quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just curious, what decision besides the infamous "Obamacare mandate is a tax" nonsense has Roberts decided on that we all hate him for?

I didn't like his decision on a particular eminent domain case a number of years ago (government condemning property for commercial development), but did like his decision on another eminent domain case subsequent to that (government suing to stop subdividing out of environmental concerns). Both went against the property owners. All rather proving the point that's being made.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just curious, what decision besides the infamous "Obamacare mandate is a tax" nonsense has Roberts decided on that we all hate him for?

True that Alan. Roberts was IMHO a decent pick.

I am thankful for Trump but also to McConnell. The combination of both gave us Gorsuch over Garland. Though I'd have prefer Hardiman but I trust Trump on this.. he knows way better than us.

Thank you President Trump for another great pick for SCOTUS in Brett Kavanaugh. He has a long and solid record on the bench, has shown to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and is widely respected among conservatives.

I am glad he did not choose Amy Barrett. She looks good on paper but has pretty much zero record. Maybe after a couple years she will prove that she walks the talk and can again be in high consideration. I hope Thomas Hardiman is kept very high on the list for the next opportunity.

Hey, Democrats, don’t you want to let the good times roll?

quote:

Yes, and we would be SOOOOOOOOO much better off with a Justice selected by Hillary. Roll Eyes

Some people just prefer to be negative all of the time. It doesn't matter if it's Trump, or kids in caves, or anything else. It has to all be doom or gloom.

Had Hillary been elected, they would have basked in the negativity. That's where they are comfortable.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Just curious, what decision besides the infamous "Obamacare mandate is a tax" nonsense has Roberts decided on that we all hate him for?

True that Alan. Roberts was IMHO a decent pick.

I am thankful for Trump but also to McConnell. The combination of both gave us Gorsuch over Garland. Though I'd have prefer Hardiman but I trust Trump on this.. he knows way better than us.

I still hold John Roberts in high regard and he has been solid on the Second Amendment so far. I am not that concerned he will turn into another Kennedy.

If the never Trumpers had their way, which includes a LOT of conservatives, we would be talking about how Eric Holder had just been nominated by HRC as the next Justice for SCOTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
If the never Trumpers had their way, which includes a LOT of conservatives, we would be talking about how Eric Holder had just been nominated by HRC as the next Justice for SCOTUS.

Yeah, but you wouldn’t have to worry about getting on a plane and being seated by those two. Ever think about that?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
If the never Trumpers had their way, which includes a LOT of conservatives, we would be talking about how Eric Holder had just been nominated by HRC as the next Justice for SCOTUS.

Yeah, but you wouldn’t have to worry about getting on a plane and being seated by those two. Ever think about that?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Encased In Carbonite Until Next Court Session

Here is a very long article by Dave Kopel in Reason.

Link

Bottom line:

quote:

Judge Kavanaugh's text, history, and tradition methodology for Second Amendment cases will not please people who believe that all gun control is impermissible, nor will it please advocates who want to make the Second Amendment a second-class right.

HEY ANYBODY SEEN THAT CARBONITE MEME?DAMN FUNNY. I'LL TRY TO FIND IT.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Bottom line:

quote:

Judge Kavanaugh's text, history, and tradition methodology for Second Amendment cases will not please people who believe that all gun control is impermissible, nor will it please advocates who want to make the Second Amendment a second-class right.

Nothing in Kavanaugh's decisions seem to act as limits on what laws can be passed to give people greater access to firearms, and his finding that some weapons have 'generally' been regulated or banned from civilian ownership leaves an opening. If legislators repeal bans or other restrictions on gun ownership then the 'generally' aspect of Kavanaugh's decisions doesn't prevent them from doing so. At the same time, legislators, by repealing bans and regulations, can redefine what is 'generally' done.

We've seen a lot of talk on this thread about what judges do or don't do. As Roberts, Scalia and other judges have pointed out, the legislature and the executive have roles to play to and are supposed to be more responsive to the citizenry's policy desires than the courts are.

It's time to focus on 2020, not 2015.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I didn't like his decision on a particular eminent domain case a number of years ago (government condemning property for commercial development), but did like his decision on another eminent domain case subsequent to that (government suing to stop subdividing out of environmental concerns). Both went against the property owners. All rather proving the point that's being made.

Kelo vs New London? Roberts wasn't on that one but nevertheless that one chapped my hide.

I just wish that people (especially the media) would stop using "Conservative" as the descriptor of all of President Trump's nominee pool. Those judges are "conservative" (lower case "c") only in that they believe in ordered change as opposed to whim. I prefer the term "Originalist" or "Textualist" which indicate basing decisions on the actual text of the Constitution as Amended, and the meaning of that text when it was written (not as it may have changed over the years since).

Using the term "Conservative" automatically raises red flags among Liberals and Leftists, even before anything else is said. Liberals and Leftists prefer judges who will use their position to make rulings that are based on what they WANT the law to be or feel it SHOULD be, not what it actually says. A "Conservative" judge would also bend the text in judgments, but in a rightward direction. For proper operation of the Supreme Court, Justices should be neither "Liberal" nor "Conservative", but only making judgments based on the language of the documents. Changes to those documents (Constitution and its Amendments) are the province of the Congress and the States--if changes are needed, those agents are to make them, not the Courts.

Please--let's use "Originalist" or "Textualist" when describing Trump's pool of nominees.

flashguy

Flashguy, I agree with you; however it’s irrelevant as far as the Left is concerned. They are only concerned about outcomes, not process.
Basically (as my wife was saying this morning), it’s clear they don’t believe in democracy, and prefer to be ruled by an oligarchy without the rule of law. It’s utterly stupid, but that’s where they are.

quote:

Yes, and we would be SOOOOOOOOO much better off with a Justice selected by Hillary.

That's the thing to keep in mind.
We can nitpick about this opinion or that opinion. But it was a good appointment. We should all get behind it in any small way we can.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What you hope for is what we got, a very smart person with respectable experience, showing devotion to the ideals of the American Constitution, and to interpretation accordingly.

That's how I see it, too.
Kavanaugh seems about as solid a pick as one could make.

Great job, Mr. President.
Here's hoping you get a few more chances to do this again. There's still great people remaining on your list!