POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
No shit it is. It's always safe in your mom's basement when you don't pay bills.
CNN is the best comedy on TV.
"This pick is all about Russia"
"This pick is all about Russia"
Actually we all should have all been dead years ago. Remember the Virginia governor said 93 million Americans died a day from gun violence.
James Clapper on CNN. LMFAO.
People don't give a shit what you think
People don't give a shit what you think
So @cardkilla dont you find it odd, that libs are attacking the federalist society now...you know those that follow the constitution after repeatedly crying for 2 years that "we must unite against Trumps authoritarian regime". Kind of ironic
Liberals are going crazy tonight and I love it.
Trump will easily win next election.
Trump will easily win next election.
I'm going to bed now and I'll sleep well knowing that RBG is 86 years old.
I wonder if Peters will also tweet the vast majority of NBA players are black.
Maybe Bernie can put the family up in one of his three houses. Because if true Socialist needs anything, it’s three houses and a net worth of over a million.
Maybe bernie can tell us what one of his quick fix solutions are..since his answer to everything is youre all in the gutter and it's this person's fault and I'll solve it but cant explain how...just the govt will handle it. Gonna be real weird when he has to explain how socialists countries allow no immigration but somehow open borders will sustain under the US on everyone elses taxes. Of course he cant. But considering its Bernie...I'll just assume this is all fantasy.
But, why isnt the mom charged with child abuse?
I love how Bernie would say Wall Street will pay for it. As if that abstract term magically provides a pot of gold. Sanders is not only a wealthy hypocrite, but he really isn’t that bright.
Judge Kavanaugh: Interpretive Principles as a Way of Life
One of the clearest windows into what drives Judge Kavanaugh as a jurist came during his speech at the Antonin Scalia Law School some time before I joined the faculty. He spoke of Justice Scalia as a role model, praising his courage to stand up to pressure from all sides and interpret the law as it is written:
Judge Kavanaugh expounded further on statutory interpretation and the proper role of the statutory text in his Harvard Law Review book review of Second Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann’s work Judging Statutes. Judge Kavanaugh gave a clarion call for judges to form consensus around a narrowing of the concept of statutory ambiguity. Judge Kavanaugh pointed out that many of the interpretive doctrines through which judges often smuggle policy preferences into legal texts are doctrines of ambiguity where interpreters conclude the text does not answer the relevant interpretive question, leaving them free to apply the deference doctrine or values-based canon of their choice. He observed:
Among many other speeches and writings, Judge Kavanaugh also delivered the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at the Heritage Foundation in October 2017. During the speech he called on individuals to, “n the next few days, block out 30 minutes of time and read the text of the Constitution word for word.” He described the Constitution as a document of “majestic specificity”—one of the Judge’s insightful turns of phrase. And he then described how fidelity to the Constitution’s core structure impacts so many of the cases that have come before him and his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit:
One of the clearest windows into what drives Judge Kavanaugh as a jurist came during his speech at the Antonin Scalia Law School some time before I joined the faculty. He spoke of Justice Scalia as a role model, praising his courage to stand up to pressure from all sides and interpret the law as it is written:
What did Justice Scalia stand for as a judge? It’s not complicated, but it is profound and worth repeating often. The judge’s job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution. Don’t shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is for the amendment process. Changing policy within constitutional bounds is for the legislatures. Remember that the structure of the Constitution – the separation of powers and federalism – are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are at least as essential to protecting individual liberty as the individual rights guaranteed in that text. And remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits. Simple but profound.
In a time when folks on all sides seem to debate the meaning of judicial restraint, wondering how to read the tea leaves on prospective Supreme Court nominees, Judge Kavanaugh has explained his understanding of the proper role of the judge: It is not to be deferential or practice “restraint” for its own sake. Rather, the role of the judge in cases and controversies is to find against government action where it veers from the statutory and constitutional text but then defer to the other branches where the Constitution leaves decisions up to them:
Was Justice Scalia a deferential judge who was reluctant to overturn the decisions of the legislature, the President, the agencies, the states? Or did he believe in a more aggressive role for the Judiciary in second-guessing those decisions? The answer of course is both. In constitutional disputes, Justice Scalia recognized that the courts have an essential role in aggressively protecting the individual rights actually spelled out in the Constitution...
But on the flip side, courts have no legitimate role, Justice Scalia would say, in creating new rights not spelled out in the Constitution. On those issues, he believed in complete deference to the political branches and the states. Deference not for the sake of deference. But deference because the Constitution gave the Court no legitimate role in the case...
Put simply, he was deferential when the Constitution and statutes called for deference. He was not deferential when they did not. Justice Scalia was an apostle of restraint and an apostle of engagement. He believed in the passive virtues, but he also believed in the active virtues. He understood that the role of the court was not to defer in all cases, nor to vote for the individual right in all cases. Whether to do so or not depended on the text and history of the constitutional provision in question.
Judge Kavanaugh expounded further on statutory interpretation and the proper role of the statutory text in his Harvard Law Review book review of Second Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann’s work Judging Statutes. Judge Kavanaugh gave a clarion call for judges to form consensus around a narrowing of the concept of statutory ambiguity. Judge Kavanaugh pointed out that many of the interpretive doctrines through which judges often smuggle policy preferences into legal texts are doctrines of ambiguity where interpreters conclude the text does not answer the relevant interpretive question, leaving them free to apply the deference doctrine or values-based canon of their choice. He observed:
Statutory interpretation has improved dramatically over the last generation, thanks to the extraordinary influence of Justice Scalia. Statutory text matters much more than it once did. If the text is sufficiently clear, the text usually controls. The text of the law is the law. . . .
By emphasizing the centrality of the words of the statute, Justice Scalia brought about a massive and enduring change in American law. But more work remains. As Justice Scalia’s separate opinions in recent years suggest, certain aspects of statutory interpretation are still troubling. In my view, one primary problem stands out. Several substantive principles of interpretation — such as constitutional avoidance, use of legislative history, and Chevron — depend on an initial determination of whether a text is clear or ambiguous. But judges often cannot make that initial clarity versus ambiguity decision in a settled, principled, or evenhanded way.
The upshot is that judges sometimes decide (or appear to decide) high-profile and important statutory cases not by using settled, agreed upon rules of the road, but instead by selectively picking from among a wealth of canons of construction. Those decisions leave the bar and the public understandably skeptical that courts are really acting as neutral, impartial umpires in certain statutory interpretation cases.
He continued on to emphasize that “[t]he American rule of law . . . depends on neutral, impartial judges who say what the law is, not what the law should be”:By emphasizing the centrality of the words of the statute, Justice Scalia brought about a massive and enduring change in American law. But more work remains. As Justice Scalia’s separate opinions in recent years suggest, certain aspects of statutory interpretation are still troubling. In my view, one primary problem stands out. Several substantive principles of interpretation — such as constitutional avoidance, use of legislative history, and Chevron — depend on an initial determination of whether a text is clear or ambiguous. But judges often cannot make that initial clarity versus ambiguity decision in a settled, principled, or evenhanded way.
The upshot is that judges sometimes decide (or appear to decide) high-profile and important statutory cases not by using settled, agreed upon rules of the road, but instead by selectively picking from among a wealth of canons of construction. Those decisions leave the bar and the public understandably skeptical that courts are really acting as neutral, impartial umpires in certain statutory interpretation cases.
In my view, this goal is not merely personal preference but a constitutional mandate in a separation of powers system. Article I assigns Congress, along with the President, the power to make laws. Article III grants the courts the “judicial Power” to interpret those laws in individual “Cases” and “Controversies.” When courts apply doctrines that allow them to rewrite the laws (in effect), they are encroaching on the legislature’s Article I power.
Judge Kavanaugh was published again on interpretive theory in the Notre Dame Law Review in 2014. This time on constitutional interpretive theory. He “explain[ed] how the text of the Constitution creates a structure—a separation of powers—that protects liberty.” He emphasized that “one fact matters above all in constitutional interpretation and in understanding the grand sweep of constitutional jurisprudence—and that one factor is the precise wording of the constitutional text.” He then covered in depth the Founders’ development of the constitutional separation of powers, the role of the separate branches without our system of government, and the connection between this constitutional structure and the safeguarding of individual rights.
Among many other speeches and writings, Judge Kavanaugh also delivered the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at the Heritage Foundation in October 2017. During the speech he called on individuals to, “n the next few days, block out 30 minutes of time and read the text of the Constitution word for word.” He described the Constitution as a document of “majestic specificity”—one of the Judge’s insightful turns of phrase. And he then described how fidelity to the Constitution’s core structure impacts so many of the cases that have come before him and his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit:
If you were in my judicial chambers, you would hear me often saying to my clerks: “Every case is a separation of powers case.” And I believe that. “Who decides?” is the basic separation of powers question at the core of so many legal disputes.
And the bread and butter of our docket on the DC Circuit is interpretation of statutes, usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority or statutory limits. That question of policing the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches—our administrative law docket—constitutes one of the most critical separation of powers issues in American law. And the most important factor is the precise wording of the statutory text...
In the end, Judge Kavanaugh has indicated that for him it comes down to consistency with statutory text and, ultimately, the Constitution. The beauty of a judge with 12 years on the appeals court that stands at the front line of review of major administrative agency action and complex questions on governmental structure is that it is clear exactly where he stands. Not just on his judicial philosophy but also on his ability to persuade others to more closely follow the constitutional text. His consistent record of faithfulness to law, placing constitutional principle over policy, drives Judge Kavanaugh’s position as thought leader and faithful judge.And the bread and butter of our docket on the DC Circuit is interpretation of statutes, usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority or statutory limits. That question of policing the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches—our administrative law docket—constitutes one of the most critical separation of powers issues in American law. And the most important factor is the precise wording of the statutory text...
US, Afghan Special Forces Capture IS De Facto Capital in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON / NANGARHAR PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN — U.S. and Afghan Special Forces on Sunday captured Islamic State's de facto caliphate capital in eastern Nangarhar province of Afghanistan.
Josh Thiel, a U.S. Special Forces battalion commander, told VOA that local nationals, who apparently were tired of IS atrocities, requested support to clear IS militants from Gur Guri and Papin villages.
"The operation started at the end of May. They [special forces] put direct fire on the ISIS capital caliphate and put it under siege for about four days. And it took the three commando companies five days to clear Papin and Gur Guri [of IS militants]," Theil added, using an acronym for Islamic State.
U.S. forces claim that more than 150 IS militants were killed during the past two months as they, with their Afghan partners, continue to crack down on IS militants in the area.
WASHINGTON / NANGARHAR PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN — U.S. and Afghan Special Forces on Sunday captured Islamic State's de facto caliphate capital in eastern Nangarhar province of Afghanistan.
Josh Thiel, a U.S. Special Forces battalion commander, told VOA that local nationals, who apparently were tired of IS atrocities, requested support to clear IS militants from Gur Guri and Papin villages.
"The operation started at the end of May. They [special forces] put direct fire on the ISIS capital caliphate and put it under siege for about four days. And it took the three commando companies five days to clear Papin and Gur Guri [of IS militants]," Theil added, using an acronym for Islamic State.
U.S. forces claim that more than 150 IS militants were killed during the past two months as they, with their Afghan partners, continue to crack down on IS militants in the area.
The Democratic Party left me behind — and I'm not alone
I am a Democrat who has spent the last two years often criticizing my own party and fellow Democrats.
Yeah, I’m a bad Democrat, I know.
I have friends and readers asking me, “Are you still a liberal?” and “Have you changed parties?” and “Why are you seemingly defending Trump?”
I’ve been a loyal Democrat for about 15 years. As someone who became a citizen in 2006, I became a Democrat during the George W. Bush years, because I liked the party’s anti-war, pro-minority, pro-environment, pro-little guy positions.
But the 2016 election was an eye-opener for me. To use the current political jargon, I became “woke,” in some very different ways, and I got “red-pilled.”
The Democratic Party and its followers have left me for many reasons, but here are a few examples:
As a citizen, I see myself more as a political orphan — neither Democrat or Republican.
For an opinion writer, self-identifying as a Democrat (or Republican) can be constricting. It can consciously or unconsciously make you hew to positions, make you defend the indefensible. It can give you cognitive dissonance.
For example: Defending Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the Democratic Party’s current far-left stance on immigration would’ve required me to be dishonest about my views or to contort my opinions into impossible positions.
I see myself as a political independent these days, who’ll opine based on what she sees and thinks, not along party lines.
For what it’s worth, renegades like me are like that canary in the coal mine: We’re trying to warn Democrats when they’re tone-deaf or still don’t get it.
