Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh Betray Pro-Lifers. As Expected

Creative Minority Report ^ | December 10, 2018 | Matthew Archbold

[ebb tide]

Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh Betray Pro-Lifers. As Expected

Come on. Who didn't see this coming?

After all the push and fighting pro-lifers did to make sure Robert Kavanaugh took a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, how could we not have expected to be betrayed as soon as possible? Roberts is Roberts. I mean, that ship has sailed. He's on the organ donor waiting list for the first spine transplant.


CNN:

The Supreme Court Monday rebuffed efforts by states to block funding to Planned Parenthood.

It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.
It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- voted to hear the case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court's liberals in not taking up the case -- showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.

Roberts and Kavanaugh "likely have serious objections," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible."

Even CNN can't come up with some constitutionalist argument to support their pro-abort brethren. All they've got is that Roberts and Kavanaugh want to avoid "contentious, high profile disputes." Uhm, what did they think the Supreme Court did? Its actual role is to settle disputes of the contentious variety.

Justice Clarence Thomas pretty much called them wusses in his dissent. "What explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" Thomas wrote.
"I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named Planned Parenthood."

I wrote a book called "Faith Under Fire: Dramatic Stories of Christian Courage." Let's just say these two wouldn't qualify.

So, it turns out that Planned Parenthood has a right to taxpayer money. At least until we see how that spine transplant turns out.

[DoughtyOne]

As I understand it, Hagel’s big move was to declare an emergency, then loft a screwed up piece of garbage law to fix it. It was all a big lie, start to finish, just to implement some terrible law that no sane person would back on it’s own.

You’re right. We are being manipulated. I can just see it now, the Republicans telling us how important it is to get them back in control of the House in 2020.

Pray tell why?

[Sontagged]

Honestly, and I hate publishing this publicly, our only chance is a new party.

We’ve been saying this since Sarah Palin’s Tea Party time...

And the RINO Unipartiers like Jeb Bush and other Bushie people like Frum tried to start up things like NoParty parties, counterfeiting the Tea Party.

The elites read and digest Free Republic minute by minute, so for sure this is not wise posting this here, but that’s my two cents.

[Sontagged]

P.S. Hegel was a 19th century, godless philosopher who believed the truth could be manipulated because the media, or public opinion could be manipulated by pitting two opposing sides against the other, with a new “truth” or manipulated “truth” compromising the two opposing sides, would emerge.

That's how they got Kavanaugh in. Two opposing (fake) arguments got them their compromised RINO candidate.

That is the point of the media argument of left vs. right.

[firebrand]

He didn’t betray anybody. Read his book. He’s a firm disciple of stare decisis. The only people he “betrayed” were the abortion lovers who wanted him disgraced but never bothered to find out what his real views were.

[Lurker51]

He wasn’t referring to Hagel, the politician. He was referring to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who was a philosopher. Marx was one of his students (who took some of his ideas and extended/adapted them for the worse). I suggest looking up the term, “Hegelian Dialectic” or “Hegelian Dialog.” (Both of these terms refer to the same thing.)

[Sontagged]

Thanks Lurker... forgot Hegel was a mentor to Karl Marx.

[logi_cal869]

No kidding, but it’s worse than that: Just wait until Justice Waffle is presented a 2A case regarding what he cited as the “second amendment ‘right’”...

[trebb]

Thank you - all the concern tolls are doing their thing and jumping on a headline w/o having a clue of what the decision was all about....I have as many questions about those who wanted to hear it as I do for Kavanaugh...ironic that those who get pissed about leftists legislating from the bench also get pissed when “their guys” opt to not push that envelope.

[rollo tomasi]

You wrote the following:

“This wasn’t a case about funding. It was about whether an individual could bring a lawsuit in the first place.”

I responded that the appeal involved many other factors including Judge's Bacharach dissent (Involving PPKM, not PPSLR) pertaining to 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(39),(p)(1) and Kansas Administrative Regulation
§ 30-5-60(a).

Please go back and read my post. There is already an explicit right to sue the State. The question is does the individual have the right to circumvent States where providers are deemed unqualified. The States are given plenty of leeway to determine entities that are qualified especially concerning Medicaid (In some cases, States can terminate contracts even if providers are qualified). Medicare involves longer and detailed measures. Also, there is already a mechanism of adjudication where PP can prove their innocence. Kansas or LA never denied PP their right to defend themselves.

Conflicting opinions based on the matter of States determining the qualification of providers (For some reason all involving PP) needs to be rectified. There is no law that says individuals can sue the State for legally determining if a provider is unqualified. Federal and State laws are clear. It is the courts that are screwed up.

I guess your post got nuked (Read it before I went to bed, did not realize this could be a religious forum which has rules for personal insults). This has nothing to do with Roe/abortion. I never even mentioned that. You just responded by a c/p of citations that were a flippant response by the majority of the court considering all the turmoil this matter with the circuit courts under them is causing (More likely protecting PP).

[rollo tomasi]

BTW, Kavanaugh is not “liberal” or whatever that means. Kavanaugh is a status quo go-along-to-get-along quasi Kennedy clone. A Statists of the highest order pertaining to law enforcement, weak on social issues, and sides mainly with free market ideals.

[RedMonqey]

Yep

[pookie18]

Thanks, FrankR!

[TexasGurl24]

Wrong again. This wasn’t a vote on the merits.

[ebb tide]

That’s just your opinion. It’s not Clarence Thomas’s opinion, and I think he’s more knowledgeable of law. I’ll go with him.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, if you like what Perot did to us in 1992, by all means start a third party.

I understand the frustration, but the third party route is just DOA for all intents and purposes.

[DoughtyOne]

I know some folks are thinking Kavanaugh will not be good. I’m not convinced folks interpret things accurately. I’m not even sure some things that look bad, are actually symbolic of the true intent some folks have mistaken them to be.

It will take time.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Lurker51.

[BillyBoy]

>> Not with Kavanaugh and Roberts on the court. I can't fathom why you're defending them. <<

I got viciously attacked on here for NOT drinking the "Kavanaugh says he's an originalist and that will magically make him vote like a Scalia clone regardless of his personal views" kool-aid during his confirmation hearings.