Kavanaugh should not be confirmed but, not because of Ford

Shitty day for America, truthfully. I don't give two shits about the farting while drinking beer at the yearbook meeting, but this guy is not a big fan of the 4th amendment. For me, that's a very serious issue, as the 4th will soon be nothing more than a distant memory if too many on SCOTUS think The Constitution is merely a suggestion. I'm a pretty huge fan of the 4th, myself.

Why couldn't he choose someone like Gorsuch, you know, someone who actually believes the constitution should be our guide?

 

Actually Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist. MAGA

 

Please cite your evidence, because lawyers I trust are telling me he's anti 4th.

 

Geez all you have to do is look at his record, if you're tp lazy to do that you don't want to know the truth. Listening to left handed lawyers is your first and last mistake.

 

I don't listen to democrats much.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-fourth-amendment/

https://mises.org/power-market/judge-napolitano-kavanaugh-enemy-4th-amendment

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-confirmation-fourth-amendment/

 

Further back it used to be 67% 2/3rd's majority. I am ok with 60 but not 50+1.

This is one of the primary safeguards against Totalitarianism "Tyranny of the majority" - Simple Majority Mandate. The system is supposed to break down - the inability to agree on a Justice if an overwhelming majority can not agree. That is the whole point !

To say - "There is no overwhelming agreement so we will remove this safeguard" is not the solution. This defeats the purpose of having that safeguard and effectively removes it.

The solution is to start voting for people who are less partisan. The point is that we do not want extremists - and that is what we have. This is the problem so letting these extremists make laws -- is not the solution.

Laws that mess with individual liberty are supposed to have overwhelming majority consent. This is what defines a Republic.

To remove this safeguard is to say "Oh well" I guess we will just change our system to something akin to pure democracy"

Both classical liberalism and Republicanism referred to 50+1/ simple majority mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority" . Is this what we want ? Even if this is the case .. OK .. Lets at least have a public conversation about it.

The problem is that the Public does not realize what is going on here. 12 years of school and we fail to educate our kids on the most basic principles on which this nation was founded.

I can explain those principle in a post that takes me 5 minutes to write. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach this ?

This is crazy. If these partisan clowns can not agree - Good - this is the canary in the coal mine telling the voters they need to get rid of these people.

Conservatism is now defined as "you must be in favor of criminalization of all abortion from conception onwards - including some methods of contraception" - This has nothing to do with Republicanism - in fact this goes against the principles of Republicanism.

Liberalism is not defined as "you must want to get rid of innocent until proven guilty - the woman MUST be believed over the Man in the case of a sexual assault accusation"

This has nothing to do with classical liberalism - it goes against the principles of Classical Liberalism.

Not sure how we got to this point of madness but, allowing these crazy ideologues to make Law is not the solution to this madness.

 

Good posts. The Partisan blindness and hypocrisy is what rules the day. I get that many Republicans in Congress have no clue what Republicanism is but, not 50.

 

Something you have clearly not done.

https://mises.org/power-market/judge-napolitano-kavanaugh-enemy-4th-amendment

 

Of all the harebrained things I've seen you post to this forum, comparing a Senate procedural change to simple majority voting on SCOTUS nominees to "totalitarianism" is the most amusing. Bravo, you have outdone yourself.

 

Don't blame me that you do not know the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority".

 

I blame you for not knowing what "totalitarianism" is.

 

Last time I checked Totalitarianism was when the powers of Gov't are not limited or not very limited.

Since you do not believe in limited powers of Gov't - or the limitations to power which the founders put in place - that would then be belief on totalitarianism .. or at least quazi totalitarianism/Tyranny.

 

Wrong. Maybe you will get it next time. Or keep misusing the term hyperbolically and erroneously to apply to a Constitutional Republic with a universal voting franchise, that's funny.

 

Ranting accusations and nothing to back them up is not an argument for much.

Given you still have yet to figure out what "Tyranny of the Majority" refers to - your unsupported opinions are not worth much.

 

Dear @Giftedone
That the opposite of what I mean because I agree with you.
No group should dictate to others. That's not what I'm saying.

I am saying that even the smallest size group should be
able to DEFEND their beliefs from others using govt to impose an exclusive
or discriminatory bias.
It goes back to individual rights, that should not depend on being part of
an organized religion or party in order to defend one's rights and beliefs.

As an additional issue, I treat LGBT issues as faith based beliefs.
Both beliefs for or against different types of marriage,
both beliefs that LGBT identity/orientation is natural or unnatural,
can change or cannot change, etc. are all faith based and subjective case by case.

So none of this is the govt's business to determine.
These beliefs should be kept private similar to people's
beliefs about prayer practices, communions or baptisms, etc.
How you express or conduct your rituals or define relationships
are personal decisions based on faith and values that Govt cannot dictate.

So that's an even STRONGER argument to keep this particular type of issue
out of govt altogether. Again, no matter what tiny minority someone's beliefs are
on this, govt should not be abused to regulate or dictate that.

And like you said, certainly neither should a group whether big or small
be dictating to anyone else abusing govt to do so!

 

I agree with everything you have said. The problem is designing a system that will allow for this.

Right now we have a system where the minority is dictating to the majority. 50+1 would be an improvement in many cases.

Take Abortion for example - over 60% do not favor a total ban - certainly not in the early stages. The bar is supposed to be 67% minimum who favor such a ban in order to make law.

On the other side of the coin I do not think because 5% think that really dangerous drugs such as Meth or Fentanyl should be legal - that this justifies not making these drugs illegal.

In terms of LGTB - I do not think that 67% of the population is against gay marriage. On the other side of the coin I do not think 67% of the population would agree that a restaurant owner should be forced to put in an extra bathroom because some fellow wakes up in the morning and decides he is a woman.

IMHO - the bar set by the founders and enlightenment thinkers works.

 

I still think the point you brought up would work well @Giftedone
Where Congress vote in advance whether to use the
other type of majority such as 60-67%.
One person, I believe it was Tram Law on this forum
suggested a separate vote occur on whether a bill is even constitutional or not.
So we could implement that there.

I also push for either a joint partisan resolution or even a Constitutional
convention and revision to Amendments that specify how "political beliefs"
are to be handled.

Even the publicity necessary to bring such a question to states for a conference
would be enough to raise awareness and maybe change how we approach the
entire legislative or judicial process when it comes to "political beliefs and creeds."

This is as vague as trying to implement "the golden rule."
It's almost better to teach people to respect this "on their own"
than try to put it into formal policy which becomes problematic.

So it may be easier to teach people WHY we want to respect each other's
beliefs and creeds "because we want ours to be respected equally"
That's more like teaching the Golden Rule of Reciprocity or common sense
approaches to solving conflicts.

Either way, proposing a conference to address better ways of managing
political beliefs should produce the right direction or changes. Then if
any changes to the system are needed, that will become more clear.

The best suggestions I have found are
1. use the Electoral College District level to implement changes
on how constituents and taxpayers get representation and input into policy
affecting them locally. And implement assistance and training in conflict
resolution and redressing grievances or abuses through schools,
through police and teacher training and unions connecting with community members.
2. change tax laws where taxpayers have a choice of what policies
to fund instead of fighting to impose one over the other
3. expand the Justice Dept to include Peace options, for mediation,
conflict resolution and consensus decisions as an equal choice
besides just trial by jury by judge or arbitration. Why not consensus
if people do not believe in conceding on political beliefs, but want
direct say and ability to consent on those areas of conflict?

 

I agree with almost everything you have said - (the tax law thing would be tough - should people without cars not pay taxes for roads - those with personal security not pay for police, those without kids not pay for schools ... even if one agrees implementation would be a nightmare)

Other than this we are completely on the same page. In particular I like your take on education of the masses and have stated similar in other threads.

