It wasn’t meant to be a blanket statement, it’s just me being frustrated that more often than not Anglo Catholics I know personally have the tendency to really be obssesed with people with vagina’s medical decisions (one friend’s mother voted for Drumpf for that sole reason and had the gall to us it as her excuse when she was questioned about the “pussy tape” comments). I apologize that it implied a blanket statement.
He'll say whatever he has to in order to further his right-wing agenda, no doubt. The most dangerous thing he'll do is give Trump cover by joining with the other neo nazis on the court to protect Trump from impeachment or prosecution. He's too highly partisan to ever be trusted to interpret the Constitution impartially.
The 14th Amendment, section 3 is why the GOP is all in on protecting Trump. I'm speculating that MANY republican Congresspeople and Senators are involved, directly or indirectly with the conspiracy between themselves and the Russians to tamper with the bogus election which gave us Trump. I believe that the GOP has been tampering with election results for years, so taking that one more little step to get help from the Russians didn't seem to them as that big of a deal, but they screwed up. It's treasonous. So they're all in because if Trump goes down and the Big Secret gets out, they're all out of office (at a minimum), and extremely exposed to do big jail time (at the maximum).
"Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
during the viet nam era, friend of mine got a pretty nice assignment: Waterskiing instructor at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola. Said he was the only enlisted man in the Navy with his own command (the ski boat).
The stance taken by the author, against what he calls "strict constructionism" is both superficial and misinformed.
The author also does not understand why deference to the political branches and to the states is far better for the Republic and the nation than is judicial activism of the sorts which negate the political branches, or which just makes stuff up that does not appear in the Constitution or in actual legislation.
Take abortion, for example. As Justice Ginsburg has noted [https://www.elitedaily.com/...], all that was necessary in Roe v Wade was for the Court to invalidate the Texas law that outlawed abortion on privacy grounds. The decision (have you actually read it, or the predecessor decision in Griswold? No, I thought not.) sets forth the allowable constitutional interests of the states in regulating each trimester of pregnancy with reasons that a legislature could have found after exhaustive hearings, but which Justice Blackmun made up while poking around the library of his former client, the Mayo Clinic. The irony is that by 1972, several states had already loosened or eliminated abortion restrictions. Our politics and sense of unity would be in better shape if most abortion issues had been settled by the states, rather than seven elderly attorneys, assuming for the sake of argument that the inferred constitutional privacy/autonomy interest outweighs prohibition. Imagine if we could subtract from the anti-abortion forces those people who care less about a woman's right to choose and more about not having a supposed elite court majority dictate what should have been a legislative choice. The result would have been that different states would have come up with different approaches, but the rights available would be the result of a democratic process.
The kind of judicial activism Kavanaugh rightly decries can just as easily be used by reactionary/conservatives to block "progressive" legislation. This has happened in our history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi.... It also almost happened to Obamacare.
Anything that allows them complete control over people's bodies is what they mean by "strict constructionist" especially when they know he will toady to their political needs.
You are fine, Kavanaugh is a evil contagion that needs to be destroyed by fire.
It wasn’t meant to be a blanket statement, it’s just me being frustrated that more often than not Anglo Catholics I know personally have the tendency to really be obssesed with people with vagina’s medical decisions (one friend’s mother voted for Drumpf for that sole reason and had the gall to us it as her excuse when she was questioned about the “pussy tape” comments). I apologize that it implied a blanket statement.
He'll say whatever he has to in order to further his right-wing agenda, no doubt. The most dangerous thing he'll do is give Trump cover by joining with the other neo nazis on the court to protect Trump from impeachment or prosecution. He's too highly partisan to ever be trusted to interpret the Constitution impartially.
The 14th Amendment, section 3 is why the GOP is all in on protecting Trump. I'm speculating that MANY republican Congresspeople and Senators are involved, directly or indirectly with the conspiracy between themselves and the Russians to tamper with the bogus election which gave us Trump. I believe that the GOP has been tampering with election results for years, so taking that one more little step to get help from the Russians didn't seem to them as that big of a deal, but they screwed up. It's treasonous. So they're all in because if Trump goes down and the Big Secret gets out, they're all out of office (at a minimum), and extremely exposed to do big jail time (at the maximum).
"Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I'm so sorry for your loss. 😢
I'm an Anglo non-Catholic and I don't like him.
during the viet nam era, friend of mine got a pretty nice assignment: Waterskiing instructor at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola. Said he was the only enlisted man in the Navy with his own command (the ski boat).
Point taken...
jesus.
and who are non-Anglo Catholics you presume to speak for, exactly? Latino's? Irish? Congolese? Han Chinese? Native Americans? French and Italians?
The stance taken by the author, against what he calls "strict constructionism" is both superficial and misinformed.
The author also does not understand why deference to the political branches and to the states is far better for the Republic and the nation than is judicial activism of the sorts which negate the political branches, or which just makes stuff up that does not appear in the Constitution or in actual legislation.
Take abortion, for example. As Justice Ginsburg has noted [https://www.elitedaily.com/...], all that was necessary in Roe v Wade was for the Court to invalidate the Texas law that outlawed abortion on privacy grounds. The decision (have you actually read it, or the predecessor decision in Griswold? No, I thought not.) sets forth the allowable constitutional interests of the states in regulating each trimester of pregnancy with reasons that a legislature could have found after exhaustive hearings, but which Justice Blackmun made up while poking around the library of his former client, the Mayo Clinic. The irony is that by 1972, several states had already loosened or eliminated abortion restrictions. Our politics and sense of unity would be in better shape if most abortion issues had been settled by the states, rather than seven elderly attorneys, assuming for the sake of argument that the inferred constitutional privacy/autonomy interest outweighs prohibition. Imagine if we could subtract from the anti-abortion forces those people who care less about a woman's right to choose and more about not having a supposed elite court majority dictate what should have been a legislative choice. The result would have been that different states would have come up with different approaches, but the rights available would be the result of a democratic process.
The kind of judicial activism Kavanaugh rightly decries can just as easily be used by reactionary/conservatives to block "progressive" legislation. This has happened in our history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi.... It also almost happened to Obamacare.
Most of us non-Anglo Catholics don’t like him.
So sorry for your loss, motmelere. I wish nothing but peace to you and your family.
I didn't think of that, Stu.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Anything that allows them complete control over people's bodies is what they mean by "strict constructionist" especially when they know he will toady to their political needs.