United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUxA_fh_cMA
Published: Jul 9, 2018
Author: staff
Post Date: 2018-07-09 21:25:39 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 10057
Comments: 160
Kool Pick! Should go through the Senate seamlessly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
#1. To: buckeroo, Catholic swamp SCOTUS (#0)
Jesuit swamp critter.
He's a Jesuit? Seriously? Being associated with the Bush Crime Family was bad enough,but THAT,if true,should be the kiss of death for the SC.
www.politico.com/newslett...plenty-of-material-274850 Is the Pope Catholic? Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school.
Absolutely. And 9 would be best of all. #WINNING
LOL These Trumpkins are such Vatican puppets! Francis the hippie Pope is Jesuit too. What a coincidence. The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
Catholics don't even know what "Scofield Prots" are. We simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less. We know, given that we're a minority, that we cannot get our way on everything, so we compromise as necessary in order to get, in the main, what it is that we most care about. This isn't different from any other political grouping, like yours for instance.
That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies. So, your accusation of treason is un-American. You want to shoot me because you don't agree with my politics. That's not American at all. But hey, you do you.
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies. "Treason against the United States, shall consist in -- to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution... Our enemies want to see our Constitution infringed and violated. ---- As does your proposal...
Thank God you don't get to decide what words mean. Legally trained judges do, and they went to places like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, where they learned what legal words mean on a consistent basis. Me too. I speak the same language they do. You speak the language of "I have angry politics, and I will make words mean whatever I say they mean in order to impose my will!" Fortunately, you are just one crank. When it comes to the meaning of words of law, you can take it to the bank that what I say is true and accurate 100% of the time. Words mean things. Legal words mean things. They mean what courts and the legal profession and tradition and the institutions that teach these things say they mean. They do not mean what any old angry man thinks they mean. Thank God. Because it means the law is predictable, and no subject to the whims of angryman. Because I understand the law objectively and professionally, I can objectively and professionally tell you the places where I disagree with it, and what would have to happen for it to be changed to reflect what I want. All you can do is go ballistic and try to redefine words to suit you - but honestly you're just an ignorant old jackass and not one other person in the world cares what you think words mean. It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions. That's our legal system, that's our political system. That's how the game is played, and it is not treasonous for me to want to get my way. You can make up whatever meanings of words you want to, but you're just a single angry old man pounding on a keyboard. You don't get to define what one single word means, you never will, and you're wrong. What you want will never happen, because you don't get to define anything. I don't either, but at least I am realist who knows what words DO mean, and what the system actually IS, so I don't sit around spinning fantasies of what the world would look like IF ONLY I got to define words to mean what I want them to mean. You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason. And given fertility and demographic realities, over time I am very likely to win, and see what I want as the law of the land. There is no chance of that ever happening for you. You're cranky and angry, you'll die cranky and angry. And after you die, you'll wake up and discover that the Catholics were right all along. So you are doomed to the defeat of everything you believe in in this world AND the next, for all eternity. Sucks to be you.
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our constitutions enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution... You keep trying to make a rhetorical distinction: --- " It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?) Whereas our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions.. Sucks to be a fanatic like you. (Btw, As a boy I was confirmed as a Catholic, agree with most Christian principles, but am now agnostic enough to admit that I'll never understand religion.)
Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.
Obviously, a fanatic like you ---- wants Supreme Court opinions to make law. They don't. SCOTUS opinions decide legal disputes about constitutional issues. Federal, State, and local legislators make law; -- laws that must comply with our Constitution..
It’s not a question of what I want or don’t want. You’re the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not. In America, Judges make law. Always have. That’s why Roe is the law of the land.
I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not. It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?) Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions.. Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...
Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same... Our Constitution is a short document that puts out a general structure of government, leaves just about everything to politics, and is clear as mud as to the actual power relationship between the Judiciary and either the Legislature or the Executive. The Constitution is chock full of Common Law terms, which it does not define: the Common Law is ASSUMED by the Constitution, and the Common Law is judge-made law. Practice has supplied the answer to the question marks: judicial review for constitutionality has been a hallmark of the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison, which was decided by a Court full of Founders, addressing a President and a Cabinet likewise full of Founders. Marbury v. Madison is as much a product of the Founding Fathers as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and IT establishes that, yes, the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means - and to create the Common Law of the Constitution, which is precisely what they have been doing ever since. Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document. That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above. No. Your little fairy tale of what the Constitution is, and means, and says, is simply your solipsistic read of some words, by your understanding. The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions. It is not what you believe it to be, based on your simplistic read and understanding of some words. It IS not, and it never will be. The Constitution is not the Bible, and American government is not based on Sola Scriptura. It DOESN"T MATTER what you read the words to say. You are one single man, and your opinion governs nothing. I'm just one single man, and I know that my opinion doesn't govern anything either, but I earn a living by knowing what those written words ACTUALLY MEAN within the structure of government that we ACTUALLY HAVE, and THAT - and not your little exercise in solipsistic "Sola Scriptura" literalist constitutionalism - is what the Constitution IS, and MEANS. I have to get it right, because if I don't, I don't eat. I would not be insulting you so directly if you were not calling me a traitor over and over again. But you are. I am not a traitor. But you are a stubborn, ignorant old fool who cannot read the law properly, because you don't understand the words you are reading - and so therefore you supply what YOU think they mean, and manipulate them to attain the results YOU want to see. Problem is, you didn't go to law school and get to put on a black robe such that YOUR opinions have any weight on this matter, and so they don't. Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally. Keep doing it, and I'll keep pointing out that you're the crazy uncle in the attic who thinks he's St. Jerome.
