Kavanaugh Hearings

[Symmetry]

I think the big concerns are Roe vs Wade, but also that Trump has a chance to appoint one of the judges at his own trial if the Mueller investigation takes a matter to the SC.

I think that's too short-sighted a concern (and one based entirely about political posturing); the Democrats should focus on abortion, unions, campaign funding, and other social-type issues. Trump will be president for two more years. Who cares what happens to him after?

Actually, that's fair comment, although Roe vs Wade is a long term issue too. I was kinda struck by the people who were or will be directly affected by Kavanaugh's appointment though. He's not someone who fights for underdogs, is he?

[thegreekdog]

I think the big concerns are Roe vs Wade, but also that Trump has a chance to appoint one of the judges at his own trial if the Mueller investigation takes a matter to the SC.

I think that's too short-sighted a concern (and one based entirely about political posturing); the Democrats should focus on abortion, unions, campaign funding, and other social-type issues. Trump will be president for two more years. Who cares what happens to him after?

In two years he could lay scorched earth to the GATT world that took 70 years to build. Having him gone this week would be nice.

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that the midterm elections could come down to some really close races with disputed vote totals and Bush v Gore results.

I think the big concerns are Roe vs Wade, but also that Trump has a chance to appoint one of the judges at his own trial if the Mueller investigation takes a matter to the SC.

I think that's too short-sighted a concern (and one based entirely about political posturing); the Democrats should focus on abortion, unions, campaign funding, and other social-type issues. Trump will be president for two more years. Who cares what happens to him after?

Actually, that's fair comment, although Roe vs Wade is a long term issue too. I was kinda struck by the people who were or will be directly affected by Kavanaugh's appointment though. He's not someone who fights for underdogs, is he?

The assumptions about Kavanaugh are driven entirely by political considerations (i.e. who appointed him; who supports his appointment). My understanding from reading summaries of his decisions is that he's a strict constructionist type judge in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Those justices were not necessarily against the little guy. I do like what Senator Sasse had to say about the whole process and role of the judiciary; it is not the role of the judiciary to be activists. The problem with supporting activism in the judiciary is when your team's guys or gals aren't the justices. It's the same idea of supporting a strong executive when your guy is the president; when he's not the president anymore, those ideas and precedents stands for the other team's guy. The more we limit the power of the executive and the more we limit judicial activism, the happier everyone will be.

[Symmetry]

I think the big concerns are Roe vs Wade, but also that Trump has a chance to appoint one of the judges at his own trial if the Mueller investigation takes a matter to the SC.

I think that's too short-sighted a concern (and one based entirely about political posturing); the Democrats should focus on abortion, unions, campaign funding, and other social-type issues. Trump will be president for two more years. Who cares what happens to him after?

In two years he could lay scorched earth to the GATT world that took 70 years to build. Having him gone this week would be nice.

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that the midterm elections could come down to some really close races with disputed vote totals and Bush v Gore results.

I think the big concerns are Roe vs Wade, but also that Trump has a chance to appoint one of the judges at his own trial if the Mueller investigation takes a matter to the SC.

I think that's too short-sighted a concern (and one based entirely about political posturing); the Democrats should focus on abortion, unions, campaign funding, and other social-type issues. Trump will be president for two more years. Who cares what happens to him after?

Actually, that's fair comment, although Roe vs Wade is a long term issue too. I was kinda struck by the people who were or will be directly affected by Kavanaugh's appointment though. He's not someone who fights for underdogs, is he?

The assumptions about Kavanaugh are driven entirely by political considerations (i.e. who appointed him; who supports his appointment). My understanding from reading summaries of his decisions is that he's a strict constructionist type judge in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Those justices were not necessarily against the little guy. I do like what Senator Sasse had to say about the whole process and role of the judiciary; it is not the role of the judiciary to be activists. The problem with supporting activism in the judiciary is when your team's guys or gals aren't the justices. It's the same idea of supporting a strong executive when your guy is the president; when he's not the president anymore, those ideas and precedents stands for the other team's guy. The more we limit the power of the executive and the more we limit judicial activism, the happier everyone will be.

You don't strike me as a naive person, TGD, so you know that judges are often activists. Especially if they're Supreme Court justices. Then they're active members of one of the branches of government.

It's silly to pretend that Kavanaugh wasn't picked because of his politics, or that he might be confirmed because of them. Hell, the last Trump appointee went on a speaking tour with Mitch McConnell that included an engagement at Trump International Hotel.

[riskllama]

the "appointed for life" thing doesn't strike me as being a very good idea : bad enough that most politicians are 60+, but leaving very important, often huge decisions in the hands of a bunch of 80 year olds seems a bit ludicrous, no?

[Symmetry]

the "appointed for life" thing doesn't strike me as being a very good idea : bad enough that most politicians are 60+, but leaving very important, often huge decisions in the hands of a bunch of 80 year olds seems a bit ludicrous, no?

I can see the reasoning behind it, but it is a bit weird.

[thegreekdog]

the "appointed for life" thing doesn't strike me as being a very good idea : bad enough that most politicians are 60+, but leaving very important, often huge decisions in the hands of a bunch of 80 year olds seems a bit ludicrous, no?

Again, the original intent of the Supreme Court was to interpret laws based upon the language of the law (including the Constitution). At some point in US history the Supreme Court became a body that interpreted laws based on things other than the language of the law thereby (1) increasing its own power and (2) taking away legislative and executive power from other branches. Why try to change the Constitution when 9 old people who your team selected (or not, as the case may be) will change it for you?

You don't strike me as a naive person, TGD, so you know that judges are often activists. Especially if they're Supreme Court justices. Then they're active members of one of the branches of government.

See above. People like Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas are not activist judges. You may not like the result of their decisions, but they are acting in the way that was intended. If you think activist judges are preferred, then you have to live with both red team and blue team activist judges. I tend to think everyone would be much happier if the Supreme Court had zero activist justices. Ironically, if everything Kavanaugh says is true, the blue team should be happy that he's not an activist judge as he would not overturn Roe v. Wade; but they believe he's an activist judge because the blue team only nominates activist judges.

It's silly to pretend that Kavanaugh wasn't picked because of his politics, or that he might be confirmed because of them. Hell, the last Trump appointee went on a speaking tour with Mitch McConnell that included an engagement at Trump International Hotel.

I'm not sure I understand what that anecdote has to do with anything.

[Symmetry]

the "appointed for life" thing doesn't strike me as being a very good idea : bad enough that most politicians are 60+, but leaving very important, often huge decisions in the hands of a bunch of 80 year olds seems a bit ludicrous, no?

Again, the original intent of the Supreme Court was to interpret laws based upon the language of the law (including the Constitution). At some point in US history the Supreme Court became a body that interpreted laws based on things other than the language of the law thereby (1) increasing its own power and (2) taking away legislative and executive power from other branches. Why try to change the Constitution when 9 old people who your team selected (or not, as the case may be) will change it for you?

You don't strike me as a naive person, TGD, so you know that judges are often activists. Especially if they're Supreme Court justices. Then they're active members of one of the branches of government.

See above. People like Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas are not activist judges. You may not like the result of their decisions, but they are acting in the way that was intended. If you think activist judges are preferred, then you have to live with both red team and blue team activist judges. I tend to think everyone would be much happier if the Supreme Court had zero activist justices. Ironically, if everything Kavanaugh says is true, the blue team should be happy that he's not an activist judge as he would not overturn Roe v. Wade; but they believe he's an activist judge because the blue team only nominates activist judges.

It's silly to pretend that Kavanaugh wasn't picked because of his politics, or that he might be confirmed because of them. Hell, the last Trump appointee went on a speaking tour with Mitch McConnell that included an engagement at Trump International Hotel.

I'm not sure I understand what that anecdote has to do with anything.

The fact that you don't is part of the problem, TGD.

[thegreekdog]

the "appointed for life" thing doesn't strike me as being a very good idea : bad enough that most politicians are 60+, but leaving very important, often huge decisions in the hands of a bunch of 80 year olds seems a bit ludicrous, no?

Again, the original intent of the Supreme Court was to interpret laws based upon the language of the law (including the Constitution). At some point in US history the Supreme Court became a body that interpreted laws based on things other than the language of the law thereby (1) increasing its own power and (2) taking away legislative and executive power from other branches. Why try to change the Constitution when 9 old people who your team selected (or not, as the case may be) will change it for you?

You don't strike me as a naive person, TGD, so you know that judges are often activists. Especially if they're Supreme Court justices. Then they're active members of one of the branches of government.

See above. People like Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas are not activist judges. You may not like the result of their decisions, but they are acting in the way that was intended. If you think activist judges are preferred, then you have to live with both red team and blue team activist judges. I tend to think everyone would be much happier if the Supreme Court had zero activist justices. Ironically, if everything Kavanaugh says is true, the blue team should be happy that he's not an activist judge as he would not overturn Roe v. Wade; but they believe he's an activist judge because the blue team only nominates activist judges.

It's silly to pretend that Kavanaugh wasn't picked because of his politics, or that he might be confirmed because of them. Hell, the last Trump appointee went on a speaking tour with Mitch McConnell that included an engagement at Trump International Hotel.

I'm not sure I understand what that anecdote has to do with anything.

The fact that you don't is part of the problem, TGD.

Okay.

[Symmetry]

the "appointed for life" thing doesn't strike me as being a very good idea : bad enough that most politicians are 60+, but leaving very important, often huge decisions in the hands of a bunch of 80 year olds seems a bit ludicrous, no?

Again, the original intent of the Supreme Court was to interpret laws based upon the language of the law (including the Constitution). At some point in US history the Supreme Court became a body that interpreted laws based on things other than the language of the law thereby (1) increasing its own power and (2) taking away legislative and executive power from other branches. Why try to change the Constitution when 9 old people who your team selected (or not, as the case may be) will change it for you?

You don't strike me as a naive person, TGD, so you know that judges are often activists. Especially if they're Supreme Court justices. Then they're active members of one of the branches of government.

See above. People like Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas are not activist judges. You may not like the result of their decisions, but they are acting in the way that was intended. If you think activist judges are preferred, then you have to live with both red team and blue team activist judges. I tend to think everyone would be much happier if the Supreme Court had zero activist justices. Ironically, if everything Kavanaugh says is true, the blue team should be happy that he's not an activist judge as he would not overturn Roe v. Wade; but they believe he's an activist judge because the blue team only nominates activist judges.

It's silly to pretend that Kavanaugh wasn't picked because of his politics, or that he might be confirmed because of them. Hell, the last Trump appointee went on a speaking tour with Mitch McConnell that included an engagement at Trump International Hotel.

I'm not sure I understand what that anecdote has to do with anything.

The fact that you don't is part of the problem, TGD.

Okay.

Alright, fine, I'll respond. All judges are and are not activists. The label is arbitrarily applied. A judge takes action, actively, and isn't really passive in the judicial process.

It's fair to look at their history and politics, TGD. They aren't computers.

[thegreekdog]

Judicial activism has a specific meaning. I will point you to this website (it's called wikipedia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

Judicial restraint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.

It's absolutely fair to look at a nominee's history and politics. I think the Democrats did more than look. They basically accused Kavanaugh of, among other things, lying, in an effort to make themselves look good to primary voters. The whole process was disconcerting and embarrassing.

[Symmetry]

Judicial activism has a specific meaning. I will point you to this website (it's called wikipedia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

Judicial restraint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.

It's absolutely fair to look at a nominee's history and politics. I think the Democrats did more than look. They basically accused Kavanaugh of, among other things, lying, in an effort to make themselves look good to primary voters. The whole process was disconcerting and embarrassing.

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion

So, not really a specific meaning, unless the specifics are so vague as to be virtually meaningless? Your own provided definition basically says it's a matter of opinion about someone's opinion about how they act. That's a very poor definition, TGD.

[thegreekdog]

Judicial activism has a specific meaning. I will point you to this website (it's called wikipedia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

Judicial restraint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.

It's absolutely fair to look at a nominee's history and politics. I think the Democrats did more than look. They basically accused Kavanaugh of, among other things, lying, in an effort to make themselves look good to primary voters. The whole process was disconcerting and embarrassing.

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion

So, not really a specific meaning, unless the specifics are so vague as to be virtually meaningless? Your own provided definition basically says it's a matter of opinion about someone's opinion about how they act. That's a very poor definition, TGD.

No, there is a specific meeting as indicated above. I'm not sure what else to tell you.

[Symmetry]

Judicial activism has a specific meaning. I will point you to this website (it's called wikipedia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

Judicial restraint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.

It's absolutely fair to look at a nominee's history and politics. I think the Democrats did more than look. They basically accused Kavanaugh of, among other things, lying, in an effort to make themselves look good to primary voters. The whole process was disconcerting and embarrassing.

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion

So, not really a specific meaning, unless the specifics are so vague as to be virtually meaningless? Your own provided definition basically says it's a matter of opinion about someone's opinion about how they act. That's a very poor definition, TGD.

No, there is a specific meeting as indicated above. I'm not sure what else to tell you.

You've said plenty. You define activism by using an anonymous wiki writer who says that it's about an opinion on someone else's opinion as to how to act. You know that's weak, TGD.

Basically your definition of activist judges is that someone thinks that they're activist judges. That's no definition at all.

[thegreekdog]

The definition of an activist judge is one who judges based on personal opinion or a desired result and is contrasted with someone showing judicial restraint, a judge who rules according to what the statute (or constitution or prior case law) states.

There is a definition in Black's Law Dictionary: philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States (I got that from wikipedia and there is a "citation needed" note). Anecdotally, I have and continue to use Black's Law Dictionary and it was required in law school.

[Symmetry]

The definition of an activist judge is one who judges based on personal opinion or a desired result and is contrasted with someone showing judicial restraint, a judge who rules according to what the statute (or constitution or prior case law) states.

There is a definition in Black's Law Dictionary: philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States (I got that from wikipedia and there is a "citation needed" note). Anecdotally, I have and continue to use Black's Law Dictionary and it was required in law school.

Is that your new definition? Your last one wasn't great.

[thegreekdog]

The definition of an activist judge is one who judges based on personal opinion or a desired result and is contrasted with someone showing judicial restraint, a judge who rules according to what the statute (or constitution or prior case law) states.

