US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Retiring

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,255
Ratings
2,408
Kavanaugh was nominated. Time to send mail to Collins and Murkowski!!! The senators always say they don’t respond to out or state mail but the offices getting like 50000 letters is reported no matter where there actually from!
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,535
Ratings
12,740
The more I learn about Kavanaugh, the more he scares me, not only because of Roe vs Wade and his disregard for worker's rights and views on health care but because of the power he thinks a President should have in general. He seems to be of the opinion that the only way to remove a President should be impeachment, in other words, if a Congress won't impeach, the President is above the law in his eyes.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,255
Ratings
2,408
For some reason the justice department says a president can’t be indicted! Why have justice department professionals repeatedly found this?! Well mueller can test it. There is no law forbidding mueller from indicting trump.
 

ribbon

Well-Known Member
Messages
185
Ratings
253
So Kavanaugh is close to the Bush family, who I imagine, are not fans of Trump and prefer Republicans like Mueller. In fact, I would say Kavanaugh owes much of his success to the Bush family. So, if it does go to the court, will Kavanaugh go against the Bush family and side with Trump? His past suggests he thinks the President is immune, but he also is supposedly a constitutionalist. And Trump isn't exactly that...

In any case, I think he will be confirmed. All of the four finalists would have moved this country backwards, in my opinion. None were a swing vote like Kennedy could be.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,360
Ratings
3,626
For some reason the justice department says a president can’t be indicted! Why have justice department professionals repeatedly found this?! Well mueller can test it. There is no law forbidding mueller from indicting trump.
Can you imagine why a president would pick a nominee who says a president can't be indicted? I thought he was innocent and there was no collusion?
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,722
Ratings
5,086
So Kavanaugh is close to the Bush family, who I imagine, are not fans of Trump and prefer Republicans like Mueller. In fact, I would say Kavanaugh owes much of his success to the Bush family. So, if it does go to the court, will Kavanaugh go against the Bush family and side with Trump? His past suggests he thinks the President is immune, but he also is supposedly a constitutionalist. And Trump isn't exactly that...

In any case, I think he will be confirmed. All of the four finalists would have moved this country backwards, in my opinion. None were a swing vote like Kennedy could be.
At least Kavanaugh, with more than a decade of service on the court of appeals, is highly qualified. If Trump had nominated Barrett, with just a year of judicial experience, it would have been an insult to women. With many more qualified women available, Barrett made the top 4 largely due to (1) her famous encounter with Diane Feinstein at her confirmation hearing and (2) the fact that she is a woman who is likely to oppose Roe v Wade. Sure, Barrett is more qualified that Harriet Miers (remember her? :lol:), but Republicans can't seem to understand that highly qualified women actually do exist!
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,535
Ratings
12,740
So Kavanaugh is close to the Bush family, who I imagine, are not fans of Trump and prefer Republicans like Mueller. In fact, I would say Kavanaugh owes much of his success to the Bush family. So, if it does go to the court, will Kavanaugh go against the Bush family and side with Trump? His past suggests he thinks the President is immune, but he also is supposedly a constitutionalist. And Trump isn't exactly that...
But Trump is the President and the Constitution only provides for impeachment as a way to remove a President from office. It's not specific on an indictment, so that's up for interpretation and we know what Kavanaugh thinks about that. Apparently, he also thinks that an investigation into a President is distracting to the President, and he has argued that a President should appoint a Special Counsel. So, he sounds like a dream come true for Trump in that regard and I doubt Trump chose Kavanaugh because his views have changed.

The Constitution also doesn't say anything about homosexuality or abortion or birth control, so, again, he's free to interpret the Constitution however he wants to and he has also fallen in line and said something along the lines of no previous President has looked into someone's background more than Trump. :rolleyes:

ETA: I'e also been reading that he thinks banning assault weapons is unconstitutional. It seems that that, too, is his interpretation of the 2nd amendment since there were no assault weapons when the Constitution was written and it doesn't say that anyone has a right to own every weapon there is.

All in all, I don't consider him a constitutionalist but someone who reads the Constitution the way he wants to read and makes it fit his views.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,535
Ratings
12,740
I have zero faith in Collins after she voted for the tax cut.
I was surprised she didn't attend the announcement. Maybe she's facing re-election pressure?

