By the time the first day of the poll had passed, the results had settled in around 70% for Kavanaugh and only 30% for Ginsburg. A number of prominent conservative Twitter accounts noticed the poll and retweeted it, cheering on their right-leaning followers to participate.I clicked through and was able to vote, but then wanting to get the tweet to embed for this post, I couldn't find it. I tried clicking through from the RedState link again and got this:
Just get rid the evidence you don't like. It can be your brand!
Posts
45 comments:
You mean most Americans don't want high priests making shit up to get the desired results and instead wants someone who can actually read written words?
Roe v.s Wade is the worst decision ever put into writing.
This happens with the other polls, too. Let’s all cherry pick the ones to promote!
If it had happened here today nobody would have ever heard of Boaty McBoatface.
Look, in defense of that poll, no one likes their SCOTUS members covered in a mushroom suit.
RBG is a "steward."
She picks the best winners and losers.
She knows how to find the correct outcome. She doesn't need to actually read any laws or the stupid constitution.
It takes true magic to find the right to have an abortion in the 4th amendment.
It takes true magic to find the government can force people to get a government license to own firearms in the second amendment.
It takes the best kind of magic to find out the government can ban a movie near an election like this pissbag found when she wrote her dissent in Citizens United.
Who's to blame for Roe v Wade? Kavanaugh in grade school or Ginsburg, Columbia Law professor?
It reminds me of the old Bob Hope movie, "Boy did I get a wrong number !"
Ginsburg is honest about being a progressive. I would rather see that than another stealth "liberal" justice.
Time for a "mushroom judicial robe" for our more "superannuated" justices?
readering said...
Who's to blame for Roe v Wade? Kavanaugh in grade school or Ginsburg, Columbia Law professor?
I agree with you.
The person most responsible for roe v wade is Justice Roberts.
There are a lot of LLRs that help Democrats keep Roe v Wade in effect.
But Ginsburg is the current leader of the progressive movement to subvert the constitution and Roe v Wade is the object lesson of the judicial movement that needs to be destroyed.
Stealth liberals and Roe. 7-2. Majority 5 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic appointees. Dissenters 1+1.
Hillary looks good in institutional orange, don't you think?
Then there's Casey, 5-4. Also predates Kavanaugh and Ginsburg. 5 Republicans majority. 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat in dissent.
Never ask a question unless you already know the answer.
Can we demand proof of life?
To be honest, I think she was talking about when the server was stored in a bathroom that Bill used sometimes.
Just to be fair, Ginsburg has stated that Roe was a faulty decision from a legal standpoint.
Readering, if you go back to FDR you will find a garbage dump full of lefty republican judges. Totalitarians come from both sides. Name and shame them.
Just to be fair, Ginsburg has stated that Roe was a faulty decision from a legal standpoint
It’s kind of hard to see why Obamacare wasn’t struck down on privacy grounds, isn’t it?
Those numbers are pretty astounding to me as most polls of right vs left issues come out pretty closer to 50/50. Wonder if the poll will have any effect on RBG's retirement plans.
I just want to say that Abortion is specifically and very pointedly referenced in the constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The 10th amendment is very clear.
Any reasonable human being who can read and reason sees explicitly what the federal role in abortion is.
There is none. It does not guarantee abortion. It does not ban abortion.
Whether they are Republican or Democrat appointees matters not.
The Supreme Court has been full of petty tyrants and power hungry statists who see their role in the country as god-priest.
Jersey Fled said...
Just to be fair, Ginsburg has stated that Roe was a faulty decision from a legal standpoint.
So she admits she is not a Judge but rather a God Priest making things right.
For our own good of course.
Ginsburg doesn't believe in the sanctity of the US Constitution. She thinks it's flawed. She wants to tweak it or modify it whenever the opportunity presents.
In essence, she is a politician masked in a black robe. If she were honest, she run for Senator or even President - to try to convince a majority of citizens to adopt her views. Instead, she likes the shortcut.
The problem for RBG and her lawyer friends is that Trump has appointed some stellar judges to turn around the federal judiciary.
And this restoration continues.
"Just to be fair, Ginsburg has stated that Roe was a faulty decision from a legal standpoint."
I thought she said it was a mistake from a practical politics standpoint.
This is the famous statement she made at NYU in 1993 (just before her confirmation hearing):
"The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."
Some find it politically useful for Roe to seem to be under constant threat, as it has been since 1973.
That's not saying anything about whether Roe was a correct interpretation of the Constitution.
She's talking about judicial restraint and the ability to decide a case narrowly, only resolving the precise question at hand and leaving the rest for another day. She's posing a hypothetical: What if, after finding a due process violation, the Court had left most of the question of abortion to the political sphere? Roe led to so much political strife, and if the Court had left more to political decisionmaking, the people might have worked it out and come to terms with it.
That's not a statement about whether Roe (or Casey) was correctly decided as a legal matter.
At her confirmation hearing, she addressed her own earlier remarks and said: "It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.” That's a policy position that says nothing about what the Constitution means. It's something that you could say in political debate.
It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling.
Althouse (via Ginsburg) has managed to define Feminism in one sentence.
Of course, we know that in the end, she voted repeatedly for upholding abortion rights, always in the context of relying on precedent. But did she ever give the slightest indication that she thought Roe v. Wade was wrong as an interpretation of the Constitution? I don't think so.
I want to be fair to Jersey Fled, who wrote "a faulty decision from a legal standpoint." In a way, she found fault with Roe. What I object to is that this was "from a legal standpoint."
I'm not saying that she said the Court should have done something political and beyond the proper judicial role. She was saying that as a matter of equitable restraint — which is part of the judicial role — the Court could have done something minimal, which would have left more to the political process to work out in the ensuing years.
By the way, that's "minimalism," the idea that John Roberts made much of when he went up for confirmation.
There was never any intent to......
What about habeas corpus??
The last time I saw Notorious RBG? Tupac was still alive!!
That's a policy position that says nothing about what the Constitution means. It's something that you could say in political debate.
Exactly, why didn’t she just quote Nietzsche?
Of course, we know that in the end, she voted repeatedly for upholding abortion rights, always in the context of relying on precedent.
That was Taney's excuse too.
It’s illogical,except in the logic of politics, to ask people about whether they want more justices like Kavanaugh, because he is a brand new justice who has written few,if any, opinions. It’s simply too soon to tell.
A few.
Polls like this have to be started during the work week, when government employees are on the internet.
Once again I introduce the readers to my (patent pending) Statist Scale, aka the Coercion Meter. Just as a refresher, on a scale from one to ten, 0 is pacifist libertarian anarchism a la Robert LeFevre, the lower end of the scale is various varieties of limited-government libertarianism shading into limited-government conservatism; 9 and 10 are the brazen tyranny of fascism and communism; and at around six were get into what I call "The State-shtupper Zone" (Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc.). I would simply prefer whichever justice is closest to 0. Although Kavanaugh may not have had much of a chance to make his mark on the scale, we know how RBG voted in Kelo.
The Kavanaugh thing was destined not to wear well.
"It is essential to woman’s equality with man ... that her choice be controlling."
Echoing Gahrie; that statement explains a lot.
0 is pacifist libertarian anarchism a la Robert LeFevre
Did you ever watch Apocolypto? I think those were “pacifist libertarian anarchists” living in that little village before the Aztec raiders came to gather them up for human sacrifices.
The demonization of Kavanaugh was as overdone as the beatification of Ginsburg. It happened in real time and makes the media look like jerks.
"Polls like this have to be started during the work week, when government employees are on the internet."
Too funny and obvious to be original.
“Once again I introduce the readers to my (patent pending) Statist Scale, aka the Coercion Meter”
Unfortunately, probably too abstract under the recent SCOTUS Alice decision (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), and therefore probably constituting unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101.
I belong to the IP committee for a large engineering society, and we file amicus briefs every year or so with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit. A number of them have been cited favorably, and in at least one case the Supreme Court decision accepted the patent standard of review that we had set out. We thought that the Alice case was a good place for us to offer our unique expertise (in this case, that software was engineering and not abstract mathematics). Might well have saved our breath, as well as the printing costs. The Supreme Court moved patent subject matter jurisprudence back to the 1970s.
I should add that our loss in Alice was unanimous, with Justice Thomas writing the opinion. In the past, it would seem that we would tend to attract the younger, more tech savvy Justices. Not in the Alice decision. As predicted, it had a significantly negative effect on VC funding, esp for software startup companies.
"It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling."
That's not equality, that's blanket superiority. So Ginsburg is evil, dishonest, AND stupid
Equality would be: any man can chose, within 3 months of being officially notified of the child, to disclaim any responsibility for the child. After which no child support or other support man be demanded of the man.
Including married men, since married women can chose an abortion against their husband's desires.
"0 is pacifist libertarian anarchism a la Robert LeFevre
"Did you ever watch Apocolypto? I think those were “pacifist libertarian anarchists” living in that little village before the Aztec raiders came to gather them up for human sacrifices."
This kind of thing is why I'm not a pacifist. But I do admire LeFevre, who was apparently willing to die rather than commit any act of "aggression," in which he included what regular folk would deem self-defense. But at least he was consistent in his pacifism--unlike some "pacifist" pseudo-liberals who object to force in self-defense or defense of country, but LOVE force when Big Brother uses it to compel people for "the common good."
Post a Comment