Posted on 07/10/2018 2:50:42 PM PDT by frogjerk
You may dislike John Roberts as Chief Justice, but I think there is more pressure on the CJ to maintain the Court as an institution than on the associate justices. In that position he has to be more “centrist.” Having said that, he is trying to create a “common ground” based on exactly what you said; very narrow opinions that decide only the case and controversy before the Court. In so doing, he has wooed Kagan somewhat away from the hard left of RBG and the Wise Latina.
Kavanaugh will fit quite nicely in this rubric. He will rule only on case and controversy, but over time will (along with Alito and Gorsuch) build a body of sound Constitutional precedent. The Court is like an a large cruise ship; it takes a while to change direction. I see good days ahead for SCOTUS. Even better if Trump can get one more appointment in first term (and we know who we see getting replaced).
“In that position he has to be more “centrist.” Having said that, he is trying to create a “common ground” based on exactly what you said; very narrow opinions that decide only the case and controversy before the Court. In so doing, he has wooed Kagan somewhat away from the hard left of RBG and the Wise Latina.”
Well reasoned commentary.
O.K. your were right and Mea Culpa on the “anonymous” part. Noted. The author is not named.
However, the author does name and quote his/her source material, and explains what they think about it. Their arguments can and ought to be addressed on their own merits, regardless of who the author is. It is not the identification of an author that brings intellectual honesty to an argument, with its sources.
So yes, it would be nice if the blogger on the Federalist site identified themselves. However, I accept their arguements on there own as valid.
Maybe they are doing like the authors of the orginal Federalist Papers did in their submissions to the press using made up names. They did so because they were well known, had followers and opponents in the political class and wanted their arguments to stand on their own. The anonymous writer on this piece from the Federalist may be some such person in today’s context. Keeping their personality out of the argument.
Jay Sekulow said today that Kavanaugh sided with his American Center for Law and Justice on a religious liberty case, so I’m not buying the handwringing and pearl clutching by some on the right.
I want Supreme Court justices who pi$$ off both Democrat and Republican idealogues.
“Potential Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Has A Troubling Record On Religious Liberty”
well, hell, in that case, Trump should dump him and nominate Merrick Garland!
If a guy isn’t able to put his name on something, it isn’t worth reading.
He wouldn’t even stand behind the information and his spin on it.
Why should I?
Sorry, this is a hit job from a sniper too chickensh— to do his deed out in the open.
Makes you wonder just which NeverTrumper it is.
I don’t disagree with the line of reasoning behind your post, to an extent, but I’m not blindly defending Trump or Kavanaugh here.
The writer should stand up like a man and defend his accusations and spin.
That “personality” issue goes both ways.
Shouldn’t we be able to know who it is making these accusations? What baggage did they bring to the issue? Where were they on Monday morning?
Do you realize that there are two sides to every argument, and sometimes people do make judgements seemingly against our beliefs, but for good cause in the overall scheme of things. What if Kavanaugh noticed a broad interpretation of a case might actually hurt our cause long term, despite seeming like a good thing at the moment?
In-depth effort to queer support for Trump by “analyzing” Kavanaugh...
You are making what if suppositions, but unlike the author you bring no case or case analysis to YOUR argument, as they do theirs. Which is the unbiased objective observer supposed to consider more? Yours, merely because your name is on it?
Actually I think you are wrong. The article is well written, cites their cases and makes logical analysis. My sincere belief is that you object merely because the author has objections to Kavenaugh, and you think that is criticism of Trump and no one should critisize Trump.
Look Wuli, it may not bother you that this could come straight from the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reed, Glenn beck, or even Ted Cruz, but it would me.
I’m not going to waste my time on it.
“that this could come straight from the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reed, Glenn beck, or even Ted Cruz, but it would me.”
Ha Ha. Nice slander by ignorant innuendo. You slander the Federalist society by suggesting those names as possible anonymopus authors on the pages of the Federalist society - they who vetted every Trump judicial pick? You apparently do not know the Federalist society, their mission and who is on there.
My guess is it is a well known federalist member who might have even part of the federalists vetting judicial picks for Trump, but in this case this one had reservations about Kavenaugh.
Wuli, no sale.
You’re wasting your time.
If a person hasn’t got the guts to stand behind their work, I’m simply not going to.
If you wish to, go ahead.
Not interested at all here.
Sorry, no sale. If a person can not read the facts and analysis in article, not knowing who wrote it, and with their own mind, principles and judgement judge it objectively on its own, then their education stopped long ago and they cannot learn anything else.
Read the federalist papers, and if you think they make a difference not for their logic and reasoning but only because now in this day we know who wrote them, then G-d bless us that you were not of their generation.
Wuli, these are not the Federalist papers.
For heaven’s sake, get a grip.
What a moronic tie-in.
Do you consider yourself to be a federalist?
I don’t consider myself to be one. I wouldn’t like to have it known I was a member of a federalist group.
Central government in Washington, D. C. has pretty much outed itself as a swamp filled with creatures I despise.
I don’t care what the policy at the Federalist is, I won’t waste my time reading the offerings from a person who will not stand behind their work.
You certainly do seem to have a big stake in this.
NOTHING you have said has looked at, analyzed or spoken on what the author said. You need to get a grip. Rejecting anything our of hand, without letting your mind objectively consider it is just dumb, reactionary and defensive, like a child - “no mommie I won’t look at it, I won’t digest it, I won’t judge it on it’s own, I don’t like anything from anyone I don’t know”.
I have zero personal stake in an author whom I do not even know. If I have any stake it is in rejecting Freepers who reject something out of hand instead of examining it objectively on their own. It is such Freepers more than an anonymous writer on the Federalist society whom I would not trust.
Wuli, I’m sorry you don’t have the tools to grasp this, but I want to know everything that determines the value of the information I review. You can waltz around the subject all you like, but it matters to me who put together the information.
There are people who worked in the Bush White House I consider to be enemies of our nation.
If you think this society is above that sort of thing, you aren’t playing with a full deck.
Now you can refer to me not being honest, or adult like, or toss in any other insult your tiny little mind can come up with, I’m not buying in.
I’ve told you this over and over. It’s not going to change.
I believe I already told you it’s fine with me if you want to buy off on it. So go ahead.
When I know who offered up the information, I’ll consider it.
Until then you can toss all the hissy fits you want.
If a man won’t stand behind what he has aired in public, why should I?
And if I won’t stand behind it until I know who offered it up, I’m not going to bother paying attention to it.
Go away child you bother me,
You are just waltzing around your straight forward inability to independently, on your own, objectively review facts sourced for you - case histories and Kavenaughs comments thereto, commented on and given to you.
You have no argument for the actual material and are incapable of reviewing it on your own. Your single argument is: “I don’t like anonymous”. That, in my book, given the actual material the author presented, is an excuse. I feel very sorry for you.
NOW GO AWAY.
I was up front with you from the beginning, and I’m not dodging you or leaving the thread because you’re an ass.
Just keep on shoveling there ace.
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.