A strict constructionist wouldn't support the wall between church and state. He'd oppose Congress establishing a religion. Are those the same things? That depends on who's setting the terms.
Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
A strict constructionist wouldn't support the wall between church and state. He'd oppose Congress establishing a religion. Are those the same things? That depends on who's setting the terms.
I have a bias against religion. I'm tired of the zealots. For instance, I'd vote for an atheist if I thought they were qualified. I'm ok with gay marriage.
But I'll listen to your terms!
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Yeah. There is no Constitutional idea separating church and state other than formal and organizational. That was a wish of Jefferson based on his Epicurean/Jacobin philosophical beliefs. He was good on many things but his affinity for French radicalism was not one of them.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
I think part of the reason I voted for the pothead is because I held my nose and voted for GHW Bush, Dole, W Bush, McCainger, and Romney. They all failed us. Either they failed to fight back in the campaign and didn't get elected, or they failed to hold to principles. GHWB nominated David Souter to the USSC. David Souter! GWB nominated Roberts who saved Obamacare. GWB also tried to nominate Harriet Miers. So in the past, it didn't seem to matter if you voted for one party or another. I am through holding my nose and voting for the party. But I will vote to re-elect Trump, without holding my nose.
That has been a welcomed phenomenon. Although I wonder if the complete unmasking of the media as a wing of the Democratic party has been part of that as well. There used to be a time that most Republicans would cower in fear of the media saying something negative about them. Now the hysteria of the left wing media has just become normal background noise which many conservatives and even independents ignore.
get one of the originalists on the court to point out where in the revered document it says that corporations are persons. For some odd reason it took over 200 years for this original intent to occur to anybody,
The strict constructionists will bend the constitution to fit their immediate political needs just like the liberals will.
The strict constructionists will bend the constitution to fit their immediate political needs just like the liberals will.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Susan Collins describes how they attempted to bribe her
Anyone surprised?
Anyone think they will be brought to justice?
This either was on or will be on 60 Minutes. I didnt watch it so dont know
Anyone surprised?
Anyone think they will be brought to justice?
“They are asking me to perform an official act and if I do not do what they want, $2 million plus is going to go to my opponent. I think that if our politics has come to the point where people are trying to buy votes and buy positions, then we are in a very sad place,” Collins told CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”
The political groups Be A Hero Team, Maine People’s Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership had called out the senator before her vote, with a Crowdpac campaign titled: “Either Sen. Collins VOTES NO on Kavanaugh OR we fund her future opponent.”
Collins is not up for re-election until 2020. The campaign has raised more than $3.5 million and counting.
“This is a classic quid-pro-quo as defined in our bribery laws,” Collins said in the interview.
The political groups Be A Hero Team, Maine People’s Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership had called out the senator before her vote, with a Crowdpac campaign titled: “Either Sen. Collins VOTES NO on Kavanaugh OR we fund her future opponent.”
Collins is not up for re-election until 2020. The campaign has raised more than $3.5 million and counting.
“This is a classic quid-pro-quo as defined in our bribery laws,” Collins said in the interview.
This either was on or will be on 60 Minutes. I didnt watch it so dont know
As I said when he took office, Trump is forcing people to choose sides. Put better, he is making them identify with the side they are on.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
huisache, about your comment about corporations being or not being persons. The issue is in reference the campaign contributions and therefore it is irrelevant whether corporations are or are not persons. The decision was clunky maybe rich people, CEOs and board members will donate to politicians whether as themselves or as an agent of a corporation. There are real people behind the corporation making the decisions to give money to whom and how much. Unless you are ready to deny people the right to donate or organize in order to support candidates the court decision was peripheral.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
He did this by driving the left so far into Crazytown that it became politically safe for them to stand up and say "enough." It's not that far out on a limb to suggest that if you have protestors scratching and clawing at the SCOTUS doors desperate to stop the confirmation of a judge because you think he will destroy civilization, you've probably overplayed your hand and it's OK to put the foot down.
I saw a video of her doing a panel type discussion from a few months back on YouTube and she could barely speak and looked like she was about to collapse in on herself literally. She does not have much more time and from what I understand she takes forever to do anything when the court is in session.
Here's a happy thought; RBG will "resign" her seat in the coming Presidential election year, and a Republican held Senate will not wait for the election to confirm a new conservative SCOTUS nominee. Talk about Lefty heads exploding!
It is not the same. I worked for a corporation. I helped make money for that corporation. I owned stock in that corporation but I did not get to determine or even impact how that corporation donated money. Corporations are not people and should have absolutely no ability to donate to politicians.
If the same holds true for unions, etc. then I am all for it.