There is a definition in Black's Law Dictionary: philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States (I got that from wikipedia and there is a "citation needed" note). Anecdotally, I have and continue to use Black's Law Dictionary and it was required in law school.

Is that your new definition? Your last one wasn't great.

It's not my definition (inasmuch as I didn't create the phrase or the definition). It's the Black's Law Dictionary definition. I thought the definition I posted from wikipedia would be sufficient. Since it was not, I figured Black's Law Dictionary would be sufficient (given that it's the most widely used law dictionary in the United States). Perhaps that is it not sufficient either but, frankly, I'm not really sure what you're angle is on this one.

To get back on topic, Kavanaugh (and Gorusch) are judges/justices who are more likely to show judicial restraint - they would interpret the law as written rather than apply their own public policy views. Kavanaugh said as much relevant to abortion and stare decisis. This whole thing was the point Senator Sasse was trying to make - the role of the Supreme Court was never to legislate and that when the Supreme Court legislates, it takes power away from the legislature (same thing when the executive takes more power). You end up with situations where unelected officials (judges appointed by the executive branch and bureaucrats appointed by the executive branch) have a significant amount of power in a democracy... and that's not good (as we're seeing now). Senator Sasse did not bring this up, but there are ways to amend the Constitution that are essentially irrelevant in 2018 because that power has been usurped by the Supreme Court.

[Symmetry]

The definition of an activist judge is one who judges based on personal opinion or a desired result and is contrasted with someone showing judicial restraint, a judge who rules according to what the statute (or constitution or prior case law) states.

There is a definition in Black's Law Dictionary: philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States (I got that from wikipedia and there is a "citation needed" note). Anecdotally, I have and continue to use Black's Law Dictionary and it was required in law school.

Is that your new definition? Your last one wasn't great.

It's not my definition (inasmuch as I didn't create the phrase or the definition). It's the Black's Law Dictionary definition.

To get back on topic, Kavanaugh (and Gorusch) are judges/justices who are more likely to show judicial restraint - they would interpret the law as written rather than apply their own public policy views. Kavanaugh said as much relevant to abortion and stare decisis. This whole thing was the point Senator Sasse was trying to make - the role of the Supreme Court was never to legislate.

It's the new definition you chose, although it would be nice if you could quote the definition of an activist judge directly from Black's.

[thegreekdog]

The definition of an activist judge is one who judges based on personal opinion or a desired result and is contrasted with someone showing judicial restraint, a judge who rules according to what the statute (or constitution or prior case law) states.

There is a definition in Black's Law Dictionary: philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions. Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States (I got that from wikipedia and there is a "citation needed" note). Anecdotally, I have and continue to use Black's Law Dictionary and it was required in law school.

Is that your new definition? Your last one wasn't great.

It's not my definition (inasmuch as I didn't create the phrase or the definition). It's the Black's Law Dictionary definition.

To get back on topic, Kavanaugh (and Gorusch) are judges/justices who are more likely to show judicial restraint - they would interpret the law as written rather than apply their own public policy views. Kavanaugh said as much relevant to abortion and stare decisis. This whole thing was the point Senator Sasse was trying to make - the role of the Supreme Court was never to legislate.

It's the new definition you chose, although it would be nice if you could quote the definition of an activist judge directly from Black's.

http://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjec ... Teapot.pdf

[armati]

I dont follow this stuff but this might be related, you guys might be interested.
if not no big deal.

Bombshell: Paul Manafort Agrees To Cooperate With Mueller
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09- ... al-mueller

[karel]

dems just dont want him to get the job,so many lies,unreal...this new stuff about some girl in high school is all garbage,to destroy ther man's life....the dip dipshit who sent this letter supports the radical group metoo movement,how sad the idiot retard dems just cant let it go...trump 2020 baby

[mookiemcgee]

dems just dont want him to get the job,so many lies,unreal...this new stuff about some girl in high school is all garbage,to destroy ther man's life....the dip dipshit who sent this letter supports the radical group metoo movement,how sad the idiot retard dems just cant let it go...trump 2020 baby

You mean all women are now a radical group?

[karel]

just me too movement,antifa,black lives matter,all left racist groups

[mookiemcgee]

just me too movement,antifa,black lives matter,all left racist groups

Oh ok, so only the women who have been raped by their bosses are part of the extremist group. Thanks for clarifying

[karel]

just me too movement,antifa,black lives matter,all left racist groups

Oh ok, so only the women who have been raped by their bosses are part of the extremist group. Thanks for clarifying

blah,blah,half the shit turned out to be fake,all they are out to do is kill someones career

[DoomYoshi]

Hmm... I thought this thread should be about Aidan Kavanagh, a Catholic scholar who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Turns out he's dead though.