The "They've Got Nothing" (on Ketanji) Thread

[ProfX]

I'll answer that question when you tell me what Ketanji's left wing beliefs are.

I can name what I disliked about Scalia's rulings. But this is why I hate hypotheticals. When the vote for his confirmation was held, I don't think everyone knew how he was going to rule in the future.

[gounion]

Yes he should have based on his qualifications. However we are probably better off that he wasn't.
So I answered yours now you answer this

Should Scalia been approved

Bork should NOT have been approved. Being a devout segregationist is a disqualification to me. I guess it isn’t to you.

Plus his taking a promise of a Supreme Court seat for the Saturday Night Massacre from a corrupt President should also be disqualifying.

Or do you not agree? Do you think being an ardent segregationist is fine for the top court of the land? Or corruption?

Yes or no?

On Scalia, there’s nothing Scalia has ever done, before or after, that would be disqualifying. Of course he should have been approved.

[Libertas]

Bork should NOT have been approved. Being a devout segregationist is a disqualification to me. I guess it isn’t to you.

Plus his taking a promise of a Supreme Court seat for the Saturday Night Massacre from a corrupt President should also be disqualifying.

Or do you not agree? Do you think being an ardent segregationist is fine for the top court of the land? Or corruption?

Yes or no?

On Scalia, there’s nothing Scalia has ever done, before or after, that would be disqualifying. Of course he should have been approved.

Lets see if con believes the truth or not, this one is basic.

[Glennfs]

Bork should NOT have been approved. Being a devout segregationist is a disqualification to me. I guess it isn’t to you.

Plus his taking a promise of a Supreme Court seat for the Saturday Night Massacre from a corrupt President should also be disqualifying.

Or do you not agree? Do you think being an ardent segregationist is fine for the top court of the land? Or corruption?

Yes or no?

On Scalia, there’s nothing Scalia has ever done, before or after, that would be disqualifying. Of course he should have been approved.

To get a true picture of what Bork was talking about would take much more than a few words possibly out of context.
However if Bork was a true segregationist then he should not have been approved

[gounion]

To get a true picture of what Bork was talking about would take much more than a few words possibly out of context.
However if Bork was a true segregationist then he should not have been approved

He was certainly a true segregationist. If you don’t know that, you don’t know your history.

And I note you don’t address the corrupt bargain with Nixon.

But being a segregationist never kept you from voting for Storm Thurmond election after election, did it?

[Libertas]

He was certainly a true segregationist. If you don’t know that, you don’t know your history.

And I note you don’t address the corrupt bargain with Nixon.

But being a segregationist never kept you from voting for Storm Thurmond election after election, did it?

Black people marrying white folks and brith control and Gay marriage, etc. Con is on the side of hate and misery, has to be, votes for the party that is.

[gounion]

To get a true picture of what Bork was talking about would take much more than a few words possibly out of context.
However if Bork was a true segregationist then he should not have been approved

BTW, the story of the promise came from Bork himself:

Robert Bork says President Richard Nixon promised him the next Supreme Court vacancy after Bork complied with Nixon’s order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973.

Bork’s recollection of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre that culminated in Cox’s firing is at the center of his slim memoir, “Saving Justice,” that is being published posthumously by Encounter Books. Bork died in December at age 85.

Bork writes that he didn’t know if Nixon actually, though mistakenly, believed he still had the political clout to get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court or was just trying to secure Bork’s continued loyalty as his administration crumbled in the Watergate scandal.

[carmenjonze]

As I have said many times she should be confirmed. Just because I disagree with her liberal beliefs doesn't mean she isn't qualified and shouldnt be confirmed.

However if we had Scalia up today I doubt even one of you openmined liberals would feel the same thing about him

I am proudly closed-minded towards conservative ideologues, including that old dead bigot.

There isn't one rational reason for me or anyone else with any sense, to be open minded towards Scalia's rulings.

[carmenjonze]

Glennfs thinks we're supposed to be "open minded" and grateful for conservative white bigotry as the law of the land. Lol f. this guy.

Antonin Scalia routinely ruled against gay rights. Those opinions explain his philosophy. - Vox

His colleagues, of course, argued that the 14th Amendment protected gay people — by forbidding any level of government from passing discriminatory laws that denied people their fundamental rights.

Scalia rejected the view, claiming the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and their framers made no mention of gay rights and therefore did not intend to protect gay people.

More broadly, Scalia feared that his colleagues were reading their views into the Constitution and dangerously expanding the document's reach, so that the Court could undermine democracy and upend state and federal laws that were, in his view, perfectly legitimate.

