I'm here... :)

Fake News!

I think Trump punted a bit with this pick.

He's saving Amy to replace the bridge troll next year.
Leftists are going to explode once they realize he'll have all the picks on his short list on the Court by 2024.

SCOTUS is the only reason Trump got my vote, but I'm thoroughly impressed with other aspects of his administration so far. He's got my vote in 2020.

He's got my vote in 2020.

Karl Rove approved, good to go.

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.

Yay! Another Catholic!

You say that just like it's something anyone sane would be proud to shout.

Jesuit swamp critter.

Those Jesuits are ideologues.

They are like PR hacks that warm up the "audiences" for the fundie Catholics that dream of once again ruling the western world and setting fire to anyone that disagrees with them.

Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?

Well, I certainly hope so!

Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.

The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others —with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.”

If he ruthlessly defends the 2nd amendment, for 25 more years, I’ll be pleased

That doesn't "Read" like a 2nd Amendment defense to me. To ME,it reads like a bitch they didn't dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".

He was NOT complaining about their desire to limit American Constitutional Freedoms,he was bitching because it was a poorly-done job.

That doesn't "Read" like a 2nd Amendment defense to me. To ME,it reads like a bitch they didn't dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".

He was NOT complaining about their desire to limit American Constitutional Freedoms,he was bitching because it was a poorly-done job.

Kavanaugh DISSENT at 2-3, Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244 (DC Cir 10-7036, 2011)

In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory record-keeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.

Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.

Not a fan of Catholicism, I see.

They are like PR hacks that warm up the "audiences" for the fundie Catholics that dream of once again ruling the western world and setting fire to anyone that disagrees with them.

Nah. That's not what we Catholics are about.

What we're about is family, babies and social welfare/poverty relief.

We oppose the death penalty because of the corruption and unreliability of the human judicial process.

We oppose war other than necessary defensive war.

We're social conservatives and fiscal liberals.

— 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.

www.politico.com/newslett...plenty-of-material-274850

---

He's a Jesuit? Seriously?

Is the Pope Catholic?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/07/08/catholics-on-the-court-the-historic-struggle-between-canon-and-constitutional-law/?utm_term=.08490fd4fdc3

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?

Kavanaugh DISSENT at 2-3, Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244 (DC Cir 10-7036, 2011)

In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

Thank you. That one sentence changes the entire intent of the rest of what he wrote.

Since you have just proven yourself to be completely insane,nothing you post in the future has any value.

Not a fan of Catholicism, I see.

Or Islam,or any other slave cult.

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?

It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.

You are one of those sad people who just ain't happy unless you are mad.

I think Trump punted a bit with this pick.

I agree.

But he's cornered the Dems by doing so. IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.

Well, at least Trump did not pick Gatlin!

BUMMER!!

(He and Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg would have been quite the spectacle, what with wearing each others robe etc)

(Does this mean that the Catholic Pope residing in the Vatican will have heavy influence on US Supreme Court Justice decisions?)

Well, I certainly hope so!

You can NOT be serious.

This Pope is a pro-homo, Commie anti-Christ/fascist.

And besides -- waaay too many RCCs wrecking SCOTUS.

We need PROTS who reflected the FOUNDERS very USCON! And where are THEY??

Trump will go whichever way the wind blows.

Chyeah -- cuz Trump is a "Follower", right?

Move waaaay to the back of the class room.

If he ruthlessly defends the 2nd amendment, for 25 more years, I’ll be pleased

That doesn't "Read" like a 2nd Amendment defense to me. To ME,it reads like a bitch they didn't dot their "i's" and cross their "t's".

He was NOT complaining about their desire to limit American Constitutional Freedoms,he was bitching because it was a poorly-done job.

Nicely interpreted, Pete.

I think this guy may be squishy on 2A issues. Not to mention OTHERS.

Don't like this pick.

You are one of those sad people who just ain't happy unless you are mad.

That means that you're mad because someone criticized Dear Leader Donald, and it's fine with you if he somehow packs SCOTUS full of Jesuits.

Got it, Jesuits are good when Trump nominates them, but bad if someone else does. Makes sense if you're a cult of personality person.

(In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.)

Thank you. That one sentence changes the entire intent of the rest of what he wrote.

I hope Nolu is right.

I'm not sure if Kavanaugh is fully un-ambiguous on the issue. I'm not a big fan of "Abstaining" on votes.

It doesn't matter if they are Jesuits,or Thomas Jefferson and George Washington brought back to life,if Trump recommended them,you would hate them and find fault.

Yup.

Hondo has been sporting his pink p***y hats and "I'M WITH ---> HER!" button loud and proud.

IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.

Rejecting Kavanaugh risks the next nominee facing a Dem majority in the Senate, or a slimmer GOP majority. If that happens, Trump could nominate conservatives until he leaves office and not get anyone approved.

There are currently 51 GOP, 47 Dem, 2 Ind (caucus with Dem).

At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.

If post-election the GOP retains 50 or more Senate seats (likely), then the next nominee for an opening could well be Barrett, Hardiman, Kethledge, or Thapar.

It is very possible Trump gets to name a successor for Ginsburg or Sotomayor, and possibly Thomas at 70+ could resign to ensure a young, conservative replacement.

I hope Nolu is right.

I did not offer an opinion. I quoted Kavanaugh verbatim from Heller II at the D.C. Circuit Court. Here is the full Opinion of the Court and dissents. The Kavanaugh dissent starts at page 46 of the pdf.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383600194/Heller-II-v-District-of-Columbia-670-F3d-1244-DC-Cir-10-7036-2011-Kavanaugh-Dissent-at-46

You can NOT be serious.