I really think RBG dying or resigning is a real possibility. I think that's why we have seen the left turn her into an icon. I think they are going to try to make the argument that the SCOTUS needs to be "balanced" and put pressure on GOP to nominate a moderate. The GOP really needs to have a qualified woman for the next nominee. It will both secure a conservative majority and take some of the steam out of the "GOP is anti-woman" rants.
Amy Barrett
I heard McConnell on Fox News Sunday, and he is already laying the foundation for this happening. Chris Wallace brought up the Merrick Garland situation and asked what McConnell what he'd do if a vacancy opens up in 2020. He wouldn't give him a direct answer but told him that with Garland, he simply followed historical precedent that when the President and Senate "are from different parties," the Senate doesn't confirm in a presidential election year.
That tells me that if the GOP is in charge it will confirm RBG's replacement if she leaves in 2020. If Democrats take the Senate, I think he pretty much assumes they won't consider a Trump nominee at any time. I don't think they'd even confirm one the year after he gets reelected.
Last edited:
Clean
5,000+ Posts
John Roberts referred over a dozen complaints he's received about Kavanaugh to federal judges in Colorado yesterday. The complaints mostly accuse him of lying during his confirmation hearing. The Left is not giving up.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/11/rober...bout-kavanaugh-to-federal-judges-in-colorado/
https://nypost.com/2018/10/11/rober...bout-kavanaugh-to-federal-judges-in-colorado/
I am hoping that Trump has been saving her for RBG's replacement, which will blunt the Dems claim that the seat must go to a woman.
Won't go anywhere...expect the Court to promptly moot them out due to a lack of jurisdiction. The referral was pretty much to just show there was no 'special treatment' even though Roberts KNOWS there is no jurisdiction.
I'm a Christian, and when it comes to politics, religion isn't a decisive factor. I could vote for an atheist who takes the right positions, is trustworthy, etc. A large number of the political thinkers and commentators I respect are not Christians. I'm not sure how many of them are atheists, but plenty of them are Jews (both secular and orthodox).
Nevertheless, having a bias against something may impact how you vote, but it isn't supposed to impact how you would rule on a judicial matter. For example, I have much more than a bias against flag burning. I detest it to no end. However, as a judge, I'd never allow a federal prohibition on flag burning to stand. The point is that a judge has to be able to set aside his or her biases (which we all have) and apply the law as it was intended by those who adopted it.
As for the establishment clause, there's no indication that a complete separation of church or religion and state was intended. For starters, the First Amendment's language simply isn't that broad. It prohibits Congress from making a law "respecting the establishment of religion." If they had intended something broader, they could have used such language.
Second, the historical context of the First Amendment doesn't support that broad of an interpretation. They were trying to avoid the merger of church and government that existed in England and didn't want the government persecuting religious minorities. They didn't want an official religion and definitely didn't want the church to be directly in the sack with government, as the Church of England was. They considered that bad for both government and the church.
However, there's no indication that the founding fathers had some sort of inherent contempt for religion or its influence on culture or even politics or policy. Bear in mind that they didn't even restrict state governments' establishing religion. To them, if a state wanted to have an official religion or even a taxpayer-funded church, they were OK with that.
This is true. And to be clear, I don't support states doing this. That isn't the point.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I wonder what this lady's kids think about being used as props to grandstand against Kavenaugh...
Protester Asks GOP Senator To ‘Apologize’ To Her Children — His Response Makes Her Very Angry
Regardless, the senator's response was fantastic:
Shapiro caught Cassidy as he was walking on a brisk pace in a Senate office building. She asked, “Senator Cassidy, can you please apologize to my children for ruining their futures?”
Cassidy’s response clearly stunned her.
The senator turned to the kids, removed his earbuds and said calmly, “Hey, guess what? I know your parents are using you as tools … ”
“No, we’re not using them as tools! We’re not using them as tools!” Shapiro interrupted.
Cassidy concluded, “…But in the future, if somebody makes an allegation against you, and there’s no proof for it, you will be OK. Thank you,” before walking off.
Protester Asks GOP Senator To ‘Apologize’ To Her Children — His Response Makes Her Very Angry
Regardless, the senator's response was fantastic:
Shapiro caught Cassidy as he was walking on a brisk pace in a Senate office building. She asked, “Senator Cassidy, can you please apologize to my children for ruining their futures?”
Cassidy’s response clearly stunned her.
The senator turned to the kids, removed his earbuds and said calmly, “Hey, guess what? I know your parents are using you as tools … ”
“No, we’re not using them as tools! We’re not using them as tools!” Shapiro interrupted.
Cassidy concluded, “…But in the future, if somebody makes an allegation against you, and there’s no proof for it, you will be OK. Thank you,” before walking off.
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
