Posted on 10/14/2018 11:21:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Just as a conservative is often a liberal who has been mugged, an originalist justice may be a moderate one who has been defamed”
Yup. Kavanaugh can’t avoid being changed by this. He’s now seen full on the lengths the left is willing to go to in order to get their way. Judges always claim they’re impartial but that’s bull hookey, if they were completely impartial then it wouldn’t matter who got appointed and this fiasco would never have happened. He’s human so it has to have affected him.
I’ll wait to see what he does before I declare him another David Souter. One thing’s for sure, he’s better than what we would have gotten from Hillary Clinton.
“Tell ya what. I’m going to wait to see his decisions on the cases that come before the Supreme Court before I decide that he was a bad pick. Call me crazy.”
I’m with you, but I’m optimistic.
Vengeance is MINE, saith Brett Kavanaugh.
Or an “how am I going to outlive this SOB?”
I think she will hang on until after the elections in the hope that the Demons take the Senate.
He’s an Ivy League, Catholic, Bushite. I don’t see a lot to be optimistic about.
Unless the confirmation process radicalized him.
“She repeatedly called Judge Kavanaugh a centrist.”
It is sad and funny how some people do not acknowledge the brilliance of Kavanaugh.
In the future, if you ever talk to a politician, then try to be a centrist and keep your cards close to the chest.
Adheres to a “philosophy of originalism” would be the proper usage of the term.
In Collins speech, one of the reasons she supported him was his judicial temperament/actions to support the doctrine of stare decisis - i.e. once the Court has decided then subsequent decisions would respect such decisions. Collins may have been using that as cover or hope for his maintaining Roe, as she cannot come out and ask him how he would decide.
In recent 50+ year history, with the politicized court, stare decisis is important for democraps to maintain leftist Court decisions, but irrelevant when it comes to “originalist” decisions that are opposed to leftist legal interpretations.
I am not so sure that Roe v Wade can stand on its own today. While it has been over 30 years since I read it, what struck me back then was that the majority opinion stated that no one knew when life began. This was important to overcome the hurdle of the “right to life”. Once life begins, the state has an interest in protecting that right. The other thing that struck me is that the majority recognized a state interest in regulating abortion in the 3rd trimester. Hence the Roe justgices knew there was enough evidence to show a human being in existence in the 3rd trimester. The leftist laws/decisions since then have more or less ignored this part of Roe. The political left wants everyone to believe that there are no limits to abortion. But the left also knows, because they have effectively used it in advancing their cause, that the practice of political incrementalism needs to be avoided on abortion. If abortion is eroded or banned in the 3rd trimester, people will be told why, and with the advancement of science, then the question becomes why should we not ban abortions in the 2nd trimester ... after all technology exists to sustain a life less than 26 weeks. Then once that is in place, ... why should not life be protected when it really begins - effectively banning abortion?
If stare decisis were judicially immutable principle for overturning any prior decision, then Brown v Board of Education should never have been granted a hearing. But new facts developed over decades that challenged the viability of Plessy v Ferguson. The Chief Justice in Brown wanted the Supreme Court to come out 9 - 0 as he wanted no question as to its overturning such precedent, among other things. With the political court that we have today, one would never get a 9 - 0 on overturning Roe. But that should not stop its being overturned, as the left has had no problem implementing major social and political change through the Court without a 9 - 0. However, there is enough science and law to marginalize politically the opponents’ reputations, making them akin to the slave owners of times past - to be vilified in the future ad eternam.
One last point, while I have not read any articles on the overturning of Roe, I am generally aware that there are “liberal” legal articles out there who today view Roe as wrongly decided. So if it were overturned, they believe that abortion may continue - only in that it is not a federal issue ... but a state issue - to be decided at the level as to whether abortion should be legal. Some on the right have voiced this opinion long long ago, over the decades, only to be criticized by the left... until now. Whether states’ rights with the advancement of biology/genetics knowledge would be able to overcome a constitutional right to life is not certain, for such right to be taken away would require a compelling state interest .... is now another question. If the ever wise and all-knowing Roe Court had decided Roe on states’ rights to begin with, I think Roe might be in a stronger position today under stare decisis. However, it could still be challenged, using the same tactics and some of the arguments that the left has used with regards to capital punishment.
Sorry for the long winded answer to your good, succinct observations. I need to work on my verbosity problem. But I will conclude that for someone like Kavanaugh, there is enough other legal precedent and other judicial doctrines to overcome being handcuffed by stare decisis on Roe - without violating his general belief / practice in the doctrine of stare decisis should Roe be challenged. The question of course is would he vote to overturn Roe?
You’re right..
Exactly. Wait and see. I don’t think he was billed or sold to us as a “solid Constitutionalist conservative”. I think it was pretty clear that he follows the law. That might make him more a “strict constructionalist” than a conservative. He served nearly the whole 8 years inside the GWB admin.
As for him being a “conservative”, well he is GOP for whatever that is worth. And we may have received a clue about what he stands for, of if he has been “enlightened” by the way he was treated by the left during his nomination. He didn’t need to make those comments about “revenge for the Clintons” and the like, but he did make them. Maybe it was calculated to rally support from conservatives, or maybe he was telegraphing that he has “wised up”.
But it is true, what we missed in all the hysteria was a good debate on what I think are important issues he should have been asked about. For example he ruled in favor of parts of the Patriot Act dealing with metadata collection. He ruled that the Constitution prohibits warrantless searches of individuals but not aggregated data collection. It was imo a bad decision. And as a side issue, there is a problem with the Government side-stepping its Constitutional limits by simply asking companies with government licenses such as AT&T to turn over data voluntarily. IMO the government should not be allowed to end-run around the constitution with loopholes by asking for information from companies that need government permits and make billions in government contracts.
But we weren’t going to get that kind of discussion because there are plenty on the left who want to take data collection on citizens much further. They want lists of gun owners. They want medical databases. Some cities even want contractors to disclose private affiliations or for banks and credit card companies to deny services to groups and industries they disprove of. The CTRL+Left statists want to know everything about everyone as another tool of control. Just look at the way they try to control the narrative and destroy anyone who strays from their dogma. They are a vindictive bunch who would ban free thinkers from their island - some of these TV idiots openly called for Kanye to be “re-educated”, though they put it in terms like “he should not speak publicly until he receives psychological therapy”.
And that is deliberately couched to sound compassionate when it is really all about control. In France a court has ordered Marine Le Pen to psychological evaluation because they think her ideas on governance are too far outside the mainstream. This is straight Orwellian. And we know how the CTRL+Left loves to use Europe as an example of what America should become. I love Europe and Europeans, but their politics has become a cruel joke.
I recall Roe vs. while barely out of my teenage years. Oh it was a nasty battle that unfortunately many people at that time couldn't imagine would pass. They did not realize what the 60’s stronghold that had taken place in this country via the Sexual Revolution Hillary's generation dropped on us all....I was called a prude and behind the times. Women were just as nasty then as they are now.
Weaponized for sure.
It doesn’t make any difference what kind of Justice he will be or not be, he didn’t deserve what was done to him at all.
You mean demorats? Hat tip to Bob Hope.
A centrist requires him to be conservative.
Utter BS. Marburg v Madison was not a power grab by the SC. The power to decide cases under the Constitution is a power granted the SC by the constitution. Only a blithering idiot believes otherwise. And, if you don’t believe this was deliberate, then read the Federalist Papers on this subject.
Strange, but I don’t remember it at ALL!
I must have been too busy living my life!
Donald John Trump is no George Herbert Walker Bush.
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.