Author Topic: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings-Congrats Justice Kavanaugh  (Read 50196 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #75 on: June 27, 2018, 10:57:35 PM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2255
  • Tommy Points: 2962
1.  Convince minorities and women they are perpetual victims and that the Dems are the only thing between them and total ruin.

2. Give taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, so that Planned Parenthood will give it back to them.

3. Cave on unsustainable promises to corrupt unions, who then support their campaigns and deliver the vote.

4. Give money to academia, which jacks up the price of college anyway. Create a generation of people in debt beholden to the party that promises free higher education. Make sure conservatives are person non grata on campus and create "safe spaces" where kids can be free of hearing the opposite point of view in the unlikely scenario where they can actually find it.

5. Import voters from other countries and pander to them. If anyone points this out call them bigots.

6. Create class warfare knowing that most people aren't in the 1%, or even the 20%. Continue to live in the biggest houses you can.

7. Attempt to take the scientific high ground by declaring some things settled, whereas other things depend on your feelings. Declare anyone that disagrees uncultured rubes.

All this seems like a recipe for winning. It's actually a recipe for bringing us Trump.
I'm willing to agree to at least the existence of a playbook and some version of these 7, as well as your final conclusion about Trump.

One common thread here is fear.

Republicans: we'll protect you from the foreigners
Democrats: we'll protect you from the Republicans

It's a lame playbook, though, and I guess it's a matter of perspective whether it's less competent or less evil.

For example, $500M/year to PP on a wedge issue that hurts them as much as it helps them. That's a drop in the bucket from the federal budget, especially if you assume Medicare money would be spent elsewhere anyway.

Science falls for the same old trap of policy over ideology. The scientific community & the international community all side with the Dems on this by light years. There's a reason why EVERYONE is in the Paris agreement except for us, and Occam's razor applies as to what that is. Yet, the issue is split because we end up fighting about elitism. Republican voters believe they are being condescended or shamed about their views by stuck-up Dems. Dems feel like they're stuck in 6th grade and it's still not cool to be a science nerd... and so they have to compromise with the kid who didn't do his homework.

Unions, yeah, but for better or worse that battle's been slowly lost for the last 50 years. Pandering to a dying breed.

Anyway, a ton to unpack there, but yes, I acknowledge that clearly both parties have a playbook. I still contend that in recent history, there is a single party willing to dismantle democratic institutions and flaunt the law like never before. Maybe it's a natural escalation with shared blame, but the GOP is proudly running point on it.

---
Lucky17 Yahoo! Points League: Jackalopes
Offseason Tracker

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #76 on: June 27, 2018, 11:35:01 PM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3161
  • Tommy Points: 492
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
Considering the fact that abortion is an off-limits topic on CB, I'm seeing an awful lot of talk about it going unchecked by the mods.
let it just happen man
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #77 on: June 27, 2018, 11:38:03 PM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3161
  • Tommy Points: 492
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
TP
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #78 on: June 28, 2018, 12:10:20 AM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2255
  • Tommy Points: 2962
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
TP

Trump is literally the Trump Card in any Dem vs Republican debate of 2018.

I realize that there are good conservatives who both did and didn't vote for him, but collectively the election of Trump was a mortal political sin beyond any I've seen in my lifetime.
---
Lucky17 Yahoo! Points League: Jackalopes
Offseason Tracker

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #79 on: June 28, 2018, 12:35:11 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8211
  • Tommy Points: 813
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #80 on: June 28, 2018, 12:35:31 AM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 72
Considering the fact that abortion is an off-limits topic on CB, I'm seeing an awful lot of talk about it going unchecked by the mods.
let it just happen man

I'd love to let it happen. I'd love to be able to have that discussion. But if I'm going to be dinged on it, as I have been before ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #81 on: June 28, 2018, 12:51:48 AM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 72
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.

All the talk about conservative justices vs. liberal justices vs. moderate justices is kind of ... I don't know the right word for it ... ironic? silly?

What I mean is that there are, obviously, multiple ways of viewing/interpreting the Constitution, but I don't think there should be so many viewpoints on it.

Whatever the issue under consideration, it's either constitutional or it's not—yet it could be ruled constitutional by one version of the Supreme Court, then later on ruled unconstitutional by another edition of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't make sense to me.

It shouldn't be about "liberal vs. conservative vs. moderate"; it shouldn't be about a certain social ideology winning the day; it should be about what that document says (or doesn't say).

And I really do believe that's how the Founders intended it to be, and that this idea was a driving force behind the Tenth Amendment—if it ain't in the Constitution, it falls to each state to decide for itself.

Except that for well over a century now, a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.

/rant ;D
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #82 on: June 28, 2018, 02:17:09 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8211
  • Tommy Points: 813
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.

All the talk about conservative justices vs. liberal justices vs. moderate justices is kind of ... I don't know the right word for it ... ironic? silly?

What I mean is that there are, obviously, multiple ways of viewing/interpreting the Constitution, but I don't think there should be so many viewpoints on it.

Whatever the issue under consideration, it's either constitutional or it's not—yet it could be ruled constitutional by one version of the Supreme Court, then later on ruled unconstitutional by another edition of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't make sense to me.

It shouldn't be about "liberal vs. conservative vs. moderate"; it shouldn't be about a certain social ideology winning the day; it should be about what that document says (or doesn't say).

And I really do believe that's how the Founders intended it to be, and that this idea was a driving force behind the Tenth Amendment—if it ain't in the Constitution, it falls to each state to decide for itself.

Except that for well over a century now, a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.

/rant ;D
Yeah. Agree with all this.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #83 on: June 28, 2018, 04:15:32 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35728
  • Tommy Points: 5898
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.

All the talk about conservative justices vs. liberal justices vs. moderate justices is kind of ... I don't know the right word for it ... ironic? silly?

What I mean is that there are, obviously, multiple ways of viewing/interpreting the Constitution, but I don't think there should be so many viewpoints on it.

Whatever the issue under consideration, it's either constitutional or it's not—yet it could be ruled constitutional by one version of the Supreme Court, then later on ruled unconstitutional by another edition of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't make sense to me.

It shouldn't be about "liberal vs. conservative vs. moderate"; it shouldn't be about a certain social ideology winning the day; it should be about what that document says (or doesn't say).

And I really do believe that's how the Founders intended it to be, and that this idea was a driving force behind the Tenth Amendment—if it ain't in the Constitution, it falls to each state to decide for itself.

Except that for well over a century now, a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.

/rant ;D
Yeah. Agree with all this.
And yet, many will get upset because of this line in the post above:

Quote
a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.[/b]

/rant ;D

The Constitution was written for the rights of all Americans and each American should be free to live their own lifestyle. Their lifestyle is just that, a choice they made on how to live their lives in America.

Any lifestyle that is that illegal.

That includes gays, lesbians, transgenders and transsexuals. Such things are not illegal social experiments. If you're intimating thst they are, thats just wrong.


Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #84 on: June 28, 2018, 06:36:54 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17047
  • Tommy Points: 1120
Quote
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.

This is at the heart of why we are so divisive.   Condemning the other side for they voted for?    I would bet a lot of the people who voted for Pres. Trump are not evil.  Sorry but you don't have the moral high ground just because people did not vote for who you wanted.

BTW, There are many that think Hillary is and was corrupt.

I that these were of worst candidates we have ever had to choose from.

I voted for Reagan as well.  I actually vote for whom I think is best.

Did you know that almost a third of America think we are going to have another Civil War?

Quote
ay it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, with 11% who say it’s Very Likely. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% consider a second civil war unlikely, but that includes only 29% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Democrats (37%) are more fearful than Republicans (32%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (26%) that a second civil war is at hand.

But 59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned. This compares to 53% and 28% respectively in the spring of Obama’s second year in office. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t share that concern, including 16% who are Not At All Concerned.

Fifty-three percent (53%) are concerned that those critical of the media’s coverage of Trump will resort to violence, with 24% who are Very Concerned. Forty-two percent (42%) are not concerned about violence from media opponents, including 17% who are Not At All Concerned.

At least here we are having a civil discourse.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #85 on: June 28, 2018, 11:45:00 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.
In a nutshell, you've rationalized an awful choice for the country with the fact that he will further your party's social and religious agenda on the Supreme Court. There's no need to repeat and rehash that, I don't think you'll humanize the stance. I also don't think the rest of us to "understand" or "accept" this. That is all.

Either way, more relevant to the topic at hand is that the White House has an official shortlist out for Kennedy's seat:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #86 on: June 28, 2018, 12:02:10 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11217
  • Tommy Points: 1322
Having read through the entirety of this thread, I can see why we are so divided as a country.  No one cares what the other 'side' thinks, and both 'sides' seem to think the other is morally corrupt.  Both sides are 100% certain they are right and the other side is wrong.

I think the poster who mentioned the possibility of an actual fracturing of the country into separate countries may not be all that far off in their prediction.

Good times..... ::)

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #87 on: June 28, 2018, 12:15:41 PM »

Offline BringToughnessBack

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3676
  • Tommy Points: 453
Having read through the entirety of this thread, I can see why we are so divided as a country.  No one cares what the other 'side' thinks, and both 'sides' seem to think the other is morally corrupt.  Both sides are 100% certain they are right and the other side is wrong.

I think the poster who mentioned the possibility of an actual fracturing of the country into separate countries may not be all that far off in their prediction.

Good times..... ::)

The Beauty of Humanity once again shining its ugly light on all of us. It seems, that one thing that continues throughout the history of the human race is that what we choose to believe is right, must be right and there is no middle ground on anything. I find it funny that one side calls the other side corrupt when in reality, both sides are corrupt on different levels.

Divisiveness never brings anyone together and in the end, chaos is born as a result of closed mindedness.

This is a big reason I never committed to one party or the other. Hillary and her people eliminated Bernie from being the nominee in the last election...corruption on one level...The other side has also done things that make us all cringe in one way or the other...Both have done some good but both also live on the dark side as well. Politics is an ugly beast when one party is trying to say this is the way things are best for Americans and the other party is saying the same thing and then no middle ground or better ground can be formed as a result. I relate to some positions on both sides of the fence...I believe in the rights of women and that they should be in control what happens to their body..I also believe in free enterprise and less taxation but I also believe in less restrictions for businesses on what we can and cannot do as long as they don't cross a moral line in the sand. Defining that line is of course a big issue in this current political environment.

Social Media is allowing so much buried thoughts come to the surface now and days. Both True facts and False Facts...There is nowhere for anyone to hide in this day and age and it seems to be spiraling out of control.

We are a nation that is dividing more by the day and I believe both sides are to blame. Until a leader can unify the nation, this will not get better.

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #88 on: June 28, 2018, 01:52:16 PM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 72
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.

All the talk about conservative justices vs. liberal justices vs. moderate justices is kind of ... I don't know the right word for it ... ironic? silly?

What I mean is that there are, obviously, multiple ways of viewing/interpreting the Constitution, but I don't think there should be so many viewpoints on it.

Whatever the issue under consideration, it's either constitutional or it's not—yet it could be ruled constitutional by one version of the Supreme Court, then later on ruled unconstitutional by another edition of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't make sense to me.

It shouldn't be about "liberal vs. conservative vs. moderate"; it shouldn't be about a certain social ideology winning the day; it should be about what that document says (or doesn't say).

And I really do believe that's how the Founders intended it to be, and that this idea was a driving force behind the Tenth Amendment—if it ain't in the Constitution, it falls to each state to decide for itself.

Except that for well over a century now, a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.

/rant ;D
Yeah. Agree with all this.
And yet, many will get upset because of this line in the post above:

Quote
a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.[/b]

/rant ;D

The Constitution was written for the rights of all Americans and each American should be free to live their own lifestyle. Their lifestyle is just that, a choice they made on how to live their lives in America.

Nick, are you saying that sexual orientation/behavior is a choice? ;)

Any lifestyle that is that illegal.

That includes gays, lesbians, transgenders and transsexuals. Such things are not illegal social experiments. If you're intimating thst they are, thats just wrong.

This is not the topic I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote, but I would include it. And please correct me if I'm misreading you, but your response to me seems to fit exactly what I'm talking about. Let me explain.

There's a difference between questions of legality and questions of constitutionality. The constitution, from my perspective, was intended to be a basic framework for how our government is structured and an outline of our basic political freedoms in relation to that government. To wit: We have the right to speak out against our government, and we have the right to pursue whatever system of religious belief we want, as opposed to being forced by the government to follow a given belief system.

For a long time now, however—and particularly over the last 50-75 years—the Constitution, via the Supreme Court, has instead become more of a bastion for those who are unhappy that certain of their preferences have been outlawed (or at least limited) by the expressed will of the people—so they run to the judiciary to have their preferences ruled not only legal, but constitutional, by which I mean bedrock political freedom on which this country was built and which the constitution clearly addresses and which cannot in any way be curtailed.

Outside of the Tenth Amendment, however, the Constitution was not intended to (and does not) address questions of marriage, sexuality, human reproduction, or the like; these things have nothing to do with the structure of our government and our individual political rights in relation to that government. These are issues that should be left to the states, under the Tenth Amendment.

And this relates to what I wrote in my earlier post: Under the current paradigm, in which things shift depending on how many liberals/conservatives/moderates are on the Supreme Court, something could be constitutional one year and be unconstitutional 5, 10, 30 years later, and that doesn't compute for me. Something could logically be legal at one point and illegal at another point, based on the shifting will of the people, but any given thing (logically) has to be constitutional or unconstitutional, period (unless, of course, an amendment is added to the Constitution, which is the only way that something is supposed to be able to shift from constitutional to unconstitutional, or vice versa).

I think what we've witnessed since about the mid-20th century is the emergence of a tactic whereby some people who desire to see certain radical social change—but are unable, for whatever reason, to accomplish it through traditional means (such as legislation, or perhaps by persuading the majority toward their viewpoint)—have exploited certain parts of the Constitution and enlisted the aid of judges/justices who are sympathetic to their desires for certain social change.

In reality, the Constitution is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a treatise on social mores, which, as we all know, can and do shift, sometimes quickly and sometimes drastically. It was meant to be a mostly unchanging framework for how our government operates in relation to the people; under this paradigm, if one state wants to allow same-sex marriage, or That Thing Which Shall Not be Named on CB, it should be able to, according to the Constitution; likewise, if another state wants to ban either of those things, it should be able to, according to the Constitution.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Justice Kennedy retiring-Kavanaugh procedings
« Reply #89 on: June 28, 2018, 02:01:34 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8211
  • Tommy Points: 813
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.
Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.

Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won  was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.

That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.

Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.
In a nutshell, you've rationalized an awful choice for the country with the fact that he will further your party's social and religious agenda on the Supreme Court. There's no need to repeat and rehash that, I don't think you'll humanize the stance. I also don't think the rest of us to "understand" or "accept" this. That is all.

Either way, more relevant to the topic at hand is that the White House has an official shortlist out for Kennedy's seat:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/
im not rationalizing an awful choice.

I'm noting the reasons that I made what is in my opinion, the right choice.

Obviously liberals will disagree. That's how political difference work.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required