So David Brooks is taking the right tack here:
Kavanaugh is the product of a community. He is the product of a conservative legal infrastructure that develops ideas, recruits talent, links rising stars, nurtures genius, molds and launches judicial nominees. It almost doesn’t matter which Republican is president. The conservative legal infrastructure is the entity driving the whole project. It almost doesn’t even matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed or shot down; there are dozens more who can fill the vacancy, just as smart and just as conservative.A judge should seem boring, right? He should seem like a humble servant discovering the meaning of the law and faithfully articulating it. The great accomplishment (described in detail at the link) was to make the conservative view of law feel so completely normal that a judge like Kavanaugh would bore us, instead of seeming like a monstrous outlier, as we were made to see Robert Bork.
I vividly remember this depiction (click to enlarge):
Bork should have been confirmed, of course, and would have been confirmed if there had been a structure around him to explain and defend conservative judges. Brooks explains how in the years since Bork's defeat that structure has been built. But if that had not been needed, Justice Kennedy — about whose swingable moderation liberals wring their hands today — would never have sat on the Court. All these years, Bork would have staked out the right end of the Court, and who knows how much that would have affected all the other Justices and Presidents? Everything would have been different. Perhaps the Federalist Society would not have grown the way it did. Perhaps Bork would not have died of heart disease in 2012, but if he did, would the President who replaced him have been Barack Obama?
२४२ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 242 पैकी 201 – 242I don't believe you Chuck. Lets see what happens.
You will not deviate from your usual pattern.
Something will come up in the hearings. The God Emperor will tweet something. Something will happen to make you come out against the nomination.
It is a sure thing. You are very predictable.
It will be one of those "more in sorrow than in anger" bullshit moves that Quislings like you and Paul Ryan pull all the time.
You are all for conservatives positions and principles. Just as long as they are not enacted.
You sir are a knave and a fraud. Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries. Begone!
langford peel said...
All of the speculation that the God Emperor would be petty and foolish and not pick this man because he is in picture walking with Karl Rove and that the Bush is strong in him has turned out to be foolish nonsense. The speculation that he would pick the woman to energize the base and that he would base his picks on her look has also been proven to be bullshit.
Right, langford peel; you have stumbled onto a good point by accident as you sometimes do.
I knew, that notwithstanding the Trumpists' nascent fan-promotion of Amy Coney Barrett (to, I suppose, do more to stick their collective finger in the eyes of Democrats and all other Trump opponents, because that is what they live to do), no matter what, whoever Trump nominated for SCOTUS would be immediately accepted and hailed in TrumpWorld as a great choice.
After a weekend of lobbying Trump to choose Barrett, even Sean Hannity (OF COURSE, Sean Hannity) called Kavanaugh a great pick.
Trump could have chosen Judge Napolitano, or Judge Jeannine, or Judge Judy or Judge Mathis, and Trumpists would have called it a stroke of genius.
Trump could shoot a Supreme Court Justice in the middle of Fifth Avenue and you'd be fine with it.
This always mystified me... See, Trump can do absolutely anything and Trump fanboyz like you will accept it. You'll adore Trump for it. Trump could sign an executive order for a 95% income tax, or a national health care system, and you'd think it was genius. Trump could unilaterally start a war with Canada, or surrender to the Russians, and you'd think that it was genius.
Since everything that Trump does is fine with you, what I wonder is why Trump doesn't do more to make people like me happy. Trump needs my vote to win in 202, if he isn't arrested or impeached by then. With his base of support locked up, why not try to extend that base a bit? He doesn't even need to change up a whole lot of policy for my sake. Just try not to be such an asshole.
Uh, 2020, not 202.
I see our LLR has gone full made-up hypothetical jibberish to avoid the obvious about his own now clear operational alignment with the left.
So very very pathetic.
And yet completely expected.
Again.
No amount of spinning by LLR Chuck can rescue his dem allies from the bed that they have made.
And that's a good thing...
