Posted on 07/08/2018 10:50:23 AM PDT by springwater13
“I hope that Ann’s following is extinguished for good.”
Should have already happened back when she threw her loyalty and devotion to the New Jersey beached whale for president.
That’s politics. This is about fundamental dishonesty.
I kinda lived that song....two blonde sisters but with a 10 year gap between relationships.
By this point, I’ve heard so many attacks against and praise of each of the leading contenders for the Court, I don’t know what to believe anymore. I guess I’ll just wait and see what Trump decides and hope it’s for the best.
Probably my least favorite of his entire list.
Well, how do you explain the idiocy of those 5 decisions? To me, Kethledge seems like he would be a man on the “grow”, susceptible to praise from the NYT.
Well, I don't know about the other 4 decisions , but in one the five he joined the two other judges on the panel to enforce the law as Scalia said the law was, which is sort of how rule of law works. See post #17.
Apparently most of FR didn't get this memo, since Trump picked Kennedy clerk Neil Gorsuch last time, and 85% of FReepers had orgasms over the appointment and refused to consider ANY evidence whatsoever that he wasn't the reincarnation of Antonin Scalia (and many STILL won't, even AFTER Gorsuch went rogue and started voting with the four commie RAT judges in 5-4 decisions)
According to many of my fellow FReepers, you can be a Anthony Kennedy alumni and as liberal as you want in your personal life, as long as you claim your "judicial philosophy" is "originalist"
It will MAGICALLY guarantee you ALWAYS vote the right way in the future! This "originalist" stuff for judges is like spinach for Popeye!
I personally don't have the time to go through the opinions of each of the judges on the list to develop a ranking. What I despise is the naked politicking going on - let's see who can rack up the most endorsements from whom as if we were crowning a homecoming queen. There is plenty of objective evidence on the record on the qualifications of each of these potential nominees and that is what should be argued.
Of course that is hard work. Instead you get fraudulent misrepresentation, like Coulter's here. I would have thought that was beneath her. I was very obviously wrong.
So why wasn't it Hardiman being tapped back in April 2017 then?
I’m aware of only that one decision where Gorsuch voted with the liberals. What other?
Thank god. Scalia had many admirable qualities. No one wrote better than him when law and facts were on his side and he ranks at the top of jurists in authorship of important SC opinions.
But Scalia was a statist and he despised the common law, which was the great gift that Britain gave to the world and after our Lord and Savior the greatest human institution on earth. It was the original law of our founders and our states from the time they were colonies, but it has been chipped away at to the point that little remains, and we are brought to our knees by statutory and regulatory law reminiscent of the Napoleonic code that governs France and Louisiana [softened by US constitutional requirements].
in this case, he may be a sorely needed dose of humility on this very arrogant court
He's only been on the court a year, so thus far I've only seen him turn traitor on one notable case.
Overall I expect his lifetime track record to be something like 65% conservative-35% liberal on "key" SCOTUS rulings and precedents.
I'll be happy to admit if I am proven wrong. The question is whether his fan club will ever admit if THEY were wrong. That's unlikely.
Did you actually read his opinion or are you just disappointed that the outcome does not suit your personal bias. I read his opinion, which follows the argument Scalia made writing for the majority in a 2008 case, namely that the law is too vague to be enforceable.
The conservatives thought it didn't matter that the law was vague - in other words joining the side of the law means what I want it to mean when I agree with the outcome and not when I don't.
There is a really simple fix to vague laws - Congress should do a better job of drafting them - most law is very well drafted when the legislature takes the time to do it properly. They can fix this law and then everyone will agree that it should be enforced as written.
And your choice of verb tense indicates you believe that Gorsuch voting with "RATs" is an ongoing and continuous pattern. Is there any evidence for this assertion (site case, date, and vote breakdown)?
Even if he sides with the liberals on sound constitutional and legal principles while the conservatives are just voting for the outcome they want?
Knowing Coulter's history, I think extreme hyperbole and bomb throwing about a candidate is just typical behavior for her, and certainly not "beneath her". She loves to say outrageous stuff to get attention. IMO, she does more damage to our side than "helps" us.
That being said, she was right to doubt John Roberts at the time, and sadly it fell on deaf ears among most conservatives (including me). Ultimately, she did accurately predict that Roberts would betray us, but she was INACCURATE in claiming he'd morph into "another Souter".
Aside from Obamacare, I don't think Roberts has turned traitor since then. I'm not one to buy the "Roberts was blackmailed" conspiracy stuff but it seems odd he'd only side with the four commies on that ONE issue. It was very out of character for him, especially since Mr. Squish Anthony Kennedy was vehemently IN FAVOR of striking down Obamacare.
Still, Roberts betrayal on Obamacare means I can never trust him 100% again. As far as I'm concerned, we only have two reliable conservatives on the court now: Alito and Thomas. Next tier down would be Roberts who seems 90% truthworthy, the next tier down that is faux "pro-life Scalia-type judge" Gorsuch who idealogically has much more in common with Sandra Day O'Connor, the next tier down from that is the center-right Anthony Kennedy, and then the bottom tier is the four socialist RAT judges.
I tend to believe he is getting an unfair shake on the immigration rulings...I had immediately thought he would be bad news based on Breitbart/Ann Coulter...it may not be the case if you consider the sheer number of his opinions on this topic.
Yes, I read the arguement.
The Scalia decision was an 8-1 ruling on an entirely different type of law. Four the current conservatives on the court were also present on the court during the Scalia ruling. All four conservatives currently on the court voted with Scalia on the previous ruling.
When deciding the CURRENT case, NONE of them agreed that the previous ruling had ANY precedent on this one or involved the same sort of "vague law" that would justify voting to strike down this one. In short, it was comparing apples to oranges. It would be like trying to justify citing the 9-0 desegregation ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education to rule that snakes and chickens should be placed in the same cage together and not "segregated" into different cages.
Scalia would have never been the LONE GOP judge to vote with the marxist wing of the court, and you know it.
Does anybody have objective info on Hardiman/immigration?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.