New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
Kavanaugh will probably vote to overturn Roe vs Wade if a case comes up. After all, he tried to make an undocumented girl not have access to abortion while in DHHS custody.
Click to expand...


This is my biggest problem with him. He tried to deny a legal medical procedure to a person for no reason other than that the current federal administration doesn't like it.

Unfortunately, he'll get pushed through. A couple Democratic senators will get to yell at him for a few minutes, but he'll go through.

ETA: On the facts, a judge had already found that the pregnant 17 year-old girl met the exception to the parental consent law. Kavanaugh didn't dissent based on her age or lack of parental consent. He specifically stated that the US government had the right to obstruct actions it found morally offensive.
 
Last edited:
2 more reasons people should be a little concerned about Kavanaugh...

- He is against against Net neutrality (although the FCC is repealing net neutrality, there are some court cases that may end up in the supreme court.)

- He sees no problem with the NSA's data collection of phone meta-data

I really have the wonder about the logical disconnect in the brains of some of Trump's supporters (such as the type that read InfoWars.) Here they are, so concerned about government conspiracies and overreach, yet they support Trump, who ended up nominating a judge who is likely to allow such overreach to continue.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tech-net-neutrality-nsa/
 
JoeMorgue said:
The one thing is of all the three branches SCOTUS is the one that marches to party line the least. Both parties have nominated safe, presumably "on their side" Justices only to have them break rank at least some of the time.
Click to expand...

Souter is the most recent prime example, although I should also give a nod to Chief Justice Roberts, who went liberal on the most important SC decision of his career to date.

It will be amusing to hear all the Democratic senators blathering on about the importance of stare decisis over the next week or two. Never mind that many of the important cases decided over the last 60 years or so have ignored historical precedent. Brown v. Board of Education is simply the most obvious example--would anybody care to contend that Plessy should have remained the law of the land, and segregation in education continued? How about Dred Scott or Koramatsu?
 
They won't overturn Roe, just hollow it out.

They will, however, rubber-stamp any and all GOP gerrymandering and anti-LGBT discrimination.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If she'd had a baby in the US it would have been a citizen, and then she could stay.
Click to expand...


The baby could stay, but they could still deport the mother. It happens. "You have to leave, your kid can stay." Unsurprisingly, many illegal parents tend to take their children with them. "Hardship on an American citizen" isn't what it used to be.
 
Loss Leader said:
The baby could stay, but they could still deport the mother. It happens. "You have to leave, your kid can stay." Unsurprisingly, many illegal parents tend to take their children with them. "Hardship on an American citizen" isn't what it used to be.
Click to expand...

Not to defend this in anyway, but the fact that the United States practices "Birthright" citizenship when most other major developed western democracies don't is a factor in all this.

Why Jus Soli is the default on the American continent but nearly unheard of in Europe, Asia, or Africa is not a crazy question to ask.
 
Brainster said:
It will be amusing to hear all the Democratic senators blathering on about the importance of stare decisis over the next week or two. Never mind that many of the important cases decided over the last 60 years or so have ignored historical precedent. Brown v. Board of Education is simply the most obvious example--would anybody care to contend that Plessy should have remained the law of the land, and segregation in education continued? How about Dred Scott or Koramatsu?
Click to expand...
First of all, I think there is a difference between a precedent that EXTENDS human rights/equality and one that limits human rights/equality. American society values (as well as laws and judicial rulings) have given more freedoms over the years and some people don't really want to lose that.

Secondly, are you actually saying its perfectly acceptable to (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade because other historical precedents have been overturned in the past?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom