Kavanaugh should not be confirmed but, not because of Ford

I don't disagree with your sentiment. In fact I completely support it.

I do have one caveat though. Every human being carries within them core values and beliefs. That can't be denied, nor should it necessarily be disqualifying.

For the Supreme Court, where technically you don't even have to have a law degree to serve, a candidates record should be the determining factor.

But because of fear that certain "victories" related to abortion, gay marriage, etc., were not Constitutional, we are in an era of litmus tests.

How can such a divided Senate ever reach the 60 votes necessary? What kind of person would allow such a level to be reached?

 

Of course , yes , let the dems change it and use it for their advantage then have repubs just change it back . Lol... you know as soon as dems got power back they would do it again anyway . Cant trust a 1 of them.

 

Lol.... now thats funny . I see what you did there...

 

I have only one question for Senators Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. First, watch this video showing an angry Trump-like Kavanaugh telling us in a highly partisan, wild eyed, opening speech how there is a conspiracy among members of the Senate as he recalls the 2016 election, the Democratic candidate, and left wing opposition groups. Soon after that, a highly emotional Kavanaugh breaks down into a stifled cry.



My question for the three Senators and the persons on this thread.

Never mind Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, is this the kind of man we want on the Supreme Court?

 

This has been largely ignored by Kavanaugh supporters.

In his book, Mark Judge describes one of his acquaintances at the time, someone named “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who vomited in a car after a party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ged-kavanaugh-assault/?utm_term=.0d1d8c0021f7

Judge's book is entitled "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk." Judge is a recovering alcoholic.

In one passage of the book in a chapter titled "A Functioning Alcoholic," senior year students, including Judge, lamented the news that they would be spending Sundays during their senior year doing community service.

"'We have to do something,' I said. 'They can't get away with this our senior year.'
"'What are we going to do?' Shane said, laughing. 'Drink a hundred kegs and brag about it?'
"No one laughed. For a second, no one even spoke. 'It's brilliant,' I said."
Judge and his high school buddies went on to create a newspaper called the Heretic, a riff on their school newspaper the Saint. One of the main objectives of the paper, as laid out by Judge in the book, was to chronicle "the 100-keg quest and everything that happened on the way."
According to his book, Judge and his friends continued to publish and anonymously distribute the paper on campus, with a continued emphasis on the 100-keg quest in the pages. Judge wrote that by March of his senior year, the keg count was "into the mid-eighties."
In "Wasted," Judge also describes an exchange with a young woman at a party when talk arose of a friend who puked in a car.
"Do you know Bart O'Kavanaugh?"
"Yeah. He's around here somewhere."
"I heard he puked in someone's car the other night."
"Yeah. He passed out on his way back from a party."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/mark-judge-books-details-keg-quest/index.html

It is a relatively easy task to find out if there was a classmate of Judge's named Bart O'Kavanaugh along with his friend Brett Kavanaugh. That would be a remarkable coincidence.

 

Thanks @Giftedone for explaining this for people like me who need it spelled out.

I still say the problem remains of how do we address political beliefs.
Unlike religious beliefs which can be more easily separated from govt.
Political beliefs directly involve govt policy and what one side thinks is NECESSARY
to embed in govt, vs. what another side argues VIOLATES their beliefs if this is embedded!

How do we deal with different beliefs on
abortion
death penalty
marriage
guns and voting rights
immigration and citizenship requirements
funding health care or war
education or prison policies

My solutions include
* separating taxes by party on issues that aren't agreed upon because of diversity of creed
and letting just areas of agreement be made into law on either state or federal levels as all the public AGREES
so where we disagree, we retain the right to separate taxes for funding and jurisdiction and election of terms of service we agree to pay for
* having a PEACE process for mediation under the Justice system for
addressing sensitive complaints of either sexual abuse or legal abuse,
where the legal process itself can be OTHERWISE traumatizing or abused to obstruct justice
ie the choice of Restorative Justice by conflict resolution and consensus, meaningful
restitution and rehab, instead of only retribution by judgment and punishment as the only option
* creating state level process for "health and safety" standards
and addressing complaints for sake of counseling and rehab
so that relationship abuse, drug abuse, abortion prevention, and
dangerous mental illness disorders or addictions can be addressed and corrected
BEFORE damage occurs that become criminal offenses or civil violations.
* expanding the Electoral College system to provide equal and proportional
representation by party per district to include diverse populations and political beliefs.
And using that to intake grievances and complaints of abuse of power
by either govt or corporate entities over the rights of individuals they affect
as modeled after the OSHA codes and hearing/corrections process for citations.
* implementing the Community Campus model for reforming
public housing to have democratic self governing, counseling and training for
families to get out of poverty (see www.campusplan.org) and replicating this
model across the Border to solve issues of trafficking and other criminal oppression:
www.earnedamnesty.org
* educating all people per district by way of teachers and police unions,
to learn and comply with the same Constitutional laws principles process
standards and ethics as required of military and police, in order to invoke
and uphold equal rights of citizenship and equal protection of the laws.
www.ethics-commission.net

If you agree with any part of this, please tell your Senators and the Judiciary
committee that you want prolife and prochoice beliefs separated and protected
from each other, in order to stop bullying and harassing over court nominations
that led to this chaotic fray. People have a right to their own beliefs, and to keep
them out of govt, where no court should have to make a ruling that infringes on our beliefs.
If that happens, that's a big sign that issue does NOT belong in govt to begin with!

Let's be big and call it for what it is.

Govt should never be abused to either prohibit nor establish faith based beliefs or biases,
and not discriminate by creed. Any person unable to see this, and respect people of all
beliefs equally, should not be involved in such a decision but should defer to mediation
to let people decide for themselves how to settle such conflicts. Either by separating
and setting up their own programs and funding those voluntarily, or by agreeing on
what points or principles that can be public law because they represent all people.
But never should any person, group or official abuse govt to impose one side
or the other when it comes to political beliefs we have the right to live by.

If you can't understand that, do you really belong in public office?
Or should you just be serving your own party if that's what you are called to do?

 

So if Obama calls out wealthy conservatives and
Hillary Clinton calls out NRA advocates as the enemy,
they can't serve in public office either due to political biases?

@Sandy Shanks
Would you advocate for Kavanaugh to be treated
more like Obama and forgiven for his political attacks and blame,
or like Hillary who was not forgiven and opposed for this?

After all, people picked apart both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin
for their looks, too! Is that how you want Kavanaugh judged?

People are comparing Kavanaugh and his accusers to Bill Clinton and his.
What if we throw in Hillary as well?

Is this what you want to encourage more people to do @Sandy Shanks?

 

The law banning abortion was completely unconstitutional at the time of R v W and should have been struck down. ( I will leave Gay marriage aside for the moment).

Any law messing with individual liberty must have "Overwhelming" approval by we the people = at least 2/3rds majority otherwise that law is illegitimate. FULL STOP - END of Discussion - Unless of course you are talking about some system other than ours.

The Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to make "ANY LAW" - of its own volition - that messes with individual liberty. This is one of the 2 main principles on which this nation was founded.

The second is that the authority of Gov't comes from "consent of the Governed" as opposed to divine right/God as was the case in the past.

If the Gov't wants to make some law messing with individual liberty it must seek approval from we the people. There is no such thing as Simple Majority Mandate - 50+1. (see definition of constitutional republic vs pure Democracy).

It must get overwhelming majority approval - at least 2/3rds. That is the bar.

Back in the day there was overwhelming approval for a law banning abortion - or at least I think we can assume there was. Regardless - there is no longer such approval. In fact - the anti aborts are lucky to garner 50% in some states never mind 66%.

It matters not what I think or you think about Abortion, drinking Alcohol, Pot, Prostitution and so on. It matters not what the Gov't or the Police think.

The only way the Gov't is supposed to be able to use physical violence (Law - aka heavy hand of the state) to punish people for some action - outside its legitimate purview (which is protection from direct harm - one person on another murder, rape, theft and so on - rights end where the nose of another begins. This is also where legitimate Gov't authority begins and ends) - is by first getting consent from "We the People".

Good luck getting 66% approval for a law banning Abortion or Pot. Such law is completely unconstitutional.

Back in the day there was overwhelming approval for Slavery... It was then constitutional. When attitudes changed.. it was no longer met that bar.

It is not like the Gov't has to go to referendum on every law. I think we can safely assume that the overwhelming majority agree that murder should be illegal and all other crimes of direct harm - one person on another.

The bar is no different for any other law messing with individual liberty.

Now if a Supreme Court Justice does not understand or does not respect this basic principle ... they have no business being a Judge never mind a part of SCOTUS.

The litmus test is not "ABORTION".... the litmus test is whether or not you get the basic principles on which law and the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted in this nation.

 

What are you talking about ? There is nothing in that video that I can find which disqualifies Kavanaugh.

 

Good grief talk about nit picking - are you a grammar and spelling nazi as well ?

 

Every member has sworn to uphold the founding principles. Just because most do not even know what these principles are is no excuse.

 

actually. no. they are sworn to uphold the constitution... which does not explicitly prescribe the manner in which the body confirms a justice to the ussc.
hence they are allowed to make their own procedural rules.

for your reference, here is the senate oath...

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm

 

I'm always amazed at what the left forget or purposely choose to ignore And this change came with months of the right ***Warning*** the brainless leftist before they pushed it thru..

Now that's stupidity on a epic level!

 

Give me a break .. the constitution encompasses the founding principles. It is mind bending nonsense to claim "you have to uphold the Constitution but not the principles under which the law and constitution are to be interpreted"

Nice try but ... Next !!

 

the law consists of words written down and signed by our elected representatives. if the founders intended an oath to “principles,” they’d have included that language in the constitution. but they did not. and for very good reason: “principles” are highly subjective. debate the general welfare clause, for example some time.

they wanted the three branches of the federal government to have automomy over their policies and procedures so as to maximize their ability to exert the checks and balances over each other as coequal branches of government as directed by the constitution while binding them all to swear an oath to the constitution, and nothing other than the constitution.

 

Margaret Thatcher.

 

I love how the Left always seem to find a way to blame the Right for what the Left does. They changed it to get through a policy they wanted, knowing it could backfire on them down the road. But you Daniel think the Right shouldn't take advantage of the same rule your Party created and should have changed it back so the Democrats win again. So broad minded of you sir.

 

Brett Kavanaugh Perjury

 

I specifically stated that BOTH parties were disfunctional - read first, dude - then reply.

 

But you expected the Republicans not to use the same rules you didn't speak out against the Democrats of using when it was to their advantage.

 

The principles in the declaration of independence are part of the Constitution. They define how law and the Constitution is to be interpreted and what constitutes legitimate authority.

Regardless - it matters not. The bar for appointing SC Justices should never have been moved from overwhelming majority (60% in this case) to simple majority. This is not what a Constitutional Republic is about.

 

I spoke out against it at the time - and anyone who didn't is either a lover of totalitarianism or (as is most often the case) has no clue what a constitutional republic is.

 

Dear @Giftedone Thank you for this very clear statement where I agree with you over 66% and close to 100% in spirit.
Are you okay with my argument that even a 66% vote on something faith based that imposes a bias on even one citizen
is a violation of that person's religious freedom and the First Amendment for that person.

My argument is that political beliefs may require an even higher standard, where 66% could make the majority standard,
but still violates inherent religious freedom, due process protections against depriving "individual liberty" without proven conviction or express consent,
and causes discrimination by creed contradicting "equal protection of the laws"

This 66% would still violate the equal religious freedom of the other 34%.

With the LGBT arguments, even 4% or even a fraction of 1% in the case of Transgender
meant those people and their beliefs should be accommodated and not silenced because of being so small a percentage of the population.

Could you agree that political and faith based beliefs are not justified as overruling others "as long as you get 66% majority rule"
if they do NOT CONSENT to having beliefs overruled using this legal process.

Doesn't that 66% rule STILL have to meet the standards of not establishing or prohibiting free exercise of religion.
Ie shouldn't the minority side infringed upon have to AGREE to the 66% majority rule, and AGREE to change their beliefs or comply so it isn't a violation of their free choice in beliefs.

Because @Giftedone as we both know and see everyday,
NOBODY agrees to that 66% used to overrule their beliefs
UNLESS THEY ARE IN THE WINNING 66%!!!

So it cannot be used fairly in cases of faith-based beliefs,
because NO the losing side DOES NOT CONSENT.

Do you agree this is happening and/or we would be better off if we could fix it?

 

You realize that some of the most powerful leaders in all of history were women right?

 

Dear @Giftedone
People do not have to believe in the Declaration of Independence as a requirement of law.
We do not all believe the 2nd Amendment means the same thing.
We do not all believe "promoting general welfare" means the same thing.
And we do not all agree on which beliefs are protected or not, where
people do not treat secular and political beliefs the same as religious.

I agree with you that the BELIEF in consent of the governed, social contracts,
and limited government SHOULD BE PROTECTED as as belief.
And our beliefs in this should NOT be violated but included in democratic
process laws and rulings affecting us as believers.

But it cannot be established either, without the free will and consent
of those of other beliefs, And that is why you and I are relegated to the
wonderful task of teaching and educating others, so there is informed consent,
and people CHOOSE to respect the meaning of the laws as we know it.
But they do not know or have faith in the same things yet.

This is why prolife advocates rely on public education and outreach
to enforce prolife beliefs, even though many consider "right to life"
already written into laws. it is not interpreted the same way.

Can we impose interpretation?
yes and no.

It seems liberals respect it if a Judge on a bench dictates such an interpretation.
I prefer that people receive it and accept it directly by their own understanding and
volition as you and I do.

For sake of equal empowerment, this is superior than forcing it by laws
where people don't truly accept it. That is even contradictory to the very
concept of "consent of the governed" so it doesn't work well at all.
It tends to backfire.

The mess we are seeing now with the Justice confirmation is
that liberals who rely on govt to dictate rules are Solely Dependent
on that Bench position to exercise and defend their rights and beliefs
they authorize to govt to decide and rule for them.

This is a most ill advised practice, I agree.
Totally contradictory to free choice and keeping govt out of private decisions
on health care and abortion and anything else as with religious beliefs.

What I suggest is that we set up a Separate Court system and govt
to handle the two branches of beliefs. We cannot force one way on all people.
They deserve and have the choice to learn by experience or stay where they are and fund
their own messes their own way.

So if we cannot call a truce on how to handle abortion and other political beliefs,
we should call for a separation by party, and let each govern their own membership
on policies that involve political beliefs we cannot reconcile. And only allow public
law and rulings to affect areas where we do agree and have no issues of conflicting beliefs.

I'd like to call Clinton and Trump, Beto and Cruz, and supporters
on both sides of Ford and prochoice advocates and Kavanaugh
and prolife advocates, to form a convention task force on these issues
to address:
* what areas of policies would all agree on (ie where does everyone
AGREE to pay taxes for health care and only stick to where we agree)
* where do they disagree and how to separate terms and funding of
health care laws or programs
either by party or state, and/or a third LOCAL level of law besides criminal and civil
to handle abuse complaints under a health and safety policy that
each district decides democratically for their own community
so there is no conflict.

If we can use Electoral College districts to set up representation by party,
we can develop a grievance system for counseling and correction,
conflict resolution and restitution, so that complaints of abuse (from
sexual and relationship abuse, to drug or govt/corporate abuses)
can be redressed locally instead of depending on federal courts.

We can address both the problems of rape/sexual abuse
and of prochoice/prolife political and govt abuse.

Which leaders would you call on to form such a national
task force where people can participate locally per party precinct and electoral district?