Posted on 07/10/2018 3:10:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
When President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on Monday, Democrat chicken littles erupted in paroxysms of rage.
"Civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, healthcare are all under attack," the NAACP warned.
NAACP ✔ @NAACP Civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, health care are all under attack. We’ve seen Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record and we demand no new SCOTUS justice until after a new Senate is seated in 2019. – @PeopleFor #StandUpFightBack #ScotusPick #SaveSCOTUS 8:57 PM - Jul 9, 2018 300 309 people are talking about this
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Kavanaugh would be "a destructive tool on a generation of progress for workers, women, LGBTQ people, communities of color & families," and that his confirmation would "radically reverse the course of American justice & democracy."
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
What kind of a country is this that the Dem-Socialists scream,holler, yell, slander people, block public highways, threaten people with violence and subject the court nominees to abuse and innuendo and tormenting hours of grilling in hearings?
A quiet, gentle, bookish judge would be ruled out, unable to stand the hot light treatment cross examination from intensely hostile prima donna narcissists in the Senate.
I put the blame completely on Ted Kennedy and his slander of Robert Bork.
It may have started with Bork but both sides have continued it ever since.
That's like saying "both sides have continued...etc." after someone stands up to a bully.
Imitating the bully is not standing up to him.
We should all tell these people that elections have consequences, as per Obama.
Both sides? When did Republicans slander Democrat nominees? RBG? Breyer? Kagan? The wise Latina? Not buying.
Indeed they do. If the Democrats don't like Kavanaugh then they should have run a better candidate in 2016.
If only Kavenaugh and the WSJ and the RINOs agreed with you.
They all acknowledge that the progressive agenda has used court dictates for many of its achievwements, but they all are not willing or prepared to undo “precedents” that were always wrong, always Constitutionally wrong progesssive judicial activism.
No metaphor is perfect.
What would you have the Republicans do?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Forget the Left!
It’s all about the unconstitutionally powerful, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate imo.
After all, the Senate not only helps the likewise corrupt House to pass unconstitutional bills, bills that steal state powers and uniquely associated state revenues, but the Senate then nominates activist justices who declare Congress’s unconstitutional laws to be constitutional, unconstitutional Obamacare a great example.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphasis added]." —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe (See middle of third column.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
Patriots need to support Pres. Trump in leading the states to repeal the 17th Amendment, the 16th Amendment along with it.
I think it’s due to the “living Constitution” approach. Because the constitutional basis is so flimsy, the left needs partisan judges on the Court to preserve what has somehow been emanated from the penumbra of constitutional provisions. They want nominees to pledge support for dubious precedents rather than for the fairly understood constitutional text.
It's become political because one side opposes the other side's judicial nominees solely for political purposes. If you don't think the Republicans have been as active as that as the Democrats have been then you're just kidding yourself.
They'll continue to do what they've been doing. So will the Democrats. Neither side is going to unilaterally change.
If Trump said that he would nominate Judge Judy, the left would still be angry...
That doesn't answer the question.
The Rats threw down the gauntlet and won, so the Republicans picked it up.
Crediting both sides for politicizing the judiciary is mendacity of the first order.
So I'll ask again, how would you have had the Republicans respond?
“If you don’t think the Republicans have been as active as that as the Democrats have been then you’re just kidding yourself.”
Say what? Not only is your grammar bad, you don’t know what you are talking about. The Republicans gave Clinton and Obama whoever they wanted and barely opposed their SC choices four different times. The Dems meanwhile, defeated Bork, poisoned the well against Douglas Ginzburg and turned the Thomas hearings into a national spectacle. You make no sense at all with your blame both sides approach. That simply isn’t true. The GOP goes along with Democrat presidents when they recommend SC justices.
McConnell finally ended the lopsidedness after Democrats filibustered Bush’s appellate choices and then abolished the filibuster. McConnell said enough was enough and hoisted them by their own petard.
But both sides do it.
So I'll ask again, how would you have had the Republicans respond?
They'll continue to do what they've been doing. So will the Democrats. Neither side is going to unilaterally change.
Crediting both sides for politicizing the judiciary is mendacity of the first order.
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.