interpreted.
Apply
Be applicable or relevant.

‘prices do not apply to public holiday periods’
apply | Definition of apply in English by Oxford Dictionaries



Perhaps Democrats/Government School Grads require English to be interpreted for them.....those of us with a facility in the language do not.


One promises to obey the written text, uses same in deciding whether questions that come before the court are
a. consistent with the language of the Constitution
or
b. not covered by the Constitution, and allow lower courts to pass judgment.





Stop attributing mystical powers to these men in black robes!!!!