I'm actually more concerned about the Democrats in red states. I think some of them may be more inclined to vote for Kavanaugh than Collins.

You have to hand it to Kennedy, the timing of his retirement was genius. It's a win-win for the GOP. If they don't confirm before midterms, GOP voter turnout might rise. If they do confirm before and Democrats in red states don't vote for Kavanaugh they might be more likely to lose their seat. And even if no Democrat votes to confirm, they don't even need them if every Republican votes for him but with the upcoming midterms and Democrats in red states they might be able to lose someone like Collins because one of the red state Democrats will replace her vote.
 

BittyBug

And the band played on
Messages
20,517
Ratings
16,534
I was surprised she didn't attend the announcement. Maybe she's facing re-election pressure?

I'm actually more concerned about the Democrats in red states. I think some of them may be more inclined to vote for Kavanaugh than Collins.
We'll see. Kavanagh has a trail of rulings and positions on a number of isues that could be controversial.
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,722
Ratings
5,086
I'm actually more concerned about the Democrats in red states. I think some of them may be more inclined to vote for Kavanaugh than Collins.
I am with Paul Begala on this one:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/opin...sily-oppose-brett-kavanaugh-begala/index.html

Red-state Democrats should oppose Kavanaugh, period. They should do so early and often; loudly and proudly. Here's why:
...
Voting yes won't stop Trump from slamming you.
Trump will attack red-state Democrats no matter what. He'll make stuff up if he needs to because he knows Republican voters do not care about the truth. They eat up his lies. To them, his lies are a feature, not a bug. In fact, Democrats could vote in favor of Kavanaugh and Trump would find a way to attack them for it.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,535
Ratings
12,740
Trump will attack red-state Democrats no matter what. He'll make stuff up if he needs to because he knows Republican voters do not care about the truth. They eat up his lies. To them, his lies are a feature, not a bug. In fact, Democrats could vote in favor of Kavanaugh and Trump would find a way to attack them for it.
Trump invited Heitkamp to join him on Air Force One and invited her, Donnelly, Manchin and Jones to the announcement. He believes that Republicans are loyal to him because they're from the party he represents and Democrats are his opponents because they're from the other party but in the end, it's about loyalty and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care where it comes from.
 

Peaches LaTour

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,522
Ratings
539
Um, depending on who Trump nominates, the right could have a meltdown as well. The left will meltdown anyway. Both sides will be too excited use this to raise $$$$$$$$$$$ for these fall elections.



Not as bad as Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Bill Nelson (Florida), Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Claire McCaskill (Missouri) and Jon Tester (Montana). They are all Democrats defending in very competitive Senate races this fall.

This is going to get really ugly. :(
It already is ugly.
 

Peaches LaTour

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,522
Ratings
539
To all you ladies out there of child bearing age: you better get organized, fast, to protect your rights.
I spent most of my child bearings years in a time frame when birth control was basically rubbers a guy could purchase at a gas station and abortion meant one thing: back alley chopshops.
It infuriates me that any woman could want to go back to those days. Do they really want men controlling their life's like that? Stupid cows. I'd like to slap the crap out if everyone of them.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,404
Ratings
12,276
^^ I don't think violence is the answer, but I getcha! In fact, it's many more citizens than just women of childbearing years who need to gird their loins, get organized, understand what's happening, protect their rights, and above all, vote responsibly, which involves much more than just showing up at the voting booth.

I think all stupid women and stupid Americans in general need to be forced to watch documentaries and fiction films about back-alley botched abortion procedures, in addition to being force-fed the horrendous statistics regarding deaths resulting from shoddy abortions. I have a shadowy and mesmerizingly beautiful great-aunt from the past who I've seen in photographs but never met because she died in the early 1920s after being taken advantage of and impregnated by an older man, which led to her trying to obtain an abortion that was inexpertly achieved to say the least. The go-to family myth is that she died of pneumonia. Not so according to my grandfather, her older brother, who mourned her death for the rest of his life.
 

Skittl1321

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,181
Ratings
8,986
The religious nutjobs I've talked to at parties think women deserve to die if they have an abortion. It's a fair punishment in their eyes.

