Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Wry Catcher "For the Record, the USSC members are the only judges/justices which do not have a ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2018, 03:57 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,567
Thanks: 1,472
Thanked 2,314 Times in 1,044 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
"For the Record, the USSC members are the only judges/justices which do not have a Code of Ethics.
They take an oath to -- "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me, under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God" and since their singular purpose is to preserve and faithfully enforce the Constitution -- why would they need any extraneous contrivance?

Beyond that, SCOTUS Justices have a set of rules established by the Court, first, how to decide if a law is repugnant to the Constitution:


"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."



This explains the fundamental principles of our Republican form of government. The powers of the government extend to only that which is included in the Constitution. That restriction of power is meant to be definite and final, not vague, malleable or "evolving with the times". The Constitution itself can not be changed by normal legislative processes and neither is it subject to public opinion (as in a democracy). If a law is passed, it must be in agreement with the Constitution and ANY law that is extra-constitutional is VOID on its face.

The Court does not demand a law degree to decide if a law is, "repugnant to the constitution", one only needs to understand the foundational principles of the Constitution and possess a desire to preserve those principles.

Again, those principles are foundational and fundamental, established before a single governmental power is conferred. As such they act as the bedrock upon which all governmental power is built.

While the Constitution is supreme, the governmental power granted to it, "can seldom act" -- is strictly limited with no power to alter or revoke those principles -- so, those principles are designed to be permanent and unchangeable. And that rule even applies to the SCOTUS, even if the enforcement of a principle (or a right) injures the sensibilities of 21'st Century liberals.


The Court then continues and creates a "code of ethics" you claim is missing:


"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. . . .

(I)t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? . . .

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

So, a question for Wry Catcher or any other leftie, if a SCOTUS Justice diligently follows those rules, would you consider them to be a good Justice?

Do Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotamayor (wise Latina woman) and Breyer dutifully obey what's laid out above?

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.

Last edited by Jeerleader; 09-12-2018 at 04:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2018, 04:05 PM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,348
Thanks: 2,237
Thanked 2,436 Times in 1,430 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wry Catcher View Post
Other members of the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the current nominee. Stay on topic and please don't try to derail a very important issue.
Actually they have to do with other members of the supreme court. Because Ginsberg was allowed to not answer any questions regarding her views on various issues it paved the way for future supreme court nominees to not have to answer what their views are on various issues.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2018, 04:53 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,984
Thanks: 938
Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,248 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
They take an oath to -- "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me, under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God" and since their singular purpose is to preserve and faithfully enforce the Constitution -- why would they need any extraneous contrivance?

Beyond that, SCOTUS Justices have a set of rules established by the Court, first, how to decide if a law is repugnant to the Constitution:


"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."



This explains the fundamental principles of our Republican form of government. The powers of the government extend to only that which is included in the Constitution. That restriction of power is meant to be definite and final, not vague, malleable or "evolving with the times". The Constitution itself can not be changed by normal legislative processes and neither is it subject to public opinion (as in a democracy). If a law is passed, it must be in agreement with the Constitution and ANY law that is extra-constitutional is VOID on its face.

The Court does not demand a law degree to decide if a law is, "repugnant to the constitution", one only needs to understand the foundational principles of the Constitution and possess a desire to preserve those principles.

Again, those principles are foundational and fundamental, established before a single governmental power is conferred. As such they act as the bedrock upon which all governmental power is built.

While the Constitution is supreme, the governmental power granted to it, "can seldom act" -- is strictly limited with no power to alter or revoke those principles -- so, those principles are designed to be permanent and unchangeable. And that rule even applies to the SCOTUS, even if the enforcement of a principle (or a right) injures the sensibilities of 21'st Century liberals.


The Court then continues and creates a "code of ethics" you claim is missing:


"The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. . . .

(I)t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? . . .

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

So, a question for Wry Catcher or any other leftie, if a SCOTUS Justice diligently follows those rules, would you consider them to be a good Justice?

Do Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotamayor (wise Latina woman) and Breyer dutifully obey what's laid out above?

.
Do you think that knowingly lying to A Congressional inquiry is a breach of ethics/felony?
__________________
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values."
French President Emmanuel Macron
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2018, 05:39 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,567
Thanks: 1,472
Thanked 2,314 Times in 1,044 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
Do you think that knowingly lying to A Congressional inquiry is a breach of ethics/felony?
Depends on the question being asked.

Can one actually lie when subjected to a barrage of disingenuous questions that misrepresent the law and legal circumstance?
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2018, 08:44 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,984
Thanks: 938
Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,248 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
Depends on the question being asked.

Can one actually lie when subjected to a barrage of disingenuous questions that misrepresent the law and legal circumstance?

I am referring to the Sens. Leahy's grilling of Kavanaugh's statement, in which Kavanaugh in 2004, claimed “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” that were, apparently, stolen by Manuel Miranda, a Republican Senate aide.

BUTT Sens. Leahy produced an email that Miranda was sent to Kavanaugh, among others, passing along some of the improperly obtained files. That makes Kavanaugh’s claim BOGUS that he was “not aware” that Miranda had obtained Democratic a.
__________________
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values."
French President Emmanuel Macron
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2018, 10:42 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,567
Thanks: 1,472
Thanked 2,314 Times in 1,044 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
BUTT Sens. Leahy produced an email that Miranda was sent to Kavanaugh, among others, passing along some of the improperly obtained files. That makes Kavanaugh’s claim BOGUS that he was “not aware” that Miranda had obtained Democratic a.
LOL. Even Vox says nothing Kavanagh did or said in the hearings meet any prosecution threshold for perjury.

If I were to offer a -- go pound sand you crybaby -- answer I'll just say that what was good enough for AG Holder is good enough for Kavanagh.

Holder feigned any knowledge of Fast and Furious, testifying before Congress in May of 2011 that he wasn't "sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks", even though he began receiving multiple memorandum describing the operation in detail as early as July of 2010.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atf-fas...-in-july-2010/

__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2018, 12:34 AM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,984
Thanks: 938
Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,248 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
LOL. Even Vox says nothing Kavanagh did or said in the hearings meet any prosecution threshold for perjury.

If I were to offer a -- go pound sand you crybaby -- answer I'll just say that what was good enough for AG Holder is good enough for Kavanagh.

Holder feigned any knowledge of Fast and Furious, testifying before Congress in May of 2011 that he wasn't "sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks", even though he began receiving multiple memorandum describing the operation in detail as early as July of 2010.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atf-fas...-in-july-2010/



per·ju·ry


the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.

synonyms:lying under oath, giving false evidence/testimony, making false statements, willful falsehood
"she was found guilty of perjury"
__________________
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values."
French President Emmanuel Macron
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2018, 01:09 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,567
Thanks: 1,472
Thanked 2,314 Times in 1,044 Posts
Default Re: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
Well, thanks for that bit of uselessness but I will just refer again to Vox (who undoubtedly wishes it was perjury) who asked four legal experts about Kavanagh's assumed to be inaccurate statements. . .
"But do Kavanaugh’s inaccurate statements rise to the level of perjury? Did he commit a federal crime? I put the question to several legal scholars, and the reply I received was generally: “no.”
If someone besides MSNBC talking heads, you know, someone with the authority and the DUTY to do something about it believes perjury charges can be sustained, I'm sure they are being drawn up right now.



.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
brett, can’t, confirmed, kavanaugh, trusted

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 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0