Kavanaugh, aka Dos Equis, has a very large cranium. I like that in a judge.
Listen dickweed the God Emperor is only keeping his promises and doing the things I voted for. He is picking conservative judges. Cutting Taxes. Cutting Regulations. Freeing energy. Fracking up the ass. Supporting Israel and killing Muslims. Trying to keep filthy Mexican criminals and worthless Muslim terrorists out of our country. Now he is going to go to Europe and bitch slap Nurse Rachted and the rest of those Nato faggots who fooled us into schmucks who pay the bill for their defense while they spend their money on importing Muslims to rape their woman. Trump is only putting in nationalistic America First policies just like he said he would. You don't get it. He will be regarded as the most Conservative President since Coolidge. Your Never Trump bullshit will be in the dustbin of history. As relevant as William Jennings Bryant and Harold Stassan. You are a loser sir. A pansey assed teas sipping bow tie wearing piece of shit who is no longer welcome in the Republican party. If of course you were ever a member which I highly doubt.
It is Trumps party now. It is a Nationalist party. Get used to it pal.
The Never Trumpers will be run out of the party on a rail. Tar and feathers optional.
Don't worry Chuck.
All your lefty poster pals will always be here to support you and your efforts.
Wow, that Kavanaugh has a long record. Lots to discuss.
Nah, we'd rather comment about Chuck.
I hope the God Emperor goes in and says "Hey Angie...either your defense spending reaches 2% next year or I pull all of our troops out and put them in our real allies Poland and Hungry. You can spend that just on spare parts and uniforms since your subs don't work and none of your planes can fly. So you have one year to meet your promises or we are out of the protecting sauerkraut business baby. Here's some Starbursts for the road."
readering: "Wow, that Kavanaugh has a long record. Lots to discuss."
What's stopping you?
I for one have enjoyed the early wave of lefty/dem/LLR lies about Kavanaugh.
I can't wait to see what readering and crew come up with next.
What's to discuss about Kavanaugh readering? You are against him. All of the Democrats are against him. It doesn't matter what his record is or what he thinks. That is all unimportant.
It is a team sport now. You are either a Packer or a Viking fan. A Yankee or a Red Sox. A Celtic or a Laker.
His writing, rulings and life story are irrelevant.
"This always mystified me..."
Because you weren't then and you are not now paying attention. Trump is has done and is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
That is what people voted for him to do and he's doing it. The people you despise voted him in office and that grates on you.
As for this supreme court judge I don't know if it's a good choice or not but you can bet the next one is going to be to the right of him.
I don't want to have to explain this to you again. As someone who has claimed to be smarter than the average Trump voter it's time you started to act like it.
BTW
Stop appealing to Althouse to mediate this shit. She doesn't like pussies who can't stand up for themselves.
Precisely the same synthetic quality to LLR Chuck's continuous smearing of Trump as well as the left's smearing of same.
My God! You mean Chuck is made out of a polymimetic metal alloy? (He can't form complex arguments, so that makes a lot of sense.)
Of course it was that vague whiff of believability that probably prompted its creation in the first place.
If by "vague whiff" you mean the zillion other incidents of a like nature known to have actually happened to Administration officials and their families, certainly. Vague. Whiff.
Chuck, do you remember what it was like to be a MAN?
I think Trump picked someone who will get through but since he is a Trump pick the Unhinged will insist on opposing Kavanaugh and getting all politicians on record, thus squeezing precarious Dem politicians between the Commies and the Reds. Alexa, Despacito
Nobody knows how he will rule when he is a judge. He seems to be conservative but establishment figures like him always "grow" in office. He will obviously be a "Bush" pick like Roberts or Alito.
We will have to wait for a trans-formative leader if the God Emperor gets another pick. Then a politician like Lee or Cruz might be the way to go. When there is a bigger Senate majority.
The leftist dogs Bork but the Trump caravan moves on.
His writing, rulings and life story are irrelevant.
So true. I almost wish they'd have the hearings tomorrow and K would go before the Senate and answer every D question with "Fuck you." Almost.