12 years of school and we fail to teach kids the basic principles on which this nation was founded. What good does it do for someone to say "I am for limited Gov't power and don't like Totalitarianism" - if they have no clue what Gov't power is supposed to be limited to or legitimacy of authority according to the founding principles ?

12 years of school and we fail to teach the "basics" of Philosophy - (Logic, Logical Fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking, how to be objective and so on).

Without these basic tools - how is the average person supposed to be able to wade through the cacophony of fallacy, bad argument and propaganda raining down on a daily basis from Politicians and the MSM. This is like bringing a feather to a gun fight - never mind a knife.

There is no such thing as a functional democratic process if the population does not have these tools. Couple this with the MSM being an arm of the State Propaganda machine and well --- you get what we have now.

 

I don't think we'd have the same issues with paying taxes for roads and infrastructure, since this is one of the areas various parties tend to agree that govt should focus on with serving the public.

I mainly meant to separate taxes on topics where people disagree religiously by beliefs, such as abortion, death penalty, drug policies, gun policies. Giving the people the choice to separate taxes if agreements cannot be reached on policy would forego the need to "bully" to "force" one policy on all citizens and taxpayers.
This is where the majority of partisan contention and competition is, defending political beliefs.

as for roads and other facilities maintenance,
there are disputes over WASTING money on poor maintenance or design decisions.
So it isn't fighting over this function of govt being in charge of roads, highways, etc. since this is part of "public safety". The contested expenditures here are within the category of public infrastructure, over disputed projects where contract money was going to favored interests and wasn't about serving the public but abusing resources to benefit developers or contractors. so that should still be addressed by conflict resolution to resolve the objections instead of "bullying" to overrule dissent.

With schools, that issue can go both ways. Some are fighting over the "whole concept" of whether to trust govt with school programs. Others would be happy to fund schools with taxes "if it were managed properly" instead of making poor or biased decisions because private interests are benefitting at public expense.

i believe with schools, health care, prisons, etc.
It will likely get restructured where "govt" covers the FACTILITIES/SITES so these are distributed equally for public access per population and demand, and the govt covers "security" and safety/health regulations especially with medical sites.

But as for the programs run within school sites, I can see this being managed more democratically where the community works with students, teachers and staff instead of agenda being 'dictated' by the state. Certain regulations might be set, but the politics has to be removed, and just make this educationally focused where decisions are made by agreement among the parents and teachers consulting on their local districts to keep it accountable and effective.

So the govt can manage just the external SITES of schools and medical services, but the people in each district, city or state should have more direct representation into the level of programs provided. That way, each community can organize around its own standards of health and safety, including beliefs about drugs, abortion, etc. If we allow communities to organize resources, they don't have to compete or fight to impose or defend one policy or another, but likeminded people can support the services or school programs they believe in, and leave others to do the same.

 

I agree that most agree with roads/taxes/ infrastructure and so on. Military is a contentious issue - not so much that we spend but, how much. There is zero public consultation on this - and this is a problem. Transparency in relation to our foreign policy - and in general - is a huge issue.

Schools are a tough one. Again I think most agree that schools should be covered by taxes but more transparency is needed and more consultation in relation to structure. Not every kid going to be a nuclear physicist but we keep pretending otherwise. We end up teaching to the lowest common denominator. It boggles my mind that 12 years of school and a kid does not learn the basics of Philosophy and of the main principles on which this nation was founded. We also completely fail in relation to teaching the History of the world.

Abortion - I think most agree that taxes should be used for the basics such as contraception and the morning after pill. When it comes to abortion involving a physical procedure I do not have a problem with people of means having to pay. Folks without means is a different story and a separate argument.

 

Hillary lost, and Kavanaugh is on the bench. Time to get over it and move on democrats.

 

Yes and no, @logical1
The ROOT problem still remains:
both left and right want to defend their own political beliefs
against infringement by the other's creeds; and the left
still depends on Govt particularly Courts/Judges to
"establish" their beliefs and values, while the right deems
this to be unconstitutional. That hasn't been addressed
or resolved, so this problem will continue and hasn't changed!