Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Trump's New SCJ and what you think at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by saltwn Just some info Kavanugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under stare decisis ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2018, 07:31 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,135
Thanks: 9,464
Thanked 3,667 Times in 2,405 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Just some info

Quote:
Kavanugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under stare decisis and would seek to uphold it,[23] but has also ruled in favor of some restrictions for abortion.[24][25][26]

In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court."[23] During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[23]

In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion.[26] Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting.[24] The D.C. Circuit's opinion was then itself vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).
your thoughts?
Not long ago, I really thought that Judge Kavanaugh--if he were to become Justice Kavanaugh--would vote to overturn Roe.

Now, however, I am not so sure. He may consider it--as the above quote indicates--a matter of "settled law" (under the doctrine of stare decisis).

He will probably vote to place some restrictions upon abortions--it will not be abortion-on-demand, if he votes with the majority--but I am increasingly thinking that he will not vote to overturn Roe completely.
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2018, 09:33 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,768
Thanks: 53,836
Thanked 25,633 Times in 18,241 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Not long ago, I really thought that Judge Kavanaugh--if he were to become Justice Kavanaugh--would vote to overturn Roe.

Now, however, I am not so sure. He may consider it--as the above quote indicates--a matter of "settled law" (under the doctrine of stare decisis).

He will probably vote to place some restrictions upon abortions--it will not be abortion-on-demand, if he votes with the majority--but I am increasingly thinking that he will not vote to overturn Roe completely.
The lawyers who defended the original case were smart as heck to sue for privacy rights instead of the myriad of subjects related to abortion that each side was so inflamed about.
And as I stated many times elsewhere and I'm sure on PW, the two parties got these folks riled so they could define their constituents after civil rights kinda muddied the water of Democrat vs Republican. There was not much of a chance of completely overturning a ruling based upon medical privacy especially with later HIPPA rulings. I've been mad for a long time about the way Democrat and Republican politicians have used people just to claim a constituency, and with not much chance of overturning.
Same thing with burning the flag everybody got so crazy about in the 80 and 90s. It was ruled a form of protest and won't be changed imho.
But the best we can hope for is yes that abortion be regulated.
__________________

Water Gate II
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 09:39 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,824
Thanks: 8,713
Thanked 9,405 Times in 5,754 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
"The difference is" is that you gazed into yer crystal ball and found nothing then you pulled something outta yer *** and posted it. Got it.
The difference is I read the linked article and you could not be bothered to do so. Instead of attempting an intelligent rebuttal you resort to your usual juvenile attacks.

Did you manage to struggle through sounding out the words of the article's opening paragraphs? Kavanaugh notes the problem of prosecution or civil actions against sitting Presidents Clinton and Bush, one Democrat, the other Republican. So much for the hyper partisan Kavanaugh.

While it's trivial for most, it is a monumental task for you to read the rest of the article so I'll summarize simplified of course, don't want you to have to pull something out of your backside. Kavanaugh agrees that the courts were probably correct in allowing the civil lawsuit against President Clinton to proceed. He goes on to assert the solution to the problem has to come from Congress not the courts.

The harebrained claim that Trump appointed Kavanaugh so the justice would shield the President from prosecution is contradicted by the article.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:07 AM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,726
Thanks: 906
Thanked 1,488 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
AZRWinger

Pruned for Brevity.


Kavanaugh notes the problem of prosecution or civil actions against sitting Presidents Clinton and Bush, one Democrat, the other Republican.

**Kavanaugh agrees that the courts were probably correct in allowing the civil lawsuit against President Clinton to proceed. He goes on to assert the solution to the problem has to come from Congress, not the courts.**
T
Quote:
he result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitu-
tionally entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been
entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But
the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in of-
fice.28 Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for cer-
tain members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the Presi-
dent to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the Pres-
ident.30 In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and in-
vestigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or re-
volving around a President are inevitably politicized
“Point out the part/highlight them in the above link that YOU posted that refuted my post, which was "A serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office."
__________________
“I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!”

Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions II

Last edited by treedancer; 07-13-2018 at 11:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:38 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,313
Thanks: 7,370
Thanked 10,272 Times in 5,825 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
T

“Point out the part/highlight them in the above link that YOU posted that refuted my post, which was "A serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office."
Perhaps you should tell the class why your red herring question is relevant, to the topic at hand, before making such demands.

The question is serious yes, but has never been settled completely. So you are making assumptions about a legal precedent that cannot be employed because it doesn't exist.

