Posted on 10/07/2018 11:55:27 PM PDT by familyop
“...because he is and was a conservative Constitutional fundamentalist...”
That’s probably a bit more than is merited for a Bush White House staffer and Bush nominee to the DC Circuit Court. He is a career-long denizen of the Swamp and was a SCOTUS clerk for Kennedy, a Justice in the middle, the ever-swaying “swing vote”. Yes, his work on the DC Circuit Court has had some notable deicisons/opinions, often in the minority so it was without real effect in that moment. Let’s wait to see how these eggs hatch into chickens before we apply the label of “next Justice Thomas” to him.
Not that I care.
In other news, pride in Free Republic need not be dependent on your assessment. Of which I am grateful.
Weinstein is too stupid to realize that he’s supporting the very communists and feminazis who got him fired from Evergreen.
Some people are just stuck on stupid forever.
Peterson has put his money on the wrong horse in this race. Sorry to see that.
Kavanaugh’s name HAS been cleared.
The SEVENTH FBI investigation turned up nothing as the SIX before it did.
Justice Kavanaugh never needed to have his name cleared. His name is already clear where it counts, in the hearts and minds of us lowly, non-aristocratic, “dangerous,” common rabble. Most western culture young people with common sense and an interest in international affairs would rather listen to people like Lauren Southern, Britanny Pettibone, Martin Sellner and Tommy Robinson.
Just as it’s okay to be white, it’s okay to be a member of the Grey Poupon class, too. I just couldn’t stay awake for more than a few minutes of those long and compromising speeches, even though I’m getting old. There’s stoic, and then there’s stiff. ;-)
PhD’s don’t get a pass.
I have watched a lot of his stuff and wouldn’t have believed that he could be so silly. The left are going to make every nominee seem divisive.
I am only very mildly aboard the Jordan Peterson bandwagon. I just have not had the time to read much of his material, only to skim some little Snippets, which I liked. This article would induce me to step off. There is zero possibility that Kavanaugh will ever clear his name. That is simply not the way that leftist politics works, and if Peterson does not understand that, then he doesn’t.
Peterson is thoughtful, rational, and intellectual. He is principled but not out of a conviction of innate morality, ie, God Consciousness. He does not speak ex cathedra.
His wisdom is hard won through intellectual rigor. Often this exercise begins by casting about and examining hypothesis. This is good philosophical process but is foreign to believing Christians who typically claim certain knowledge about morality.
Peterson has proved that he, like the rest of us, is a human being with this rare illogical statement, IMO.
Heller v. D.C. - Appeals (2010-2011, not the 2008 case)
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/%24file/10-7036-1333156.pdf#page=46
[Excerpts:]
“KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:...
[...]
In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It followsfrom Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.
[...]
In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”
I would rather he become Kavanaugh and crush his accuser...
By this statement, Jordan Peterson has become Cathy Newman (in terms of logical inconsistency from his viral vid interview), as Peterson himself would then have to step down from several teaching and speaking posts to make room for someone less divisive.
Never heard of him and don’t know why we would give a flip what some Canadian says. Especially one that can’t remember what he stands for.
Its not Kavanaugh’s to prove his innocence. He is innocent as a matter of principle.
His enemies have to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they haven’t met that burden of proof.
In confirming him to the Supreme Court, the Senate accepted the standard holds for a person accused of a crime.
I doubt Jordan Peterson would demand any less for himself in a similar situation. Kavanaugh has therefore nothing to prove to the Left.
Which in any event, doesn’t accept him not because of an alleged ethical cloud around him but because it doesn’t approve of his conservative judicial philosophy.
Unless Kavanaugh agrees to forfeit it, there is no chance he or any other Republican nominee will ever become less “divisive” to the Left.
And resigning from the Supreme Court as Peterson recommends wouldn’t change it.
Peterson forgets the other side is evil and compromising with evil people is an exercise in futility. Only a stupid person would argue healing our divides can be accomplished by giving up our own values.
That can only be done by defeating them which is exactly the whole point of elevating Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That is how a good person is now in a position to make a real difference.
Peterson has no business telling other people to be less divisive so he can remain in good company with his liberal colleagues and Kavanaugh is the complete opposite of such a person.
He doesn’t need the Left’s approval or goodwill to retain his position on the Supreme Court. A judge is not dependent on popular approval to do his job.
So what happened here?
The only way “less divisive” could have context here is if Trump appointed a justice that only the hard left Democrats approved of, i.e. an anti-Constitutional one that would jump at the chance to legislate from the bench.
So-called thoughtfulness, rationality and intellectualism got us two world wars and hundreds of millions slain by genocidal regimes.
Yup.
That’s the only basis on which the Democrats would vote to confirn a Trump nominee.
In that case, why even have elections?
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.