Langford, Cruz claims disinterest in the post but has lobbied hard for Lee. I like Lee's Libertrian bent but he has not been kind to Trump.
I almost wish they'd have the hearings tomorrow and K would go before the Senate and answer every D question with "Fuck you." Almost.
Or even better?
‘What difference, at this point, does it make?'
The leftist dogs Bork but the Trump caravan moves on.
Thread winner.
Meanwhile, readering is calling for a deep discussion of Judge Kavanugh's record.........(snort! LOL)
Uh huh.
See, Trump can do absolutely anything and Trump fanboyz like you will accept it.
Now, take it easy on chuck. He has not had the experience of seeing a GOP politician keep promises since Reagan and even then, Reagan had to pay off Democrats with spending to get them to let him win the Cold War.
This is a new experience for chuck.
Give him a break.
Looks like LLR Chuck's dem allies know their early lies about a "deal" between Kennedy and Trump are getting zero traction and so Chuckie's dem pals have moved on to a brand new lie: Kavanaugh has agreed to obstruct the Mueller witch hunt!
Better yet, other lefty allies of LLR Chuck are now asserting that perhaps a few SC justices (guess which ones?) could be impeached!!
It just keeps getting better and better.
Chuck is just waiting to come up with some reason to turn against Kavanaugh more in sorrow than in anger.
It is a good bet it will have something to do with Kenneth Starr and the Clinton mess. He will have said something about special councils that will be disqualifying in the Democrats and thus Chuck's lying eyes.
Let's just concede that Kavanaugh is a Nazi in sheeps clothing and call the yeas and nays.
Nobody is going to change their minds. This is all a farce.
Nothing that we could learn in his writings or any hearings will ever matter to the likes of Dickless Durbin or Chuckie Schumer. So lets stop with the bullshit. If the two Qusiling broads are going to vote no lets find out now before we waste a whole summer of listening to Nina Totenberg. Jeez. I would rather be stuck in a cave in Thailand.
Heck, none of the stuff he has written in the past or decisions he has made matter. People evolve, just like Hillary and Obama re gay marriage.
Anatomy of a left wing lie.
That's the NBC anonymous story of a Trump Kennedy deal.
"The Federalist Society says that they simply interpret the constitution the way it was written but in fact they have several core beliefs that are very important to them. Probably the most important is the primacy of private property. They think that private property is the single most important value protected by the constitution and therefore they oppose all sorts of government regulation... environmental regulations... anything that would interfere with what they perceive to be the god-given right of rich people to do whatever they want with their own property."
"They've also been very strong against affirmative action. They don't believe that race should be taken into account in admissions to schools or in hiring, notwithstanding a long history of racism and oppression in this country. They don't think that that should be taken into account in today's world."
"They've been opposed to abortion rights for women. They've aligned themselves with right-wing religious fundamentalists in terms of state support for religion. They limit access to courts for workers, consumers and others to try to get justice if they've been taken advantage of by more powerful people in society."
"So across the board they have this conservative view. And also in foreign policy: They are very much in favor of American exceptionalism. Trump's notion that it's America first and international agreements be damned is very much in line with Federalist Society thinking."
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/change-law-changing-judges-kavanaughs-nomination-points-influence-federalist-society
Ritmo here to shit on another thread.
Do you have a life ?
Shorter pee pee tape: elections have consequences. Sure glad Hillary got to steal her turn, Trump replacing several SCOTUS judges is a small price to pay for her ego.
Not to worry, the leftist that make up the loyal D-Party won't be able to stop Hillary from being the nominee again in 2020.
I'd like to reply to President PPTape at 6:44 because the quotation there makes some points that need to be responded to. The first sentence implies that we are going to have discussion of core beliefs of conservative jurists that are not simply "interpreting the constitution." But the examples following are not very good:
1. the right to private property is explicitly addressed in the 5th amendment which does not protect the "god given right of rich people" but does provide a "constitutionally protected right to property". It says, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This is the constitutional basis for cases opposing environmental regulations that impose restrictions on government "takings" of private property for the public use of environmental improvement.
