Posted on 04/04/2021 5:29:01 PM PDT by AnthonySoprano
I bring this up because I haven’t seen it anywhere on TV or the Press.
Kavanaugh (Supremes) already Votes with the Dems.
I thought that after what they put him through that he would give them the finger on every case. I was wrong. I supported him too.
The candidate that was from Pennsylvania at the time Kavanaugh was up for consideration was the right choice. Strong 2nd Amendment. I forget the name.
He has kids. They live in DC. The Supreme Court should be moved to the Midwest.
‘
The Media even predicted Kavanaugh would rule with the GOP on these cases, but he followed Roberts’ lead and gave the progressives Victories.
Not really. What's needed is for the court to have so little power it doesn't matter what political leanings the justices themselves have. This is the way it was supposed to be in the first place. What may surprise many conservatives is the fact that if government is strictly limited it no longer attracts scumbag leftist liars.
How does that happen?
The Dems see their role as activists, non-restricted to adjudication. The conservatives see themselves as jurists alone, restricted to their lane. The damage from the former is wide spread and the repairs of the later are limited, confined and judicial only not writing laws or being executives.
We are stuck when the loyal opposition is not Loyal.
He has a seat for life, they can’t do a damn thing to him. Nonsense about “hurting his kids” is a fantasy.
Any wrong vote he casts is by choice.
He clerked for Kennedy. Several people thought he might be of similar ilk.
It’s a huge blemish, rewriting “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender status. That decision shows Gorsuch is very likely to be worthless (i.e. a leftist) on all matters involving the lgbtq agenda, just like Anthony Kennedy.
He loves beer.
Wait’ll you see how he votes on 2A...
Kavanaugh wrote a great dissent against an assault weapons ban in D.C.
Well, we see that the Blasey girls are still mad about Kavanaugh, right here. ;D
Are you wearing your “Handmaid’s Tale” attire? ;D
Here’s what Feinstein said about Kavanaugh during his September 4th confirmation hearing in regards to his dissent against an assault weapons ban in D.C.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4747266/user-clip-feinstein-opening-remarks
[Formatting by C-SPAN—not me.]
“EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT. NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT’S PROMISE TO REPORT A NOMINEE BLESSED BY THE NRA. IN REVIEWING YOUR JUDICIAL OPINIONS IN DOCUMENTS, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT YOUR VIEWS GO WELL BEYOND SIMPLY BEING PRO-GUN. I WOULD LIKE TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DURING A LECTURE AT NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL COMING YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE “THE FIRST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MOST OTHER LOWER JUDGES HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.” IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V HELLER, YOU WROTE THAT UNLESS GUNS ARE REGULATED EITHER AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN OR TRADITIONALLY THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THEY CANNOT BE REGULATED NOW. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, THEN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THEY ARE “TRADITIONAL OR COMMON” IN THE UNITED STATES. YOU CONCLUDED THAT BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY BEEN BANNED. THIS LOGIC MEANS THAT EVEN AS WEAPONS BECOME MORE ADVANCED AND MORE DANGEROUS, THEY CANNOT BE REGULATED. JUDGE EASTERBROOK, A CONSERVATIVE JUDGE FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CONCLUDED THAT THAT REASONING WAS ABSURD AND HE POINTED OUT THAT A LAW’S EXISTENCE CANNOT BE THE SOURCE OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY. IN FACT, I AM LEFT WITH THE FACT THAT YOUR REASONING IS FAR OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM OF LEGAL THOUGHT, AND THAT IT SURPASSES THE VIEWS OF JUSTICE SCALIA, WHO WAS CLEARLY A PRO-GUN JUSTICE. EVEN SCALIA UNDERSTOOD THAT WEAPONS LIKE M-16 RIFLES OR WEAPONS THAT ARE MOST USEFUL IN MILITARY SERVICE CAN IN FACT BE REGULATED.”
Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
The text, history, and tradition methodology applied to D.C.’s unusually restrictive gun laws.
Reason Magazine
The Volokh Conspiracy
DAVID KOPEL | 7.9.2018 9:13 PM
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
Every justice’s personal experience plays a role in how he decides cases. No one is 100% intellectually coherent. There was a case about burning crosses in which Justice Scalia voted that this act is protected by the First Ammendment, but Justice Thomas voted that it isn’t. I am sure that Justice Thomas’s personal experience played a role in his vote.
Justice Gorsuch has been good most of the time. He probably votes with Justice Thomas more often than any other justice. He often joins Justice Thomas’s dissents. If I compared Justice Gorsuch with Justice Alito, I would say that Justice Gorsuch is more method-oriented (originalist) and Justice Alito is more result-oriented (not so originalist).
The problem with Justice Gorsuch is that although he is intellectually originalist, he isn’t culturally conservative. How many elite lawyers in his generation are culturally conservative? Not too many. Conservatives underestimate how monolithically culturally progressive the elites have become.
Since Ronald Reagan conservatives have tried to find suitable candidates for justices. There have been many failures (Souter) and compromises (Kennedy, Roberts, Kavanaugh). It’s difficult to find an originalist candidate who can be confirmed by the Senate. A candidate who is both originalist and proud to be culturally conservative wouldn’t be confirmed by the Senate.
Look at Judge Kenneth Lee of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. When he was a college student, he wrote articles in which he expressed culturally conservative views on feminism, racism and homosexuality. I think it’s safe to assume that he is culturally conservative. He was confirmed as a circuit court judge, but it would be impossible to confirm him as a Supreme Court justice because Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski and possibly some other Republicans would vote against him.
What do we have? We must rely on candidates who are methodologically originalist, but whose cultural views aren’t publicly known. These days, if someone belongs to the intellectual elite, but his views on cultural issues are unknown, he is quite likely to be culturally progressive because almost everyone who belongs to the intellectual elite is culturally progressive.
When the culture is crumbling and churches are willingly becoming apostate, it is unrealistic to hope that a Supreme Court justice will save us. Conservatives should do what Haredi (”ultra-Orthodox”) Jews are doing: build their own educational institutions for their children, (at least partially) disengage from the mainstream culture, which has become anti-Christian and anti-Western, and have a lot of children.
Notice how one particular moron won’t answer whether SHOOTING someone is a seizure under the 4th Amendment?
He cowered and ran when confronted with a simple question and retreats to cutting and pasting MSM headlines which say nothing about the merits of the case.
There is no such thing as an originalist anymore, they are all pressured by wokeness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.