Image of the day

Captured by
Shane Yarnall

LDN 1622

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

May 18, 2022 05:12 AM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Maybe start here.  http://pennstatelawreview.org/articles/114%20Penn%20St.%20L.%20Rev.%20415.pdf

Sure, the Penn State Law Review is not Vox (see your opening post)  But I think you'll find this credible.  As I mentioned above, Thomas is a free speech hero.  Restrictions based upon content are not in his DNA.  Frankly, I have no idea why you hate him so much.  Jim
I can't stomach Thomas because I think he's the antithesis of what a judge should be. He's not a judge; he's a conservative advocate. I believe a judge should be unbiased but in the case of Thomas, he's advocated for the overturn of Roe Vs Wade before actually hearing the case. I suppose one could say you'd know how liberal judges would vote on the latter case as well but they didn't, unlike their conservative colleagues, swear under oath in their testimony to congress that precedent and settled law guided their thinking on the issue and then collectively, behind closed doors, come to an entirely different conclusion when the case came before them...

May 18, 2022 09:54 AM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer


Of course he advocates overturning RvsW.....it was the single largest failure of the USSC in its history. Unconstitutional to its core and pushed through by a liberal court legislating from the bench. It is long overdue and in fact should have never happened in the 1st place. 
While you have your opinion on Roe v Wade and I have mine, my point here is that it's not the role or the function of a judge to advocate anything, particularly before the case is even heard. The attorneys who present the arguments are the ones who do the advocating of either side and it's the judge's function to objectively decide the case. But that's not what Thomas did, he advocated overturning Roe v Wade before hearing any arguments. In 2000, he wrote of Roe: “Abortion is a unique act, in which a woman’s exercise of control over her own body ends, depending on one’s view, human life or potential human life. That's not what a judge should be doing, period.

May 18, 2022 11:42 PM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

If you think that any liberal justices' mind was not made up on Roe before the arguments, you are being extremely naïve.  Roe has been around and been controversial for a very long time.  They all had firm opinions formed many years ago.  

Regarding the confirmation hearings, all of the recent nominees said accurately that they respect precedent.  They do.  They did not and would not testify that the weight of precedent was 100% dispositive of any case.  The argument that any justice lied or misled the committee is pure BS.  I have seen no specific quote from a confirmation hearing that was not true.  Specifically, saying that Roe was "settled law" or "strong precedent" at a confirmation hearing is an absolutely true and honest answer.   No sitting justice testified that Roe was sacred or impossible to overturn.  They all appropriately dodged those sorts of questions as did the liberals when they were grilled by the partisan hacks on the committee.  No justice ever testifies about a specific case, at least not since "Borked" became a word.

Jim
"Sen. Susan Collins is shocked, stunned, and astounded that two conservative, Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices may have deceived her regarding their position on abortion rights."
"According to a reported draft majority opinion leaked to Politico, both Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have voted to overturn established precedent protecting abortion rights, a precedent Collins has repeatedly said they told her they believed was “settled law.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/susan-collins-kavanaugh-gorsuch-abortion-1346875/
"Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told CNN that conservative justices “misled the Senate, with the intention of getting their confirmation vote, with the intention of overruling Roe.” She added that “they would purposefully create the impression that they would not overrule settled precedent, and that it was not only deserving of due weight and the importance of precedent, but because it had been reaffirmed, that it deserves more weight.”
"Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu said in a May 7 tweet: “Multiple Supreme Court Justices lied during their confirmation process about their view of #RoeVWade and stare decisis. Those are the facts.” (Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” is a legal doctrine that courts generally follow when ruling on a similar case.)"
"Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both supporters of abortion rights, also have said the opinion goes against what justices had said."
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

May 19, 2022 12:16 AM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

I would much prefer to see a quote from the justices that you or a Senator thinks are misleading.  The opinion pieces from Rolling Stone and CNN are extremely biased. 

Incidentally, Roe is "settled law"  It has been the law for over 50 years!  There is no way Collins thought that a nominee acknowledging that Roe is "settled law" means that it could never be overturned.  She is not the naïve.   
First, as far as the two Republican senator are concerned:
"Collins, who voted to confirm Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, said in a May 3 statement: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”
"Murkowski, who had backed Gorsuch and Barrett, told NBC News: “If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not—it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent.”
The judges as nominees:
"Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
Gorsuch: "the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.
Durbin: Do you accept that?
Gorsuch: "That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes."
"Kavanaugh avoided answering whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or how he might rule in a future case challenging that court ruling. Instead, Kavanaugh repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was “settled as precedent.”
Feinstein brought up news reports that Kavanaugh told Collins in an August 2018 private meeting that Roe v. Wade was “settled law.” When Feinstein asked Kavanaugh to explain what he meant by that, he said:
Kavanaugh: "Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. " "And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992."
"And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case."
Barrett: Of the above two, the handmaiden knew how to keep the starch in her skirt: "Barrett said that if a question about overturning Roe or Casey or any other case comes before her, “I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”
I think everybody knew what Barrett's agenda was after hearing that...

May 19, 2022 01:04 AM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'm not sure what your point is.  Everyone knew that Trump was going to appoint conservative justices.  The justices were evasive and non-committal during the confirmation hearings.  That is sadly the way the confirmation game must be played, since the D's shamefully attacked Bork, Thomas, and most recently Kavanaugh.  The liberal nominees do it too.  No justice lied, according to at least me and the Annenberg Public Policy Center.  So, what is your point?