2. the opposition to affirmative action is also explicitly addressed in the 14th amendment which says no federal or state action can deny a person "equal protection of its laws." One can debate whether that language is correctly applied in affirmative action cases, but it is indisputable that the opposition to affirmative action is based in constitutional language, and not simply an expression of a "core belief" of conservatives.
3. the abortion rights question is also a question of intepretation of the constitution and whether or not there are penumbras created by emanations from the bill of rights. So it is not simply a matter of conservative support for religion.
I'm responding to President PPTape because I am taking his/her post seriously. And if he/she wants to respond, I hope it will be with the same seriousness, and not name-calling.
"would the President who replaced him have been Barack Obama?"
Almost certainly not.
Bork would have voted to uphold state laws imposing term limits on US Senators and Representstives; Kennedy voted to strike down these laws. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), which was a 5-4 decision with Kennedy in the majority. (Bork filed an amicus brief in support of USTL.)
Had the decision gone the other way, American politics would have been radically different by 2008, with at least 19 Senators and 185 Representatives forced into retirement. (That would be the effect of the 33 term limit laws then in effect; if the decision was reversed, additional TL laws probably would have been enacted, and possibly a constitutional amendment.)
This analysis does ignore the possible effect of Bork's confirmation on the two nominations to the Court by GHW Bush, both of which were made with an eye to confirmability. Souter had no record. Thomas was almost certainly in part chosen because it was expected to be harder for the Democrats to oppose a black. If the Democrats didn't "bork" Bork, Bush could have made different choices. Souter became a liberal; Thomas a conservative stalwart.
One would think Bush would name two solid conservatives, but the record suggests that either might have been a liberal like Souter or a swing-voter like Kennedy or O'Connor (though O'Connor was in the minority on USTL v. Thornton).
(Deleted and reposted without line breaks)
responding to Rich Rostrom:
Wow. I have not seen this analysis anywhere else. It should get wider attention. Is the unconstitutionality of term limits "stare decisis" stuck, or could it be revisited. Is there any state that would want to pass a law and stick with it to a new supreme court?
Put with greater eloquence:
https://thefederalist.com/tag/nevertrumpers/
Term limits are not that helpful in dealing with professional government. The staffs already, since McCain-Feingold, write the legislation. The legislator spends all his/her time raising money. "Dialing froDollars" it is called.
Then the staff rotate through agencies that write the regs or lobbyists who manipulate them.
2. the opposition to affirmative action is also explicitly addressed in the 14th amendment which says no federal or state action can deny a person "equal protection of its laws." One can debate whether that language is correctly applied in affirmative action cases, but it is indisputable that the opposition to affirmative action is based in constitutional language, and not simply an expression of a "core belief" of conservatives.
All one has to look at is income disparities, police brutality disparities, police killing disparities, incarceration and sentencing disparities to know that "equal protection under the laws" is not applied on a racially equal basis.
I occasionally toy with the idea of ending affirmative action on the basis of whether it perpetuates an expectation in the society that prevents blacks from learning what it takes to get ahead. But then I look at how much pervasive/systemic racism conservatives try to deny and conclude that they're the ones less interested in a color-blind society. They're too cozy with the status quo for me to conclude that their equality/equal protection/equal opportunity talk is sincere.
I honestly don't see the connection between David Brooks' comment, in effect, that there is organization within the textual constitutionalists, and the idea that a nominee be bland and boring (non-toxic). I find Brooks' comment to be pejorative, in his suggestion that there are endless clones, indistinguishable from each other. I resent and disagree with that, because it attempts to make them appear to be lining up, mindlessly, for a career path. This, of course, is what the Left wants everyone to believe about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc., that their influence is being perpetrated on a mindless populous, when in fact it is always the opposite - that those listening to Rush and those in the Federalist Society are open and there because they BELIEVE what they are hearing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा