• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

acbytesla said:
I'm really curious that now the Republicans have a majority of what appears to be right to lifers whether they will actually reverse Roe v Wade? I mean I have always expected that they will support the screwing of the middle class and the poor because that is what Republicans have been doing my entire life. But I've always been skeptical that when this day came that they would actually do this even though they have always led the Christian right that they would.
Click to expand...
My opinion FWIW:

The anti-abortionists are going to be disappointed when abortion is not outlawed. The Federalist Society has used the antiabortionists because they are a guaranteed voting block.

The creeps in Mississippi and similar states are going to be ecstatic when all their challenged attempts to make abortion inaccessible are approved by SCOTUS.

On the other hand, the people in the Federalist Society that have been lobbying successfully to stack the court are more interested in quashing unions and worker's rights. They are all about profits for the rich and removing any safety nets they might have to pay for with taxes. And any attempt at equal rights for women, the LGBTQ community, affirmative action, and minority rights are inconsistent with the FS goals.

Kavanaugh might well be a Catholic anti-abortionist. He will certainly not be a friend of women in any way. Just look at his frat-boy laughing at sexually assaulting women if you want examples. Gender equal pay measures, forget it. Lynn Cheney and Thomas' wife, Ginny are both women against women's equality.

Ginny Thomas
Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the most partisan of any Supreme Court justice spouse ever, according to The New York Times, is the founder of Liberty Central, a conservative group that seeks to end the “tyranny” of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

In January, the high court ruled it illegal to limit the spending of businesses and organized labor, clearing the way for big-money interests to pour huge sums into the 2010 election. In order to cloak their spending, many contributors are giving to certain nonprofit groups, like Liberty Central, which are not required by law to disclose their financial backers.

Ginny Thomas launched her organization in late 2009 with two unidentified gifts of $500,000 and $50,000.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Society are taking the SCOTUS to a new level of oppression of the 99% in favor of the 1%. This is not new.

One only need look back at their lobbying efforts: The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women
A group of 900 Republican women gathered Monday at the Waldorf Astoria to hear about why women should rally behind George W. Bush. We hear former first lady Barbara Bush and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney at the event and we speak with radio host Laura Flanders about her new book The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women.
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't want to get too far off topic. This isn't about Roe v Wade, it's about the Federalist Society goals.
 
Travis said:
It is unhealthy that I'm upset that we now have a Supreme Court that will soon rule that only white Christian men have basic rights? That only men will be allowed to own property, vote or read books in public? That soon we will start burning people at the stake again for various religious crimes? That soon this nation will be an unlivable hellhole with tens of millions dead in the concentration camps that will definitely also be ruled as "constitutional?"

I choose to be upset about the nightmare that is about to descend on this nation.
Click to expand...


"The Democrats used to be a political party, now they're a mental health crisis." -- Popular Meme
 
Belz... said:
You don't think he might overturn Roe vs Wade or other similar laws? I'd think that could be pretty disruptive.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade isn't a law. And no, he has given no indication that he would and multiple indications that he wouldn't overturn it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Roe v Wade isn't a law. And no, he has given no indication that he would and multiple indications that he wouldn't overturn it.
Click to expand...
Kav has also given clear indication he'll say anything to get appointed, including lie. So how does anyone know?
 
Ziggurat said:
By looking at his actual track record of decisions, obviously.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming he ruled upholding Roe v Wade?

The Intercept: Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade last week and almost no one noticed
Brett Kavanaugh needs to give Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) plausible deniability regarding his anti-abortion views. Collins, who is nominally pro-choice, said shortly before Kavanaugh’s nomination that a Supreme Court nominee “who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me.” But she’s spent much of the time since his nomination looking for excuses to claim that Kavanaugh’s views on Roe are uncertain.

Well, they aren’t. Even before Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court nominee, his record indicated fairly clearly that he opposes Roe. And he cleared up any remaining doubt on the second day of his confirmation hearing — despite the fact that almost no one noticed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
By looking at his actual track record of decisions, obviously.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's a good indication. As an appellate judge, he was bound by precedent, and Roe was precedent, as he said repeatedly in his hearings, and even in his opinions, at least once anyway.

As a Supreme Court Justice, he can vote to overturn Roe.

I think he will, if given the opportunity, but then again, I though Souter and O'Connor would as well. It's really hard to predict how these people will behave, although there haven't been any real surprises since the Bush administration, i.e. the first Bush administration.
 
What Kavanaugh's confirmation would mean

1. Kavanaugh on the Court would fundamentally reshape it in a more conservative direction for potentially decades to come. Kavanaugh is without question more conservative than the man he is replacing -- Anthony Kennedy. Whereas Kennedy was regarded as the swing vote on the court for many years, Kavanaugh's ascension would change all that. There would likely be a relatively reliable 5-4 conservative majority on the court.

2. Trump would be a big winner. Circumstances have conspired to hand Trump a major opportunity: To put two justices on the Supreme Court within his first two years in office. Putting Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) on the bench would buy Trump a whole lot of goodwill among conservatives as he heads into his 2020 re-election bid.

-- CNN (Oct 5, 2018)
Click to expand...


A reliable 5-4 conservative majority. I like the sound of that!
 
Minoosh said:
It's not inevitable. It's really not. If this isn't hyperbole, I'll go out on a limb and say ... you're wrong. That stuff isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Five years ago, would you have believed that

► The American people would elect a President KNOWING that he had more than a dozen women accusing him of sexual assault?

► The same US president would verbally attack and insult America's NATO allies, and suck up to Putin, a sworn enemy?

► The same US President would publicly tell over 5000 verifiable lies to the American people?

► The US Government would separate thousands of children from their parents, and keep the children in cages, away from their parents for almost a year?

► The US Senate would elevate a serial liar and perjurer, and suspected sexual predator to the Supreme Court?

Never say never.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom