Why Kavanaugh should be confirmed

2,019 Views | 15 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by LIB,MR BEARS
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And why Sasse should run in 2020, among other examples.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/brett-kavanaugh-and-ben-sasse-discuss-ov

"Sasse approached the question of overturning precedent from a different angle. "It isn't the case that every decision the Supreme Court has ever made is right and is now a part of the permanent rulebook. You sometimes have to throw them out," he said. "So, sixth-grade level, help us understand how from 1896 to 1954in those 58 years the Court was wrong for that whole time." Sasse was referring to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal," and to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that overruled Plessy. "The way we think about precedent," Sasse observed, "we might have our sixth graders thinking we should always take every received decision as right. So how do you reconcile the two?"

"One of the genius moves of Thurgood Marshall," Kavanaugh replied, "among many genius moves, was to start litigating case by case." Marshall was the NAACP lawyer (and future Supreme Court justice) who spearheaded the litigation and ultimately argued and won Brown before the Supreme Court. "He knew Plessy was wrong the day it was decided," Kavanaugh continued. "But he also knew as a matter of litigation strategy the way to bring about this change was to try to create a body of law that undermined the foundations of Plessy. And he started litigating cases and showing, case by case, that separate was not really equal." That, Kavanaugh concluded, was how Marshall "was able to show that the precedent, even with principles of stare decisis in place, should be overturned."

I can't can't think of a better answer, and I sure couldn't have framed it better. This is why Roe will be overturned in my life (sadface) and Citizens United will not (happyface).
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
DaveyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Very well said.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, I hope you're wrong:

Many tax-exempt groups that participate in politics will no longer be required to disclose their donors to the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department said.


The change means that so-called Section 501(c)4 groups, known as "social-welfare" organizations, no longer have to tell the IRS who gave them donations. The groups can be engaged in politics, so long as they don't spend more than half of their money on campaign advertisements or activities to sway an election. Donors do not have to be disclosed to the public...

...The shift "deprives the IRS of an important tool to make sure these nonprofits are complying with the laws," said Larry Noble, a former general counsel with the Federal Election Commission. "It will also make it easier for large contributors to hide money that is intended to influence elections, including money from foreign interests (that Alieto said would never happen)
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

Well, I hope you're wrong:

Many tax-exempt groups that participate in politics will no longer be required to disclose their donors to the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department said.


The change means that so-called Section 501(c)4 groups, known as "social-welfare" organizations, no longer have to tell the IRS who gave them donations. The groups can be engaged in politics, so long as they don't spend more than half of their money on campaign advertisements or activities to sway an election. Donors do not have to be disclosed to the public...

...The shift "deprives the IRS of an important tool to make sure these nonprofits are complying with the laws," said Larry Noble, a former general counsel with the Federal Election Commission. "It will also make it easier for large contributors to hide money that is intended to influence elections, including money from foreign interests (that Alieto said would never happen)
Vatdevurk does that have to do with Thurgood Marshall building a set of lower court rulings to ultimately overturn Plessy?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whitetrash said:

cinque said:

Well, I hope you're wrong:

Many tax-exempt groups that participate in politics will no longer be required to disclose their donors to the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department said.


The change means that so-called Section 501(c)4 groups, known as "social-welfare" organizations, no longer have to tell the IRS who gave them donations. The groups can be engaged in politics, so long as they don't spend more than half of their money on campaign advertisements or activities to sway an election. Donors do not have to be disclosed to the public...

...The shift "deprives the IRS of an important tool to make sure these nonprofits are complying with the laws," said Larry Noble, a former general counsel with the Federal Election Commission. "It will also make it easier for large contributors to hide money that is intended to influence elections, including money from foreign interests (that Alieto said would never happen)
Vatdevurk does that have to do with Thurgood Marshall building a set of lower court rulings to ultimately overturn Plessy?
Do what?
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sasse asked for sixth grade level. What does Cinque need?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sasse asked for sixth grade level. What does Cinque need?
An understanding of why you cons are so easily triggered?
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I really like that Sass fella! I hope runs against Trumps
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

And why Sasse should run in 2020, among other examples.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/brett-kavanaugh-and-ben-sasse-discuss-ov

"Sasse approached the question of overturning precedent from a different angle. "It isn't the case that every decision the Supreme Court has ever made is right and is now a part of the permanent rulebook. You sometimes have to throw them out," he said. "So, sixth-grade level, help us understand how from 1896 to 1954in those 58 years the Court was wrong for that whole time." Sasse was referring to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal," and to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that overruled Plessy. "The way we think about precedent," Sasse observed, "we might have our sixth graders thinking we should always take every received decision as right. So how do you reconcile the two?"

"One of the genius moves of Thurgood Marshall," Kavanaugh replied, "among many genius moves, was to start litigating case by case." Marshall was the NAACP lawyer (and future Supreme Court justice) who spearheaded the litigation and ultimately argued and won Brown before the Supreme Court. "He knew Plessy was wrong the day it was decided," Kavanaugh continued. "But he also knew as a matter of litigation strategy the way to bring about this change was to try to create a body of law that undermined the foundations of Plessy. And he started litigating cases and showing, case by case, that separate was not really equal." That, Kavanaugh concluded, was how Marshall "was able to show that the precedent, even with principles of stare decisis in place, should be overturned."

I can't can't think of a better answer, and I sure couldn't have framed it better. This is why Roe will be overturned in my life (sadface) and Citizens United will not (happyface).
I agree this is a good answer, but do not follow your argument that the logic Brown v.. and the genius of Marshall extends to Roe and Citizens. Roe is based on Griswold, do you relitigate Griswold? In addition to privacy, abortion restrictions that create an undue burden on the Woman have been repeatedly overturned. Brown was by comparison a simpler process, (no less difficult) of demonstrating that separate was in no way equal. Kansas, of course, did a great job of making the case for Marshall.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Despite all the faux outrage ....

A. Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the senate.
B. He will prove to be more of a moderate than conservatives will like and a pleasant surprise to liberals.
C. Kavanaugh's moderate judicial rulings will be of no surprise to Donald Trump.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twd74 said:

quash said:

And why Sasse should run in 2020, among other examples.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/07/brett-kavanaugh-and-ben-sasse-discuss-ov

"Sasse approached the question of overturning precedent from a different angle. "It isn't the case that every decision the Supreme Court has ever made is right and is now a part of the permanent rulebook. You sometimes have to throw them out," he said. "So, sixth-grade level, help us understand how from 1896 to 1954in those 58 years the Court was wrong for that whole time." Sasse was referring to Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal," and to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that overruled Plessy. "The way we think about precedent," Sasse observed, "we might have our sixth graders thinking we should always take every received decision as right. So how do you reconcile the two?"

"One of the genius moves of Thurgood Marshall," Kavanaugh replied, "among many genius moves, was to start litigating case by case." Marshall was the NAACP lawyer (and future Supreme Court justice) who spearheaded the litigation and ultimately argued and won Brown before the Supreme Court. "He knew Plessy was wrong the day it was decided," Kavanaugh continued. "But he also knew as a matter of litigation strategy the way to bring about this change was to try to create a body of law that undermined the foundations of Plessy. And he started litigating cases and showing, case by case, that separate was not really equal." That, Kavanaugh concluded, was how Marshall "was able to show that the precedent, even with principles of stare decisis in place, should be overturned."

I can't can't think of a better answer, and I sure couldn't have framed it better. This is why Roe will be overturned in my life (sadface) and Citizens United will not (happyface).
I agree this is a good answer, but do not follow your argument that the logic Brown v.. and the genius of Marshall extends to Roe and Citizens. Roe is based on Griswold, do you relitigate Griswold? In addition to privacy, abortion restrictions that create an undue burden on the Woman have been repeatedly overturned. Brown was by comparison a simpler process, (no less difficult) of demonstrating that separate was in no way equal. Kansas, of course, did a great job of making the case for Marshall.

Citizens United is in no danger. Roe, on the other hand is much more like Plessy. It was decided 45 years ago and there have been a variety of cases chipping away at it. One thing I can see is a new determination based on Fourth Amendment rights instead of the penumbra of privacy. I think it much more likely that the "Trump because abortion" crowd get Roe overturned and it then devolves to the states. I hear Kavanaugh laying out the plan to do so.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roe will eventually be overturned by science. When we get to the point of viability earlier than detection, the whole structure crumbles.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Roe will eventually be overturned by science. When we get to the point of viability earlier than detection, the whole structure crumbles.

Then we'll fight about Plan B.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are few things stronger than the desire to kill a baby
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

There are few things stronger than the desire to kill a baby
What an absurd statement.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Roe will eventually be overturned by science. When we get to the point of viability earlier than detection, the whole structure crumbles.
Prevailing Medical Opinion holds the point of viability at around 24 weeks. While Science is making tremendous strides,there has been little movement in this. To move the viability even a couple of weeks would be an enormous medical achievement. If science is going to dramatically move viability you are going to have to create an artificial environment that will nurture from much earlier in the life process. While this is an amazing possibility for those unable to conceive, the scientific solution ignores the real societal problem, creates many more moral and societal problems and does not resolve the problem of abortion.

The real societal problem is the millions of unplanned pregnancies that occur in the Country every year (yes there are planned pregnancies where termination is considered, but they are statistically few). If we were really serious about ending abortion, we would be having honest discussions about how we have failed to education multiple generations, about sex, contraception, and how men should value and treat women. I think the failings of the latter in the University we know and love, should lead us to conclude we are all failures in this effort.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twd74 said:

Booray said:

Roe will eventually be overturned by science. When we get to the point of viability earlier than detection, the whole structure crumbles.
Prevailing Medical Opinion holds the point of viability at around 24 weeks. While Science is making tremendous strides,there has been little movement in this. To move the viability even a couple of weeks would be an enormous medical achievement. If science is going to dramatically move viability you are going to have to create an artificial environment that will nurture from much earlier in the life process. While this is an amazing possibility for those unable to conceive, the scientific solution ignores the real societal problem, creates many more moral and societal problems and does not resolve the problem of abortion.

The real societal problem is the millions of unplanned pregnancies that occur in the Country every year (yes there are planned pregnancies where termination is considered, but they are statistically few). If we were really serious about ending abortion, we would be having honest discussions about how we have failed to education multiple generations, about sex, contraception, and how men should value and treat women. I think the failings of the latter in the University we know and love, should lead us to conclude we are all failures in this effort.
Maybe policies that don't destroy the traditional family would help? Creating an environment where young men learn how to treat women by showing them a proper example certainly would.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.