That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above. The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions. Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally. Feel free to come after me in any way you dream up. ---- I say dream because your replies are becoming increasingly bizarre, -- and unlike what a licensed professional would post. Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions.. Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same... Our written Constitution is a document which anybody, like me, can read and know what it basically means just from the words in the document. Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on... BTW, - concerning Marbury: ---- Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning -- - "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
It's not a question of hiding behind a license, it's a question of education and standards. You have a political opinion. You like your political opinion. You read a document - the Constitution - and you read it in a way that allows you to say what you say. That's nice. It has no bearing on reality. I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right. The same is true with law school: you don't get the degree if you can't get the exam questions right. There's no partial credit. Now, thing is, some of the right answers - what the law IS - do not suit me. What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change. What you do is simply change the meaning of words and declare your opinion to be the law. It reminds me of the joke about the engineer and the economist who wash up on a desert island with a box of canned food. They each go off to devise a way to get the cans opened. The engineer comes back with a device he made that used two rocks to crush the can, causing the contents to slide out into an waiting half-coconut shell. The economist's solution began with "Well, first we assume a can opener. That's what you're doing: you're assuming a can opener.
I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right. Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous. You claim that: --- "What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change." -------------------- Well, I do exactly the same , the only difference being, --- I make sure that the new laws i advocate, are not UNCONSTITUTIONAL... Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions.. Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...
It does not prove that. Rather, it proves that if you want to be licensed, you have to know what the law IS. YES, what the law is, IS determined by other lawyers - mainly judges. YES, most certainly that law is often the result of real abusive power grabs by judges. YES, I find quite a bit of the law offensive. But YES, the law IS what the courts and the lawyers who run things have decided it is. The courts WILL uphold that law, and the cops with their guns WILL enforce what the courts say. So YES, if you want to take other people's money for practicing in front of American courts, you have to know what the law IS - what will be enforced, what will happen. You can think what you want to think without a license, but you can't go take big fees from people asserting that your opinion of the law actually IS the law. It isn't. The law is what the courts - which is to say the lawyers who sit on the bench - SAY the law is. You don't hire a lawyer to have a philosophical discussion. You hire a lawyer to know the law for you, and to tell you what will happen if you do thus and so. It's not a matter of the lawyer's opinion so much as knowledge of the state of the actual LAW - whether the law is ultimately LEGITIMATE or not is not the question. Obviously if the Supreme Court overrules Roe and bans abortion, it is not going to do that by stating "We do this because Rome has spoken." They will, rather, read the words of the Constitution and say that nobody can be deprived of life without due process, and due process is not possible for innocent unborn babies, so THEREFORE abortion must be unconstitutional. That's how they would do this. Sure, this would have the EFFECT of erecting the Catholic canon law as the law of the nation, but the reason given for doing so will be pure-as-the- wind-driven-snow constitutionalism. The laws against stealing are also religious, but we don't have to strike those down on that account either.
There are no replies to Comment # 110. End Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: hondo68 (#1)
Jesuit swamp critter.
#29. To: sneakypete, Jesuit Trump family, Catholic yutes (#21)
(Edited)
— Kavanaugh has tutored at Washington Jesuit Academy, where he sits on the board of directors, and at J.O. Wilson Elementary School, according to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals website. He went to high school at Georgetown Prep — which Justice Neil Gorsuch also attended — and is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.
He's a Jesuit? Seriously?
Trump chose a judge reared in Washington’s finest Jesuit institutions, including Georgetown Preparatory School. Kavanaugh, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is active in several Catholic organizations in the area. Trump pointed out that he coaches his daughter’s Catholic Youth Organization basketball team. 
If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?
#47. To: hondo68 (#29)
Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school. If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
(Edited)
#WINNING
#49. To: hondo68 (#48)
The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Catholics ------- simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.
#52. To: tpaine (#50)
should be shot for treason...
#88. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#52)
Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason..
#90. To: tpaine (#88)
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...
#99. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#90)
(Edited)
You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason.
#100. To: tpaine (#99)
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#100)
Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.
#102. To: tpaine (#101)
#103. To: Vicomte13 (#102)
#104. To: tpaine (#103)
Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..
#106. To: Vicomte13 (#104)
(Edited)
Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document.
#107. To: tpaine (#106)
Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...
#109. To: Vicomte13 (#107)
(Edited)
Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on... ---- tpaine
#110. To: tpaine (#109)
Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.
Replies to Comment # 110.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]