Brett Kavanaugh Joins With Liberal Justices

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Dec 10, 2018.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/10/...ouwn9E1VdOl_5Lbhjl9OUubfc9I-v570DFt-5JkiC2d7w

    so, still hate him?........
     
  2. SquireSCA Suspended

    SquireSCA

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #2
    But, but, he hates teh wimminz and wants them all dead!!

    or something...
     
  3. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    No I think the problem was that he loves the women - even if they say no. But that's another matter.

    Was pleased to read this outcome from all the justices.
     
  4. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #4
    I've always questioned why judges declare a party. It makes zero sense to me.
     
  5. ronntaylor macrumors regular

    ronntaylor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    Flushing, New York
    #5
    It's settled law and the lower courts got it right. It should've been unanimously declined. The right is angling to defund and deny PP and abortion ASAP. There will be other cases soon and Kavanaugh will be part of the anti-choice cabal.
     
  6. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #6
    Pardon me for changing the subject, but on a similar note I don't understand why state auditors are a partisan position and declare a party.

    I think the state auditor should have auditing and management experience. Who cares what the state auditor's stance is on the homeless or the war in Yemen or whatever. He's supposed to make sure the governor doesn't buy himself a Lamborghini as a legitimate state expense.

    But what happens instead is that people vote the party line, so invariably whatever majority party the state government is, that same party is also the auditor that's supposed to keep them in line. That's like having Enron audit itself.
     
  7. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #7
    Just don't wear a bathing suit around the guy while he's drinking and it's all good.
     
  8. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    My objections to Kavanaugh were never based on his jurisprudence. He was arguably the closest thing to a non-ultra right wing justice we were going to get from Trump. I opposed his nomination because I felt that there were more than enough credible questions about his character to deny him the promotion to the Supreme Court. How he votes on particular cases doesn't change my opinion of his character.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #9
    Give it time. He’s not going to disappoint. Remember, he’s got a lifetime ahead of him where we’re not explicitly watching his every move.

    These people aren’t stupid.
     
  10. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #10
    It isn't just about stupidity. Past law and lower courts have just about dealt with these issues before. This is a softball case for the US Supreme Court, and the justices, even if they were 100% Republican, wouldn't waste time on it when there are more pressing cases.
     
  11. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #11
    Planned Parenthood is likely right on the merits issue in this case. And it's certainly right as that issue arose in similar cases out of other circuits (e.g. the Arizona case decided by the 9th Circuit and the Indiana case decided by the 7th Circuit).

    But the legal issue the Supreme Court was asked to address in this case is a different matter. It relates to whether Medicaid beneficiaries have a private right of action to sue when a state decertifies (as a Medicaid provider) a healthcare provider which they might want to use. Does the beneficiary's right to choose a qualified provider, which Congress incorporated into Medicaid law, represent a clearly established federal right which they can enforce through §1983? In other words, can Medicaid patients themselves - rather than, e.g., Planned Parenthood - sue?

    I think the Court should have taken this case and addressed that issue. It has wider implications. It affects more than just state efforts to prevent Planned Parenthood (or abortion providers) from receiving Medicaid payments for (covered) healthcare which they provide. And as it is there is a circuit split on the issue.

    Medicaid beneficiaries, it would seem, have different rights based on where they live. In some states - e.g., Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri - they can't sue if their states decertify the healthcare providers they would choose. But in most of the rest of the country, they can sue if that happens. In some other states, it isn't clear yet.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 11, 2018 ---
    Which lower courts got it right?

    That's the point. The legal issue the Supreme Court was asked to address isn't settled. The Court hasn't been completely clear and there's a circuit split on it. The federal circuits currently disagree. That's why the Court probably should have taken this case, even if it was to summarily affirm it - or otherwise decide it without further briefing and argument.
     
  12. spacemnspiff macrumors 6502a

    spacemnspiff

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    MD
    #12
    But cannot keep a level head because he cannot stop from spraying every time he speaks.

    That tells me how 'independent' is the judicial branch or not, personal interests take precedence.
     