Some folks seem to think that just being accused of a crime is enough to disengage an elected President form the OFFICE of the President. Think again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d851336d9028

He must be impeached to lose his authority to act in that office. So until such time as he is impeached, your question is mute. And your stubborn reluctance to engage in honest debate is just rude.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 12:28 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,726
Thanks: 906
Thanked 1,488 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Perhaps you should tell the class why your red herring question is relevant, to the topic at hand, before making such demands.

The question is serious yes, but has never been settled completely. So you are making assumptions about a legal precedent that cannot be employed because it doesn't exist.

Some folks seem to think that just being accused of a crime is enough to disengage an elected President form the OFFICE of the President. Think again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d851336d9028

He must be impeached to lose his authority to act in that office. So until such time as he is impeached, your question is mute. And your stubborn reluctance to engage in honest debate is just rude.
Explain to me why you think it is a "red herring" to make this statement in this thread "A serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office." Its in the "The Constitution & The Judicial Branch forum" in a thead with the title of "Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony ."
__________________
“I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!”

Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions II
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 04:18 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,198
Thanks: 1,438
Thanked 2,200 Times in 1,741 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Just some info

your thoughts?
There's a considerable difference between someone that's going to preside at the Appeals Court level where Supreme Court decisions are binding and being on the Supreme Court that can overturn prior Supreme Court decisions.

I'm not too worried about Roe v Wade because it doesn't stand alone. Planned Parenthood v Casey independently established the woman's right to an abortion and instead of "privacy" that was used in Roe v Wade the Casey decision was based upon the 14th Amendment's protection of "liberty" for the woman. In both cases the woman was still the only "person" involved in an abortion and a textual interpretation of the Constitution establishes that it only protects the rights of persons (that originate at birth).

More concerning is Kavanaugh's expressed opinion that a sitting president is above the law, cannot be indicted, cannot be prosecuted, and cannot be investigated. That's not contained anywhere in the Constitution and by even preventing investigations into criminal or conduct that could constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment there would never be the grounds for impeachment of a president.

Exemption from prosecution and investigations is a power that only dictators have and is not a power the Constitution vests in the president.

Kavanaugh isn't far right. Kavanaugh is off the cliff right in his opinions.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 06:20 PM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,442
Thanks: 1,807
Thanked 11,168 Times in 6,959 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Kavanaugh isn't far right. Kavanaugh is off the cliff right in his opinions.
Libs hated the pick before y'all even knew who the pick was so your opinions on Kavanaugh are irrelevant. Libs were gonna whine regardless of who Trump selected.
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2018, 07:09 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,135
Thanks: 9,464
Thanked 3,667 Times in 2,405 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
More concerning is Kavanaugh's expressed opinion that a sitting president is above the law, cannot be indicted, cannot be prosecuted, and cannot be investigated. That's not contained anywhere in the Constitution and by even preventing investigations into criminal or conduct that could constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" for the purpose of impeachment there would never be the grounds for impeachment of a president.
In regard to this, Politico (hardly a right-wing tabloid) says the following:

"Kavanaugh's stance...is not an unusual or outlandish one. In fact, it's the official position of the Justice Department, formally articulated in a 1973 opinion under President Richard Nixon and reaffirmed in 2000 under President Bill Clinton."

I am not certain that I fully agree with him here, however. Although it is certainly true that the harassment of a sitting president would visit the pain upon innocent Americans, the same argument may be made as concerning illegal aliens and their innocent children. And I am not in favor of our letting the latter break the law, utterly immune from any prosecution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Kavanaugh isn't far right. Kavanaugh is off the cliff right in his opinions.
If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed (as I believe that he will be), the unbiased analysts that I have heard seem to think that he will fall somewhere between John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. (They also point out that even Anthony Kennedy--more than three decades ago--was the subject of apocalyptic warnings, should he be confirmed to the SCOTUS.)
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,906
Thanks: 8,440
Thanked 6,955 Times in 4,212 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairy Jello View Post
Libs hated the pick before y'all even knew who the pick was so your opinions on Kavanaugh are irrelevant. Libs were gonna whine regardless of who Trump selected.
Most libs, including libs who would be voting on confirmation, openly stated that they would not like any President Trump nominee and would vote accordingly. So it doesn't matter.

Fortunately, as the saying goes, elections have consequences. Cavanaugh will be confirmed, along with possibly 1 or 2 more in the next 6 years.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, anthony, brett, court, justice, kavanaugh, ken, new, nominated, scj, succeed, supreme, think, trump, what, you

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0