Who wants to audition for Supreme Court? Kavanaugh vs. YOU (compare your answers to his)

[yiostheoy]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

You apply the Constitution, not interpret it.

You would have melted under the pressure on Tuesday. We should be so lucky to have such an honest, thoughtful, respectable person as a Justice.

Excuse me --- *I* would have "melted"?

Why? Do you even know me?

Strange post dood.

Yer right, Blackjack "Pogo" Pershing

I'm guessing that's a drinking game. Like "Devil's Triangle".

Or 7 minutes in heaven !! ??

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

You apply the Constitution, not interpret it.

You would have melted under the pressure on Tuesday. We should be so lucky to have such an honest, thoughtful, respectable person as a Justice.

As applicable in 1788 or interpreted for today?

 

[Pogo]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

You apply the Constitution, not interpret it.

You would have melted under the pressure on Tuesday. We should be so lucky to have such an honest, thoughtful, respectable person as a Justice.

Excuse me --- *I* would have "melted"?

Why? Do you even know me?

Strange post dood.

Yer right, Blackjack "Pogo" Pershing

I'm guessing that's a drinking game. Like "Devil's Triangle".

Or 7 minutes in heaven !! ??

Huh?

I don' git it. That a movie reference or sump'm?

 

[OnePercenter]

Kavanaugh is an Originalist, which means the Constitution will be protected from Progressive thought.

Progressive thought like American Workers should make a living wage?

 

[Natural Citizen]

No, not interested in auditioning for the SCOTUS.

I might try to grab a Senate seat, though.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant. A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution. As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative. What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.

Yeah, right...if Trump nominated Rachel Mitchell at 9 AM...you on the left would be burning her in effigy by 9:05!

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!

Dear Oldstyle from what I gather,
the same people who don't trust what he said at the hearing as being the whole truth,
also do not trust reports that he said he agreed with Justice Roberts on Roe v Wade being a settled law.
If you don't trust prolife people not to turn and support prolife opportunties when given the chance,
nothing is going to change that, not even past rulings or statements on their records.

The whole hearing process was used to justify that distrust, that was already there and just made worse,
mainly because of the rightwing unconditional support and blind faith defensiveness that
come across as "protesting too much"

Neither side trusts each other, and both Ford and Kavanaugh were caught up in that.
The problem already existed before, and doesn't change just because of one side or another outbullying the other.
The problem of prochoice and prolife politics will be solved when both sides agree to
come together on a solution they both believe is constitutional and fair, so they have no more reason to
fight against it if they both agree it's the best principle to endorse and enforce.

What I suggest is we agree that bans and restrictions on abortion touch on political beliefs that people refuse to change
especially not through govt or political force. So we need to agree to stop pushing one sides beliefs or agenda, but agree
on a standard and process for making laws or changes affecting abortion and related beliefs. I suggest separating the
funding and having separate policies for party, where there is no obstruction or imposition involving outside groups
of different conflicting beliefs. Then where the parties agree on policy, that can be recognized as public law. Where
they disagree that must remain outside of govt, and only use a process they agree to in advance, such as whether
to use consensus as the standard of policy (which I believe can work on local levels within groups or communities),
or use 51% majority or 2/3, or 3/4 or 3/5, depending on if people agree on a statewide or federal level of laws. Where
we might have a chance of addressing abortion as well as drug policy and health care provisions is on a state level
where electoral college districts can be expanded and used to provide representation by party, so taxpayers can
allocate their taxes and investments/donations into health care and marriage benefits of their choice, by using
party structures and admin on a local district level, or state and national if they can organize collective agreement
among members. They should be encouraged to set up a sustainable programs within their own memberships first,
prove such a system can work, BEFORE promoting such a policy or system on a statewide or national level for
others to buy into. So this would reward groups for setting up better means and ideas for solving conflicts over
health care, including drug and abortion policy, by creating a different level of govt rather than criminal or civil
laws that our govt process currently makes. I suggest a localized system of ordinances for "health and safety"
that party precincts and electors can create directly with their constituents so it represents those communities.
And there is not the same political pressure that comes with "making laws for the entire state or nation".

If we can agree to set up a better structure, we won't keep fighting over abortion, drug wars, gun and immigration, etc. But can
set up means for parties to pay for their own policies and terms, PROVE THEY WORK FIRST, and then develop the best
state and federal programs based on WHAT WORKS so people CHOOSE to support it and don't rely on forcing beliefs through govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Kavanaugh is an Originalist, which means the Constitution will be protected from Progressive thought.

Progressive thought like American Workers should make a living wage?

Dear OnePercenter
Isn't it ironic that the Socialists were the third party movement that pushed for
social security, and the Unions pushed for paid time off and vacation benefits for workers.
That everyone uses, yet the hard core Conservatives want to bash Unions as not needed anymore.

However, for living wages, the best solutions I have found are teaching people
business management and planning so they become independent of govt all together.
Both Obama and Carson agree that Microlending and business development training
are the key to ending welfare and overreliance on govt handouts that keeps people in poverty.

www.grameenfoundation.org
www.ithacahours.com
www.paceuniversal.com

The best health care and educational outreach I've seen that empowers people
are NONPROFITS, and they do better when they are not controlled by govt bureaucracy.
In fact, one of the best nonprofits for getting kids out of the cycle of incarceration of their
families and communities cannot even take funds from govt controlled sources like United Way
because the conditions on the funds interferes with their personal counseling of the clients.
So the best programs rely on private funds where they can do their jobs without obstruction.

Habitat for Humanity was started after Jimmy Carter left office.
Let's hope Obama takes on reforming the criminal justice system
and freeing up resources to pay for health care, education and housing
instead of taxpayer money paying for corrupt contracts fueling a failed
prison and public housing system warehousing people for profit.