  13. LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #13
    Justice Kavanaugh is still exactly as advertised by his advocates, he's just keeping his powder dry for a case that has more of a shot later on.

    Don't forget the chief justice is also a conservative. Kavanaugh's likely to take a cue for awhile and follow Roberts' lead even if any "originalist" might find leeway to go some other direction on some case. The only way to take the stink off Kavanaugh's elevation is for him to demonstrate that he's capable of approaching each case on its own merits. This case was notably weak so hardly the one from which to fly his conservative banner, considering he's supposedly replacing the court's swing vote.

    He and Roberts are both effectively "swing votes" at this point and I would expect Roberts to make every effort to ensure that on his watch as CJ, the high court itself is seen as being independent enough of politics in its decisions to retain the respect of the American people, not to mention that of the other two branches of government.

    Trump's White House is excepted there on "respect for the court" -- since he respects nothing and no one and apparently regards any court decision that goes against him as fatally flawed and worth challenging, at least via Twitter.

    Americans overall have seemed to like having a swing vote on the court, and politicians if they had a brain in their head would want that too... even though the nomination process is politicized. Otherwise we will truly risk ending up like Brazil, where the populace at present trust only the army, the church and the print press (and even them, not so much) to keep them from drowning in violations of law for personal profit -- no matter if the criminal is just a stone broke citizen, a crooked businessman or a thieving member of the political class.


    Brazil Loses Faith in its Institutions.jpg

    The only reason the Supreme Court of the USA is still respected is because it's been just independent enough to make people believe the Constitution as amended so far actually does respect all of us (instead of just the right, or just the left). This is never truer than when the high court overturns some lower court decision (or even one of its own past rulings) that in retrospect has been seen as unfair to one or more groups of Americans-- even when such a decision sometimes causes uproar for awhile among pols and citizens alike. The day we don't have at least one "all-American" swing vote on that Court is the day the modern all-American dream dies and takes the USA's staked claims of democratic government with it.
     
  14. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    Kavanaugh is not the right guy for SCOTUS. dude is a statist
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    Well he might be that and a whole lot of other things too. But it's too late to say he's not the right guy. He's the right guy because the Senate said so. He's seated. He's one of The Nine. Who knows what he'll be like as time goes on.

    He's no David Souter but he's no Clarence Thomas either. Think about Sam Alito for a minute. Now there's a guy turned out not to be the complete hack some on the left predicted he was. On the other hand, Alito was never going to be a Gorsuch, and we're not sure how Gorsuch will be perceived after a few years on that highest of our benches.

    Spending the bulk of one's professional life with eight other people focused on a document that (living or dead) has governed the lives of all Americans can be a sobering thing, no pun intended but with all best wishes for Justice Kavanaugh's recovery if alcoholism is one of his personal problems.

    Kavanaugh's professional challenge now is to rescue a professional reputation that he himself put in jeopardy by his partisan outburst at the second hearing before his nomination was confirmed. He can only meet that challenge by focusing on the case at hand, one case at a time, and considering it on its merits in the light of the document he was elevated to help interpret.
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    This is specifically why most of us wanted very strong evidence against the man.
    If I read your post correctly, there is no way to change your mind other than providing proof of innocence on a 30+ year old case, which is of course virtually impossible. Not only the only witness against the man was unable to provide anything concrete other than a few broken memories, not only the other witnesses denied that it happened, not only the FBI couldn't corroborate anything, but the very same witness refused to take any form of legal action. Yet, for some people he is still guilty (without even a trial, indictment, or even charge). Puzzling to say the least.
    I'd say one thing: the system worked exactly as it should. For once.
     
  17. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    I think I posted a response to a "joke" the other poster was making with an alternative take. I think you're reading to much into it. But in short - I (still) don't think Kavanaugh was a good pick given his temperament and (in my opinion) lying about the person he WAS. Without getting into it all again - teens drink. Underage teens drink. Not the end of the world by any stretch. Trying to lie about one's drinking habits decades later shows a lack of self-awareness that I prefer not to have as a SCJ.
     

Share This Page

16 December 10, 2018