Of course I am serious.

Got it, Jesuits are good when Trump nominates them, but bad if someone else does.

I assume by "Jesuits" you mean "Catholics". Catholics are good.

Or Islam,or any other slave cult.

Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.

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?

Absolutely. And 9 would be best of all.

#WINNING

#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.

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.

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.

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...

hat 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...

Molon labe.

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.

At least 3 Dem senators are runnning for reelection in states that Trump won by 20 to 40 points. The liklihood is that Kavanaugh gets narrow Senate approval.

I think there are 9 or 10 total in states Trump won.

Catholics don't

We simply

we want

We know,

we're a minority

we cannot

we compromise

we most care about

any other political grouping, like yours for instance

Who is "we", you and your reincarnated lizard? You're right about being a minority. You don't speak for the Church. That's a joy and a blessing for Catholics worldwide.

Many Catholics are aware of the Scofield denominations, aka prot nutjobs or rapture monkey zionists. Like your Catholic political group, they're a small subset of a greater traditional Protestant reformation.

Renowned Catholic theologian Fred Mertz might be able to confirm that you're a fringe k0oK Catholic?

You don't speak for the Church. That's a joy and a blessing for Catholics worldwide.

Absolutely true. You know who speaks for us worldwide? The Pope. I'm with him. You?

You're right about being a minority.

As a Catholic, I am indeed part of a minority.

But as far as the laws of the country goes, they're not perfect, but much of the structure we have is what I want to see. I'd like it to be more efficient, less ragged around the edges, less slapdash, but the fundamental structures that are in place are very much in keeping with what I want - and utterly the opposite of what you want.

So it would seem that, for whatever reason, the majority will of the country does largely (if imperfectly) provide me what I want, while it deprives you of what you want at every turn.

Eventually, the likes of you either have to compromise with people like me, to get something of what you want at least considered, or you refuse to compromise or talk, and just get plowed under, get nothing you want, but pay your taxes nevertheless.

Not much margin for you in this, but I'm fine with it all.

The Pope. I'm with him. You?

On matters of faith and morals ONLY. There's a red line, no gay wedding cakes!

On matters of faith and morals ONLY. There's a red line, no gay wedding cakes!

What makes you think I favor gay wedding cakes? I am completely indifferent to the whole gay business. Don't care.

The Pope. I'm with him.

If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.

Pope Frankie is so clearly a Trojan Horse Communist, anti-liberty, and importantly, defiant of Christ-ian thought and rationale and intent that supporting this Pope boggles the mind.

Would Jesus Christ kiss the Koran? Support a counterfeit Palestinian instead of Israel? Advocate homosexual behavior -- much less "marriage"? Support the confiscation of one's toiled-over earned wealth?

But he's cornered the Dems by doing so. IF they reject him (as I expect), the NEXT picks will only be further RIGHT.

Correct... Trump ain’t no dummy.

I liked the other choice better (he was a duplicate of Gorsuch)... but I’ll take every judge chosen by Trump over any pick Kuntlary and Commie Sanders would have picked.

We don’t need any more man hating, gun loathing, tree hugging rug munchers on the bench.

For clarity, by hoping you were "right" I hoped the letter of constitutional intent will be THE criteria for all future decisions (instead of emotional whims, a squishy Anthony Kennedy "moderate" clone, or intimidation/influence by Leftist thought.)

Just for the record, I am not a grand supporter of original intent, but rather original meaning (Scalia was a proponent of this predominant branch of originalism).

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches

What “originalism” is—and is not — Originalism, explains Scalia, is a “manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.” He clarifies that this is not synonymous with “strict constructionism”: “I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably.”

Scalia also rejected the notion of “original intent.” As he explained,

You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course.

And Scalia commented on substantive due process,

www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.

Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.

Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process.

What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.

This is the equivalent of, an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stockbroker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the 11,000 level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake; it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things. And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.

My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.

As the Constitution says not a word about abortion, I believe five originalists on SCOTUS might overturn Roe finding a lack of federal jurisdiction, and return the issue to the states. Many here would not be happy with that result. They not only want the court to find that abortion is not constitutionally protected by an emanation from a penumbra, but they want the Court to find that abortion is prohibited by some constitutional provision emanating from a penumbra.

It is of no particular use to go back and find a 200 year old quote as to what some Framer may have intended. Nobody voted to ratify his intent. They voted to ratify the words themselves and the ordinary understanding of the words.

An example might be the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The words are clear enough to include anchor babies. The baby (regardless of the parents) is born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the U.S. Whether the framer did, or did not, consider the question of anchor babies has no effect on the meaning of the words that were adopted. If it had an unintended consequence, amend it.

If so, frankly you betray Jesus Christ in a number of ways.

Not in the slightest degree. We disagree at the most fundamental levels. You listed a litany of political issues, and you believe God to align with your political priorities. Nothing is going to persuade you otherwise, not even a lifetime of defeat. You expect that, opening your eyes after death, you will be vindicated. I expect the same thing for myself.

It would appear that there is no meeting of the minds on these things.

The interesting thing is that you see the Pope and the Church and Catholics believing and doing one set of things, but I see him and us believing and doing very different things.

So there's a disagreement both as to law and as to facts.

Doesn't seem to be any way to resolve it, so I guess we will just have to see how the game plays out.

Got it,

As usual,you "got" nothing but bats flying around in your belfry.

Catholicism isn't a slave cult. It's the largest human organization, the oldest continuous government on earth, and the source of Western civilization.

HorseHillary!

On all counts.

The only reason you can't see that it's a cult is that you are a cult member.