We still live in a country where people think unmarried people should be punished for sex, despite like 98% of the population fitting that demographic. People have it in their mind that people who have abortions are sluts who can't keep their legs closed. The actual American woman who has an abortion is just as likely to be married, often with children, as not.

And as I always mention, abortions are not just for unwanted pregnancies. Many women find themselves making the most difficult choice of their life when they find that their very wanted baby is not viable. And these terminations are generally much later in pregnancy.

Aftershocks- I'm so sorry to hear that happened in your family. That is truly awful.
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,531
Ratings
23,265
My sister, who was personally opposed; had to make the decision for medical reasons.
It was very difficult for her; even though to continue with the pregnancy would have been disastrous.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,282
Ratings
5,046
To all you ladies out there of child bearing age: you better get organized, fast, to protect your rights.
I spent most of my child bearings years in a time frame when birth control was basically rubbers a guy could purchase at a gas station and abortion meant one thing: back alley chopshops.
It infuriates me that any woman could want to go back to those days. Do they really want men controlling their life's like that? Stupid cows. I'd like to slap the crap out if everyone of them.
In Connecticut, where I grew up, all forms of contraception, even rubbers were illegal, and even for legally married couples. The guy had to go to NY to buy rubbers. (consider Griswold vs. CT).

However, abortion was available if the woman had a doctor or psychiatrist who would testify that she needed it because of risk to her physical or mental health, a loophole primarily available to well to do women.

What we will get on abortion is likely to be more restrictive than that, at least in some states, and contraception may become illegal again as well.

:(
I want to cry.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,404
Ratings
12,276
^^ And yeah, way way back-in-the-day, once women got married, they were generally at the mercy of their husbands regarding having to bend to their husband's will, willingly and without complaint, in addition to scrubbing, scraping, cleaning, cooking and caring for all the numerous offspring resulting from doing their duty toward their husbands.

It may be hard to believe, but my great-grandmother on my paternal side is said to have given birth to 21 children, which I find mind-boggling. Perhaps it was 18 or 19, as I've heard anywhere from 18 - 21, but I don't have any documented proof of the exact number (recollections by relatives vary because some of the offspring did not live to adulthood). I've seen an old black and white picture of my paternal great-grandmother and great-grandfather posing for those old cameras where you have to be perfectly still for long minutes. She's sitting in a chair and he's standing by her side. She looks frail and pinched around the face. He has one of those bushy moustaches of the time, and he was said to favor nice cigars. He looks fine. She was said to be sickly. Wow, I wonder why? :duh: Of course, she died before he did, and I believe he may have remarried, or perhaps he played the field. I'm sure he was a fine, upstanding gentleman of the time. He wasn't intentionally unkind to her nor to their children, at least 4 or 5 of whom did not survive to adulthood. But death in infancy or childhood was normal in those days.

ETA:
I mention this personal family-related reflection in lament of the way some men (many of them old farts) and some willingly blind women too seem to think it's okay for women's bodies to be legislated against, and for women to not have control over their own emotional and physical decision-making processes. A lot of this Roe v Wade embittered struggle is not about the sanctity of life. In our patriarchal culture, it's much more about misogyny and controlling women's bodies, IMO.
 
Last edited:

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,282
Ratings
5,046
Yes, and it is also about the kind of "your country is changing" fears that Trump stokes. People afraid of POC taking over their country want young white women to have as many white babies as possible, no matter what they might want.
 

allezfred

JULIETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!
Staff member
Messages
53,620
Ratings
42,491
It’s the fear of being in the minority because they think that they will treated by minorities/new majority as badly as they treat minorities at present.
 

Peaches LaTour

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,522
Ratings
539
In Connecticut, where I grew up, all forms of contraception, even rubbers were illegal, and even for legally married couples. The guy had to go to NY to buy rubbers. (consider Griswold vs. CT).

However, abortion was available if the woman had a doctor or psychiatrist who would testify that she needed it because of risk to her physical or mental health, a loophole primarily available to well to do women.

What we will get on abortion is likely to be more restrictive than that, at least in some states, and contraception may become illegal again as well.

:(
I want to cry.
Don't cry. Vote straight pro-choice candidates. Always.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 5)

Top