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: 9885
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 # 136.
#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.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone and the tpaine Court of the Imagination™. Just to get you acclimated to the tpaine Court of the Imagination™, here are a few unique provisions guaranteed to make you wonder why you bothered to study law. - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7 tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49 tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732 http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136 It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional.. - - - - - - - - - -
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. ---- tpaine posted Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all.. Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:--- 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.
I am sure that you do. You live in your own world. And Marbury is still good law and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. You failed to say what you think the significance of somebody's disagreement with the Opinion of the Court in Marbury might possibly be. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...." U.S. Const., Article III SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people.
SCOTUS opinions can be erased by constitutional amendment, yes. When a SCOTUS opinion strikes a part of a statute, Congress can indeed pass a new statute that addresses the problem, and thereby remove the barrier created by the Supreme Court opinion, yes. Executive inaction can nullify a SCOTUS opinion. President Lincoln ignored the Court's habeas corpus rulings during the Civil War. No President has done so since. The President that did risks impeachment. Public inaction? The public doesn't fully obey any of the laws now, so ----- Vic Nolu, ------ SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people. You two have some differences. I suggest you discuss them... I thank Vic for his honesty in agreeing with my points...
I don't think Nolu and I actually disagree at all. I was saying that Supreme Court opinions are law, and they are. You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true. But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps. Probably the cardinal example would be a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that purported to strip the Supreme Court of the power of Constitutional review. SCOTUS would strike down that law as unconstitutional.
But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps. SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott) Digress as you will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
The Opinion of the Court in Dred Scott was not unconstitutional, was correctly decided, and I very much doubt you have the slightest clue what the mandate of Dred Scott said, or what the actual decision of the case was. Dred Scott is still citable as good law, and has been cited as recently as 2016 by the Solicitor General of Kansas in a brief to the Supreme Court of Kansas. SCOTUS opinions interpreting the Constitution are overturned by Amendments to the Constitution, or by the Court revisiting the issue as in Brown and separate but equal. Public inaction does nothing. Executive inaction may mean a lack of enforcement, but it does not effect a legal overturning of the Opinion. He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war.
Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war. We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA.. Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution... Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?
We have radical nutters claiming their imaginary law is the law of the land. The Republic has not collapsed because of it. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I have yet to have an encounter where anyone attempted to require me to obey Sharia law. Laws reflecting a religious moral belief are not prohibited. Laws establishing a state religion are prohibited. The Catholic religion, and many Catholics, maintain as a religious moral belief that all abortion is wrong and sinful. If the people adopted a Constitutional amendment that all abortion was unlawful, or an amendment confirming that a right to abortion emanates from a penumbra of the Bill of Rights, there would be no First Amendment Freedom of Religion implication. Nobody would have established the Church of Choice, or the Church of Life, as the Church of the United States. A religious moral belief, such as choice or life is not a religion. The official United States motto is In God We Trust (P.L. 84-140, 70 Stat. 732). And we are all free to be athiests. https://www.scribd.com/document/383819804/70-Stat-732-PL-850-National-Motto-In-God-We-Trust Why are you espousing radical beliefs and trying to pass them off as the actual law of the United States? The right to free speech gives you the right to preach your radical beliefs, even where they are far removed from reality.
Why are you espousing radical beliefs and trying to pass them off as the actual law of the United States? My comments about our Constitution are only radical in your confused mind.. You too need rest...
Your claims about the Constitution are not citable to any legal authority but The tpaine Court of the Imagination™. The views of a minority of one, posing as the established law of the land, is about as radical as it gets.
There are no replies to Comment # 136. End Trace Mode for Comment # 136.
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)
#105. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#102)
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 the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.
The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.
During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.
Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?
#108. To: nolu chan (#105)
here are a few unique provisions
#114. To: tpaine (#108)
Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..
Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---
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.
#116. To: nolu chan, vicomte13, Y'ALL (#114)
SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction... ---- tpaine
#117. To: tpaine (#116)
#118. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#117)
You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true.
#122. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#118)
(Edited)
SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)
Digress as you [Vicomte13] will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
#124. To: nolu chan (#122)
He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. ---- (Yes, he wants his religious moral beliefs passed into laws.)
#127. To: tpaine (#124)
We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA..
Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution...
Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?
#130. To: nolu chan (#127)
#136. To: tpaine (#130)
My comments about our Constitution are only radical in your confused mind..
Replies to Comment # 136.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]