I am a Democrat who has spent the last two years often criticizing my own party and fellow Democrats.
Yeah, I’m a bad Democrat, I know.
I have friends and readers asking me, “Are you still a liberal?” and “Have you changed parties?” and “Why are you seemingly defending Trump?”
I’ve been a loyal Democrat for about 15 years. As someone who became a citizen in 2006, I became a Democrat during the George W. Bush years, because I liked the party’s anti-war, pro-minority, pro-environment, pro-little guy positions.
But the 2016 election was an eye-opener for me. To use the current political jargon, I became “woke,” in some very different ways, and I got “red-pilled.”
The Democratic Party and its followers have left me for many reasons, but here are a few examples:
- The party and its followers have been showing illiberal tendencies for some time.
- It has gone off the rails on immigration, free speech, identity politics and some other issues — a topic I’ll defer for another day.
- I’m no Trump supporter, but I’ve been horrified and repulsed by the political and cultural left’s hatred, demonization and mistreatment of President Trump, his family, his administration officials and his voters, which is even worse (if that’s possible) than what the right did to President Obama.
As a citizen, I see myself more as a political orphan — neither Democrat or Republican.
For an opinion writer, self-identifying as a Democrat (or Republican) can be constricting. It can consciously or unconsciously make you hew to positions, make you defend the indefensible. It can give you cognitive dissonance.
For example: Defending Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the Democratic Party’s current far-left stance on immigration would’ve required me to be dishonest about my views or to contort my opinions into impossible positions.
I see myself as a political independent these days, who’ll opine based on what she sees and thinks, not along party lines.
For what it’s worth, renegades like me are like that canary in the coal mine: We’re trying to warn Democrats when they’re tone-deaf or still don’t get it.
I am no fan of Mitch McConnell because I think he is the biggest bull gator in the Swamp BUT, I would like to thank him for saving the Supreme Court. The thought of Hillary Clinton making Supreme Court picks would put a sane person over the edge.
Why people on the right should chill on the RINO stuff in certain areas where someone like Susan Collins is the very best you can hope for.
Wonder how long till some made up #metoo nonsense rears its head? The lefts favorite ploy
Same. History won't do that move justice. By all indications it was an insane gamble, but trump pulled it off and the move influenced the court and therefore the nation forever.
Same. History won't do that move justice. By all indications it was an insane gamble, but trump pulled it off and the move influenced the court and therefore the nation forever.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
And breatsfeeding...
The Democrat Party has used the courts to get their agenda made into law for decades now. They can not get their radical issues passed through the legislative process so they resort on a liberal court to make bad law. Now they might have to win elections and legislate their platform rather than litigate it before a liberal judge. Maybe this is one of the reasons they are screaming and yelling in the streets and threaten violence. This is who they are and all they have. Chaos, strife, law breaking and turmoil comes straight out of their Marxist manual.
If kavanaugh is confirmed, would be time to challenge the legality of the notion that ANY person born here is automatically granted citizenship. The citizenship should be limited to situations where at least one (or both) parents were in the United States legally.
Imagine someone owns a 1/2 interest in a piece of property. I cannot convey any greater interest in that property. I can't just confer full ownership just because I want to.
One cannot convey greater right than they have. That's the logical conclusion. Doesn't matter if it's citizenship or property ownership. That needs to be the interpretation made by scotus. And now's the time to make it.
Imagine someone owns a 1/2 interest in a piece of property. I cannot convey any greater interest in that property. I can't just confer full ownership just because I want to.
One cannot convey greater right than they have. That's the logical conclusion. Doesn't matter if it's citizenship or property ownership. That needs to be the interpretation made by scotus. And now's the time to make it.
I can assure you Kavanaugh will not stop me from feasting on my wife’s big boobs not matter what his opinion is.
The "Borking" of Kavanaugh has begun. Since libs can not argue the real issues that we face they have to resort to "Sex Scares". So they scream a woman can not kill the baby in the womb anymore or men and women can't suck on each other anymore. All lies.. A woman will still be able to kill her baby and men were sucking on men and women sucking on women long before the United States of America came into existence and some will be doing so long after the US of A is gone.
It is typical Marxist BS that is the foundation of the Dims Code of Conduct.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Just love all the net neutrality hand-wringing. So,so funny. Life is so bad since it was killed so short in life.Similar threads