For instance, in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, where the Court ruled that states' anti-sodomy laws — which effectively banned gay sex — were unconstitutional, Scalia warned in his dissent that the logic used to strike down the ruling could upend states' laws against same-sex marriage:

Lawrence v. Texas got conservative noses out of our bedrooms, as did Griswold. Conservative whites resent the hell out of any privacy rulings. They're the same people who believe redefining marriage as single-race only is Constitutional. :problem:

Lol Glennfs thinks we OTOH supposed to be "open minded" and grateful for conservative white repression as the law of the land, such as in the form of people like Scalia.

Beyond Scalia, he thinks trans kids are supposed to be grateful for laws that target their parents, women are supposed to be grateful for antiabortion laws in which rapist's families can sue a person who aborts a clump of cells forced on them by a rapist, Muslims are supposed to be grateful for their stupid anti-Sharia laws, and everyone else is supposed to be grateful for their continuation in their dumb anti-woke, anti-CRT laws.



If anyone wonders what every day, banal, run of the mill white supremacy looks like, all you have to do is read Glennfs posts. :problem:

[ProfX]

Antonin Scalia routinely ruled against gay rights. Those opinions explain his philosophy. - Vox

There's my problem with originalism in a nutshell. Yeah, the Constitution doesn't mention gay rights. It also doesn't mention airplanes or aviation. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional? What about NASA? "Space travel isn't in the Constitution!" Are we to be limited only to things explicitly mentioned by people in 1776?

I know our Founders and Framers were Enlightened folk. For their time. And many were also slaveowners, and there were things they did not know about or understand. Of course conservatives favor originalism - it holds us hostage to the limitations of understanding of people in the 18th century. It's of course a good judicial philosophy for reactionaries.

I don't do hypotheticals. I can say I didn't like Scalia's judicial philosophy. I don't think having a different judicial philosophy than originalism means inserting your own personal political views into the document, but it DOES recognize that we interpret the document through growing social understanding in society.

[Libertas]

Is there a list of what is NOT in the Constitution, for obvious reasons in most cases, that is a right today?

[ProfX]

My viewpoint is that the Constitution is a framework, not a straightjacket.

Yes, there are protections against tyranny and authoritarianism/autocracy, for civil liberties and civil rights, for the rights of minorities.

But I've never agreed with this viewpoint that government's powers must be constrained by the imaginations of people in the 18th century. Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state or enumerate it, doesn't mean government can't do it.

[Libertas]

My viewpoint is that the Constitution is a framework, not a straightjacket.

Yes, there are protections against tyranny and authoritarianism/autocracy, for civil liberties and civil rights, for the rights of minorities.

But I've never agreed with this viewpoint that government's powers must be constrained by the imaginations of people in the 18th century. Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state or enumerate it, doesn't mean government can't do it.

My point would be that we have many protected rights that not only arent mentioned in the C but couldnt be for obvious reasons, I just wondered what that list is.

[JoeMemphis]

My viewpoint is that the Constitution is a framework, not a straightjacket.

Yes, there are protections against tyranny and authoritarianism/autocracy, for civil liberties and civil rights, for the rights of minorities.

But I've never agreed with this viewpoint that government's powers must be constrained by the imaginations of people in the 18th century. Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state or enumerate it, doesn't mean government can't do it.

The Constitution isn’t constrained by the imagination of people in the 18th century. There is a process for change. We can and have amended the constitution. And yes, the constitution and out federal government was designed to be limited. It may frustrate some people but if the rights and duties of the federal government are limited to those rights given to it in the constitution and its amendments. What rights are not granted to the federal government or otherwise protected under the constitution are left to the various states.

[ProfX]

I would argue the old model of layer cake federalism is dead.

We now live in the era of cooperative or marble cake federalism.



The powers of the federal government and the state government are intermixed.

Lots of people claim this is or isn't the vision of the Founders. Don't care. However, it is our reality. No reactionary can undo it.

[Libertas]

I know, we can split into two countries, societies.

Now let's look at production and wealth and education in blue vs red states.

We dont need you, you need us.

You can legislate against the rights of people that scare you, we wont, but you wont be able to rely on us anymore.

[Number6]

My point would be that we have many protected rights that not only arent mentioned in the C but couldnt be for obvious reasons, I just wondered what that list is.

A list such as you ask for would never be complete because changes and innovations in society, economics, technology, etc.. are happening more quickly than they did 200 years ago. So instead of asking for a list of things not mentioned in the Constitution we need to focus on how the Constitution deals with these changes and innovations. IMO, the Constitution isn't rigid but it is flexible to allow for changes and innovations. The Founding Fathers didn't do this on purpose because in their time change and innovations then didn't happen as quickly as they do today so they didn't or couldn't anticipate how to handle change and the Constitution. Yes, they made the Constitution amendable but we didn't need a Constitutional amendment for the light bulb, for the telephone, for airplanes or car, for the internet/Twitter/Facebook, etc..

[gounion]

You know, the GOP had an opportunity for on Ketanji. This nominee IS ground-breaking. If the GOP were smart (okay, right, true, that's NEVER going to happen), they would have hailed this nominee. There's really NOTHING wrong with her, she's no socialist, and probably no more liberal than the man she's replacing.

The GOP could have cheered this nominee, only asked pertinent questions about her record and outlook, and then voted heavily for her. Then they could hold it up to the country to show the country that they are NOT misogynist and racist like the Dems say, and they could have went into election season making inroads with women and blacks.

Instead, this WAS a racist and misogynist shitshow, proving everything bad that's been said about them is 100% true.

Making it very important for the GOP to get the racist white males out to vote, because they will lose every other segment of our nation.

[Libertas]

You know, the GOP had an opportunity for on Ketanji. This nominee IS ground-breaking. If the GOP were smart (okay, right, true, that's NEVER going to happen), they would have hailed this nominee. There's really NOTHING wrong with her, she's no socialist, and probably no more liberal than the man she's replacing.

The GOP could have cheered this nominee, only asked pertinent questions about her record and outlook, and then voted heavily for her. Then they could hold it up to the country to show the country that they are NOT misogynist and racist like the Dems say, and they could have went into election season making inroads with women and blacks.

Instead, this WAS a racist and misogynist shitshow, proving everything bad that's been said about them is 100% true.

Making it very important for the GOP to get the racist white males out to vote, because they will lose every other segment of our nation.

They could have done that if they were not vile racist scumbags, but almost all of them are.

[carmenjonze]

I know, we can split into two countries, societies.

Now let's look at production and wealth and education in blue vs red states.

We dont need you, you need us.

You can legislate against the rights of people that scare you, we wont, but you wont be able to rely on us anymore.

There goes The Black Vote that everyone is after every 2 years, then.

[carmenjonze]

The GOP could have cheered this nominee, only asked pertinent questions about her record and outlook, and then voted heavily for her. Then they could hold it up to the country to show the country that they are NOT misogynist and racist like the Dems say,

Except that would be classic tokenism.

and they could have went into election season making inroads with women and blacks.

Depends on which women and which “blacks” you’re talking about.

White women have consistently voted majority-Republican since the Silent Majority era. Too many of them today still see us as an existential threats. That includes KBJ. Supporting her in any way would sure fire lose them votes. So they spent all their time pandering to white racism and ridiculous commiebaiting.

Maybe they even got a few extra pennies for their coffers last week :problem:

[Number6]

Susan Collins says she'll for to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate Republican, said Wednesday she will vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

“I have concluded that she possesses the experience, qualifications and integrity to serve as an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court,” she said in a statement issued by her office.

The senator said she reached her decision after meeting with Jackson twice in person.

Collins said even though she doesn’t agree with Jackson on several issues, she is still qualified to serve on the bench, adding that the Supreme Court confirmation hearings have become overly partisan.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/susan-co ... 7dee636851

Even if Kyrsten Sinema, who hasn't yet committed, votes against her with Joe Manchin voting for her that means Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will have at least 50 votes with VP Harris being the tie breaker. As I said earlier, I think Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will end up with around 53 votes.

[marindem01]

Susan Collins says she'll for to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.


Even if Kyrsten Sinema, who hasn't yet committed, votes against her with Joe Manchin voting for her that means Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will have at least 50 votes with VP Harris being the tie breaker. As I said earlier, I think Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will end up with around 53 votes.

Yeah, that's what I believe as well. Manchin is feeling the heat. Sinema is iffy, but I'm hoping Romney and Murkowski will vote with the majority.

[carmenjonze]

9 mos ago:

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) voted with 49 Democrats to advance Jackson’s nomination to a final vote. - Forbes


Today:

Lindsey Graham says he’ll vote ‘no’ on Ketanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court - Boston Globe

[marindem01]

We have Collins and Manchin to confirm so far. I'm hoping Murkowski and Romney see the light, but even if that Arizona Shit Stain Sineam votes no, Justice Jackson is a shoe in.