Vort Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/12/judge-andrew-napolitano-why-am-so-deeply-disappointed-by-trumps-supreme-court-pick.html Will someone who knows more than me, perhaps a lawyer type, offer a critique on this article? I'm only getting so much mileage from the "leftists-hate-Kavanaugh-so-he-must-be-okay" line of reactionary thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 Remember @Vort, you'll never agree with a judge or politician 100% of the time. That's impossible. I have great respect for Judge Napolitano, for the record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, Vort said: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/12/judge-andrew-napolitano-why-am-so-deeply-disappointed-by-trumps-supreme-court-pick.html Will someone who knows more than me, perhaps a lawyer type, offer a critique on this article? I'm only getting so much mileage from the "leftists-hate-Kavanaugh-so-he-must-be-okay" line of reactionary thinking. I'm not a lawyer. But I am also disappointed in this pick. There is no question that Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist. And that's what the SCOTUS needs. I dislike nominating "Liberal" and "Conservative" judges because the SCOTUS is supposed to be apolitical. But there is no question that a SC Judge HAS TO BE a Constitutionalist that interprets the constitution to its intent as it is founded. Kavanaugh is a Constitutionalist, no doubt about it. BUT, what disappointed me is that, from what I dug up about him the past week, he was one of the judges, if not the judge, that gave Roberts a way to make forcing the citizenry to purchase healthcare insurance Constitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 12, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Kavanaugh is a Constitutionalist, no doubt about it. BUT, what disappointed me is that, from what I dug up about him the past week, he was one of the judges, if not the judge, that gave Roberts a way to make forcing the citizenry to purchase healthcare insurance Constitutional. I dislike Obamacare as much as the next guy, and probably more because of personal effects that stupid tax has had on my family. But if Obama lied by changing his strategy to Obamacare being a tax -- which he did -- and if it was duly approved by Congress, and if the judiciary found that to be an appropriate exercise of Presidential power, then as a Constitutionalist, Kavanaugh would have had to find it Obama's favor. As long as e.g. abortion on demand is the established law of the land, only a dishonest Sotomayor-like partisan hack of a judge would rule against it. Of course, as a SC justice, your job is to decide what the Constitution really means, and not just base your judicial decisions on prior decisions. As if I know what I'm talking about. anatess2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 This morning I heard a clip of the news media beating VP Pence over the head with this pick. The accusation was along the lines of "Kavanaugh isn't as against Roe-vs-Wade as Trump promised, so you guys are a bunch of liars, right?" It was fun to watch the left gripe about Kavanaugh because he isn't pro-life enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 i just finished Hamilton by Ron Chernow. Fascinating book. There was a whole lot of soap opera in the lives of the founding fathers! If Burr hadn't killed Hamilton, i think Adams or Jefferson probably would have. They *hated* each other - and used almost every means in their power to scheme against and subvert one another. And one thing i've come out realizing is that there was *never* consensus on the constitution. Not even the people who wrote it could agree what it meant. Actually, especially not the people who wrote it. And even after they wrote it, they couldn't agree on how to interpret what they'd written. It took people like Hamilton - to take a blueprint and actually make a working machine out of it. i wonder sometimes if there can be such a thing as an apolitical SCOTUS judge. There are a lot of laws where applying them in a just way that acknowledges the realities of a society requires something more than just impartial interpretation. i have a lot more respect for the work that judges do now. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, lostinwater said: i just finished Hamilton How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten Spot in the Caribbean by providence, impoverished, in squalor Grow up to be a hero and a scholar? (great - guess what's running through my head for the next month...) lostinwater 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten Spot in the Caribbean by providence, impoverished, in squalor Grow up to be a hero and a scholar? (great - guess what's running through my head for the next month...) Sounds like i should have just listened to the musical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, lostinwater said: Sounds like i should have just listened to the musical! Here's a crash course. lostinwater and NeuroTypical 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 This man and this culture embrace the Nixonian mantra that if the president does it, it is not illegal. This bit in particular is setting off a lot of red flags for liberals and Republican/Independent Trump detractors. Our president is under investigation, his former campaign chairman is probably going to die in prison, and Trump just nominated a judge who believes the president is above the law. 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Godless said: This bit in particular is setting off a lot of red flags for liberals and Republican/Independent Trump detractors. Our president is under investigation, his former campaign chairman is probably going to die in prison, and Trump just nominated a judge who believes the president is above the law. 🤔 In fairness, if Trump nominated a clone of RBG people on the left would still probably complain. It was the same with Obama. If he nominated the remains of Antonin Scalia, the right would complain. Welcome to politics. Edited July 12, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted July 12, 2018 Report Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) The Hamilton Musical also gave one of the world's best "woman has had enough and lets man have both barrels" bits ever. Yeah, if you're going to cheat on Eliza while she's in Europe, then pay hush money to keep it quiet, then publish the story to the entire world as a way to preserve your legacy and dodge a blackmail attempt, when her sister shows up to give you the lecture of your life, don't interrupt her a minute into it and try to justify your actions. It will not go well for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnVS3X_2h4E Edited July 12, 2018 by NeuroTypical lostinwater 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) I don’t know much about Kavanaugh specifically; but I tend to trust Ben Shapiro’s judgment on this sort of thing: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/supreme-court-predictions-brett-kavanaugh-careful-narrowly-tailored-decisions/ There is always a question of what/who can pass the Senate—the GOP only has 51 seats; McCain is apparently near to being a vegetable; and Snow and Murkowski could bolt at any time. Kavanaugh may be the best we can hope for; and what some MAGA-folks view as “selling out” may just be a sign that their guy is finally starting to understand the institutional constraints (swampy little things like . . . you know . . . separation of powers, and the constitution, and stuff) that have prevented other “establishment Republicans” from acting as aggressively as they would have liked. Edited July 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Vort said: I dislike Obamacare as much as the next guy, and probably more because of personal effects that stupid tax has had on my family. But if Obama lied by changing his strategy to Obamacare being a tax -- which he did -- and if it was duly approved by Congress, and if the judiciary found that to be an appropriate exercise of Presidential power, then as a Constitutionalist, Kavanaugh would have had to find it Obama's favor. As long as e.g. abortion on demand is the established law of the land, only a dishonest Sotomayor-like partisan hack of a judge would rule against it. Of course, as a SC justice, your job is to decide what the Constitution really means, and not just base your judicial decisions on prior decisions. As if I know what I'm talking about. My understanding is that the SCOTUS is the one that interpreted it as a Tax - or urged Congress to make the slight change. Congress was reluctant due to the Dems and might-as-well-be-Dem Repubs not wanting to campaign on Tax. Edited July 13, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 13, 2018 Report Share Posted July 13, 2018 Semi-applicable is the following column (https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/supreme-court-on-cue-yale-law-school-students-freak-out-about-kavanaugh); which I cite primarily for the following jewel of a quote: Hell hath no fury like a law student who feels unsafe. Midwest LDS and Vort 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 14, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 On 7/13/2018 at 7:12 AM, anatess2 said: My understanding is that the SCOTUS is the one that interpreted it as a Tax - or urged Congress to make the slight change. Congress was reluctant due to the Dems and might-as-well-be-Dem Repubs not wanting to campaign on Tax. I believe Obama's lawyers argued it as a tax. I don't think the SC came up with that interpretation on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegriffith Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 I lost a lot of respect for Napolitano when I found out that he voted for Gary Johnson. To this day, he still won't admit that he was wrong. Anyway, Napolitano's criticisms of Kavanaugh range from invalid to questionable. He repeats the myth that Kavanaugh endorsed the Obamacare individual mandate. Here are two good articles on Kavanaugh's record, both of which tackle the claim that Kavanaugh upheld the individual mandate: https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/ https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/trump-hits-another-home-run-supreme-court-pick-brett-kavanaugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 (edited) On 7/14/2018 at 12:49 PM, Vort said: I believe Obama's lawyers argued it as a tax. I don't think the SC came up with that interpretation on their own. I don't think this is true. I don't have my links anymore so I'm going by memory and my lingering impressions of it. https://taxfoundation.org/supreme-court-problematically-defines-individual-mandate-tax/ Edited July 16, 2018 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 On 7/15/2018 at 8:05 AM, mikegriffith said: I lost a lot of respect for Napolitano when I found out that he voted for Gary Johnson. To this day, he still won't admit that he was wrong. Anyway, Napolitano's criticisms of Kavanaugh range from invalid to questionable. He repeats the myth that Kavanaugh endorsed the Obamacare individual mandate. Here are two good articles on Kavanaugh's record, both of which tackle the claim that Kavanaugh upheld the individual mandate: https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/ That's one way to put it. Federalist is a deeply conservative source. Here's another way to put it. Heavy is a left of center source. This link has the link to the ACTUAL dissent so you can go read it for yourself minus the narrative. https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-obamacare-individual-mandate-aca/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.