I highlighted the quote above, because I think you will find, if you read the last couple of years of my posts, that I too predicted that the Trump justices would not vote to overturn Roe, because of precedent and because of the social upheaval this would cause.  I was wrong (probably).  Same as Murkowski and Collins.  I am not shocked, stunned, disappointed or dismayed though!  Neither are Murkowski and Collins in my guess.  They are saying they are because they are pro-choice Republicans who have now voted to confirm the justices who possibly killed Roe.  Unlike me, Collins and Murkowski have to worry about their constituents and their constituent's votes.  I suppose this puts them in a hard spot, but there is no way the (probable) rejection of Roe literally shocked either of them!

And if it did, so what?  The nominees did not lie and they were carefully, but appropriately evasive, as shown in your Fact Check.  Jim  
 
I know what the fact check concludes but here's my point(s):
1. When Kavanaugh was asked what he meant when he said Roe V Wade is settled law, he responded: "I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court..."
In all honesty Jim, you don't think he knows the difference between settled law and precedent? 
2. Gorsuch: "That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes."
In all honest Jim, do you believe he believed what he said and then acted in accordance with it?

May 19, 2022 03:33 AM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Short answers:

1.  Of course he does, as demonstrated in my TLDR answer above.
2.  Yes, and absolutely, as demonstrated in my TLDR answer above.

Jim
Oh, I see, justice K understands the difference between settled law and a precedent when he was working as a lawyer in a Bush administration but he only referred to Roe V wade as settled law because he was explaining it in the context of an email and, either as an explanation for himself or an explanation for whoever he was sending the email to at the time and justice G considered it to be the law of the land up and until the time he overturns it. And neither really matters because it's not better than a super-precedent anyway. Got it...

May 19, 2022 11:05 PM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

I was sort of surprised, based upon the testimony relayed in Rod's FactCheck, that the Senators didn't ask any specific questions.  I did not read the entire transcripts of course.  In the parts I read however, the Senators tended to make speeches, and never got down to asking anything specific, and certainly never followed up.  It is all theater anyway, and has been for a long time.  At least since Bork.  

If a specific question were to be asked it would go like this:

Senator: When Roe v. Wade comes before the Court will you vote to overturn this precedent?

Nominee:  I can't say without hearing the case, and I certainly will keep an open mind.

I think two things are true - The justice is hiding the ball, many of them have strong feelings on contentious and well known cases, but the nomination process is structured as theater, and they are playing their part.  That said, many justices' views evolve over time, so I believe them when they say that they keep an open mind.  

More importantly, the Senator knows that who nominated the justice, whether it was Trump or Biden for KBJ.  With respect to Brown-Jackson, no one who is not actively and dishonestly trying to reconstruct history could legitimately feign surprise when she votes in the future in favor of limits on gun ownership (for example).  We should know where she probably stands on gun issues because Biden nominated her.  We can legitimately be surprised if she votes in favor of gun rights - that sort of shocker happens from time to time.    That said, I am 100% confident that KBJ evaded any gun/2nd Amendment questions during her testimony.  But we still have our expectations because of who nominated her.  

All of that is to say I understand that a lot of people are distressed/angry/furious by the prospect of Roe being overturned.  Shame on them however, if they actually feel duped.  They were not paying attention.  I assume that you yourself do not feel duped?  Jim 
I'm guessing the senators didn't ask specific questions that you may be referring to in the hearings because they asked them in their private meetings with the nominees. That's why we've got a couple of Republican senators feeling duped, as you say...

May 17, 2022 03:47 AM Forum: Politics

The Ted Cruz Supreme Court Decision

Posted By Rod Kaufman

"The Court’s decision in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate is a boon to wealthy candidates. It strikes down an anti-bribery law that limited the amount of money candidates could raise after an election in order to repay loans they made to their own campaign."
"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) manufactured a case to try to overturn that $250,000 limit, and now, the Court has sided with him."
https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan
And what was the rationale for the decision from the cons on the court? It restricts "free speech" for political discourse from a candidate! 
HS!
Can you imagine if a liberal candidate tried the same thing and brought it to the cons on the court under a free speech argument. Do you think the cons would have voted for it in that case?...

May 17, 2022 09:02 AM Forum: Politics

Why Gas Prices Are Spiking

Posted By Rod Kaufman

If the spikes continue more people will drive electric cars or hybrids. The spikes and switchover to electric vehicles will continue over time. We'll see which one prevails... 

May 17, 2022 09:53 AM Forum: Politics

Why Gas Prices Are Spiking

Posted By Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Mel Maki
Prevails? Government won't give us a choice. And that makes a lot of people happy(Rod?)! They want the gov to tell us what we have to do. They actually hate freedom of choice.  Given a choice many would stay with current vehicles.  Given the choice the manufacturers would take more years to switch, also.  All them dam MAGNA TRUMP HILLBILLIES AND THEIR DAM TRUCKS! Libs will be so happy those guys will pay so much for fuel they won't be able to drive as much! 
I have discussed this with people that were so politically stuck on driving small cars that they would not admit larger vehicles are safer! They even used the argument that a smaller car is more difficult to hit.
The car companies are making the choices on what they want to build and not the government.