Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Akhil Reed Amar Mr. Amar: The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump's finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select "someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States." In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that. In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As is his wont, Nulli wouldn't post this thread, but I thought it was too noteworthy not to.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 12:33 PM | Reply

Anything that helps Trump hurts the country.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-10 12:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I'll just repost a comment from that article since it sums everything up quite nicely.

"Eric
New York11h ago
Times Pick

Professor Amar seems unconcerned that Judge Kavanaugh will give the Supreme Court a permanent conservative majority for decades, which is bad news for women, gays, people of color, the poor and middle class, non-Christians, people who get sick, voting rights, the climate, democracy, and the future of the country."

#3 | Posted by qcp at 2018-07-10 12:48 PM | Reply

This liberal is a Nazi!

--the usual suspects

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 12:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This liberal is a Nazi!

--the usual suspects

#4 | Posted by nullifidian

Well, time is a wasting, you best get busy coddling him then.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-10 12:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Thank you, Debbie Downer for your "valuable" contribution. Kavanaugh has been appointed, deal with it.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 12:54 PM | Reply

GOP says bias in legal system is bad, then puts extreme partisan in SCOTUS for life.

okay....

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-10 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

'"Eric
New York11h ago
Times Pick"

Eric who?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3

Does "Eric" actually work for Priorities USA or does he just parrot their talking points like the mindless sheep he seems to be?

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 12:56 PM | Reply

#6 Between you and Nulli, I'm getting quite the education.

Thank you for your brilliant insight, both of you.

I feel blessed with knowledge.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-10 12:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Eric who?

#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-07-10 12:56 PM | FLAG:

Eric with the well endowed brain.

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-10 12:57 PM | Reply

Eric with the well endowed "brain."

#11 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2018-07-10 12:57 PM

FTFY

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 01:01 PM | Reply

#12 - now we know what you think with.

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2018-07-10 01:03 PM | Reply

#13

Only when I am with your mom.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 01:06 PM | Reply

Mom jokes are old and overused.

Like your mom.

#15 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-10 01:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Snap!

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 01:19 PM | Reply

--Does "Eric" actually work for Priorities USA or does he just parrot their talking points like the mindless sheep he seems to be?

Distinction without a difference.

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 01:24 PM | Reply

I guess this comment is probably more appropriate here:

I think that the Republicans are in a pretty fantastic position at this point. With the worst President in 2-200 years (depending on your personal bias) and facing a potential blue wave in the next election they have managed to do this:
Either - the Senate confirms a new SC Justice, then there will be a conservative majority on the court for decades.
Or - the Senate cannot confirm the new SC Justice, the Republican base, which has historically been much, much more motivated by Supreme Court positioning and more motivated in general in the mid-terms turns out in droves to guarantee both a Republican maintained Senate and still a confirmed conservative Justice after the elections.

Hate Trump all you like, someone gave him some amazing advice recently.

#18 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 01:37 PM | Reply

"someone gave him some amazing advice recently"

here is my prediction

fake "conservatives" will continue to "think" they are getting what they want, but will still be miserable whiners this time next year. and the next. and the next.

just like always

#19 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-10 01:42 PM | Reply

--but will still be miserable whiners this time next year. and the next. and the next.

Like Democrats since Nov. 8th, 2016?

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 Democrats? You mean Bernie Bros.

#21 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-07-10 02:12 PM | Reply

Apparently Kavanaugh considers net neutrality unlawful.

#22 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-10 02:21 PM | Reply

And he's a fan of NSA surveillance.

Kavanaugh wrote that "the Government's metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." Kavanaugh argued that the collection of records was not unlawful because the data was obtained through a third party, and would not constitute an "unreasonable" search based on past case law.

But at least he's Owning Libz!!

#23 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-10 02:27 PM | Reply

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh geez trying to sell hornswoggle by putting a pretty bow on it. Not surprising.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 02:32 PM | Reply

I still remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards all over the South in the 1960's because of his position on Civil Rights...talk about whining. Hundreds of small academies sprung up when they started integrating public school....talk about whining...later when Barrack Obama was elected the Tea Party sprang up....talk about whining.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-10 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From the article:
"Judge Kavanaugh's most important ideas and arguments - such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats"

So other than supporting corporate control of the internet, collecting Big Data on private citizens, expanding presidential authority, and possibly being a deciding vote absolving Trump naughtiness, there's a lot to love.

#26 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-10 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

possibly being a deciding vote absolving Trump naughtiness, there's a lot to love. - #26 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS AT 2018-07-10 02:49 PM
What case do you see coming before the SC from the Senate's impeachment proceedings that would absolve Trump of anything?

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 03:35 PM | Reply

Sounds like Kavanaugh is ok with impeachment, but not the indictment of a President.

www.businessinsider.com

"Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable," he said.

Over a decade later, Kavanaugh reiterated this belief in the Minnesota Law Review saying, "a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office."

He also said criminal investigations affecting a sitting president are "time-consuming and distracting" and should be deferred until after the end of a president's term.

"Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President," Kavanaugh wrote.

He added: "In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President -- while in office -- from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel... The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility."

#28 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-10 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Brett"

almost as bad as Tad, or Chester

or saying "Snap" and not sounding like a total ------

#29 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-10 04:14 PM | Reply

My concern is that Trump could nominate someone worse.

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-07-10 05:54 PM | Reply

lmao... the article is about professionalism of judges and the approval process.

It seriously does not want to talk about the politcal gorilla in the room; nominee is a rwing whack job who dotes on corporations and executive power. Just read his bio.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-10 05:56 PM | Reply

Other than self declaration, what makes the author of this opinion piece a liberal?

At what point in this opinion article does the author actually make a case for Brett Kavanaugh that appeals to liberals?

This article of platitudes reads as if someone is desperately trying to convince reads Brett Kavanaugh has any merit other than a get out of jail free card for Trump.

The author also mentions Garland a lot.

If the Republicans ever wanted to show their willingness to work with Democrats to create a better America, they'd nominate Garland and use it as leverage during the midterms.

But that's crazy talk. Trumpublicans have control of the nation and turning it into a religious hell hole is their number one priority.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-07-10 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--executive power.

Wrong again, aa usual.

SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sees Perils of Aggressive Administrative State
Like Neil Gorsuch, the D.C. Circuit judge has criticized Chevron deference for encouraging executive arrogance.

reason.com

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 06:22 PM | Reply

This article is nonsense. Kavanaugh is a known partisan hack and (even worse) a religious nutcase. We have no room for christian-based rulings in the Judiciary.

#34 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-07-10 06:23 PM | Reply

which is bad news for women, gays, people of color, the poor and middle class, non-Christians, people who get sick, voting rights, the climate, democracy, and the future of the country."

Wow, it must suck to be you, walking around with all that anger.

This is very good news for every demographic you named.

#35 | Posted by boaz at 2018-07-10 06:24 PM | Reply

--Kavanaugh is a known partisan hack and (even worse) a religious nutcase.

You ever heard of him before yesterday. Did you read that on the go-to progressive website, Teen Vogue?

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-10 06:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Wow, it must suck to be you, walking around with all that anger.

Wow! Boaz, calling someone else angry. Projection at its finest.

This is very good news for every demographic you named.
#35 | POSTED BY BOAZ

What do you know about any demographic other than that of the white heterosexual male?

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-07-10 06:41 PM | Reply

Did you read that on the go-to progressive website, Teen Vogue?
#36 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Tell us more about term vogue Nulli!

You still using it for fapping?

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-07-10 06:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Court a permanent conservative majority for decades, which is bad news for women, gays, people of color, the poor and middle class, non-Christians, people who get sick, voting rights, the climate, democracy, and the future of the country."

This is a classic case of how badly the Left has screwed up our Constitutional order. EVERYTHING in that sentence should be handled legislatively, yet the Left looks to SCOTUS to win its political battles which is not what the judiciary was designed to do.

You guys and gals are going to have to win at the ballot box and then legislate. It's a much more difficult way of achieving your political ends but it's how our government was structured. Additionally, you can embrace federalism and implement your preferred policies at the state level.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 07:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

"EVERYTHING in that sentence should be handled legislatively, yet the Left looks to SCOTUS to win its political battles which is not what the judiciary was designed to do."

But... they were all handled legislatively, JeffJ.

Gay marriage was handled legislatively.

The way it was handled legislatively turned out to be unconstitutional, according to Obergfels.

Segregation was handled legislatively.

The way it was handled turned out to be unconstitutional, according to Brown.

Interracial marriage was handled legislatively.

The way it was handled turned out to be unconstitutional, according to Loving.

Abortion was handled legislatively.

The way it was handled turned out to be unconstitutional, according to Roe.

I'm sure you can connect the dots.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 07:14 PM | Reply

yet the Left looks to SCOTUS to win its political battles

Is that why Republicans blocked Garland and have appointed conservative judges?

Is that why Trump made a deal with Kennedy to retire early so he could appoint Kavanaugh?

Republicans are aggressively regressive.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-07-10 07:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34

A religious nutcase? All the judges on the court are religious....

www.google.com

#42 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-10 07:30 PM | Reply

You guys and gals are going to have to win at the ballot box and then legislate. It's a much more difficult way of achieving your political ends but it's how our government was structured. Additionally, you can embrace federalism and implement your preferred policies at the state level.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-10 07:03 PM | REPLY

Don't you even go there you dishonest hack. We won our election *Obama) It was your guy Mitch McConnell's is the one who violated Obama's constitutional right in picking Scalia's successor. You won't however call for his resignation for it though. Federalism is code for supporting bigotry and is the antithesis to women's rights gay rights etc etc etc. That's why we go to court. To remedy these injustices.

#43 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 07:31 PM | Reply

"EVERYTHING in that sentence should be handled legislatively,"

Why do you hate civil rights?

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-10 07:34 PM | Reply

#44

Probably the worst strawman you have ever pulled out of your ---, Boyduhh, and that is saying something.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You won't however call for his resignation for it though.

Of course not. Jeff is a nice guy. But he's depressingly partisan.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-07-10 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#45

And the fellow hater of civil rights chimes in, right on cue. Par for the course from the party of waterboarding and child theft.

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-10 07:42 PM | Reply

"Everything should be handled by the voters! Well, except for guns.... and presidential elections... and anything else we personally care about...."

-DR Rightists

#48 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-07-10 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did you read that on the go-to progressive website, Teen Vogue?

No, Indy and Punchy are partial to the Babylon Bee for their hard hitting news.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 08:07 PM | Reply

Countless laws have been passed making it a criminal act to discriminate based on ___________________________ and not only have these laws been passed but they've been enforced.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 08:27 PM | Reply

Countless laws have been passed making it a criminal act to discriminate based on ___________________________ and not only have these laws been passed but they've been enforced.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-10 08:27 PM | REPLY

And muc more have denied rights accorded to others based upon bigotry racism and misogyny Rights do not belong in the hands of the voter nor the legislature.. That's why they are called rights and not privileges.

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 08:46 PM | Reply

"Countless laws have been passed making it a criminal act to discriminate based on ___________________________ and not only have these laws been passed but they've been enforced.
POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Who's Kim Davis?

Why wasn't she prosecuted?

JeffJ excels at telling the half of the story that makes his side sound good, and burying the other half.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 08:59 PM | Reply

Without the courts

Women would not have the right to choose.
Gays would still not have the right to marry
Interracial couples would still not have the right to marry
Environmental issues as well.

Now the courts will have to recognize transgender rights.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 09:12 PM | Reply

#53

No one is saying to eliminate the courts. They play a vital role. Having said that, they do not have legislative powers. They are umpires, not gods.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 09:57 PM | Reply

"No one is saying to eliminate the courts."

Nobody can understand what you're saying.

Start with #40 and work through each of those cases please.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 09:58 PM | Reply

No one is saying to eliminate the courts. They play a vital role. Having said that, they do not have legislative powers. They are umpires, not gods.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-10 09:57 PM | REPLY

WRONG They are not only umpires they are there to right wrongs. They are there to address violations of rights that are not being addressed or are addressed negatively by the legislature.

#56 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 10:00 PM | Reply

Don't you even go there you dishonest hack. We won our election *Obama) It was your guy Mitch McConnell's is the one who violated Obama's constitutional right in picking Scalia's successor.

I have said countless times that Garland deserved to go through the process and he should be on the court.

Getting a judge to the bench is a two-step process. What McConnell did was completely wrong but it was within his Constitutionally enumerated powers. I totally understand why you are pissed about it. Quite frankly, I didn't want him to do it.

Federalism is code for supporting bigotry and is the antithesis to women's rights gay rights etc etc etc.

#43 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

That is just plain dumb. Federalism has nothing to do with bigotry.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 10:01 PM | Reply

WRONG They are not only umpires they are there to right wrongs. They are there to address violations of rights that are not being addressed or are addressed negatively by the legislature.

#56 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Please take a Civics class and get back to me.

They are not there to ask, "Is it right?

They are there to apply the Constitution and statute. No more and no less.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-10 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

wrong but it was within his Constitutionally enumerated powers. I totally understand why you are pissed about it. Quite frankly, I didn't want him to do it.
Federalism is code for supporting bigotry and is the antithesis to women's rights gay rights etc etc etc.
#43 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR
That is just plain dumb. Federalism has nothing to do with bigotry.

#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-10 10:01 PM | FLAG:

WRONG What Mitch did was violate the constitution by obstructing Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices. You've been absolutely wrong from jump street on this as I have shown you.

#59 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 10:15 PM | Reply

Getting a judge to the bench is a two-step process. What McConnell did was completely wrong but it was within his Constitutionally enumerated powers. I totally understand why you are pissed about it. Quite frankly, I didn't want him to do it.

#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-10 10:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Joy Behar asks Alan Dershowitz: Why isn't Mitch McConnell in jail for blocking Obama's Supreme Court pick?

He should have nominated Merrick Garland, and should have sworn him in, and should have dared the Republicans to say kick him out of office," Dershowitz continued. "The constitution says advise and consent; it doesn't say delay and postpone."

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 10:22 PM | Reply

Joy Behar.

Ok

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-10 10:26 PM | Reply

Joy Behar.
Ok

POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-07-10 10:26 PM | REPLY

It was Dershowitz answering slick Not Joy. Now go troll somewhere else.

#62 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 10:30 PM | Reply

It was a great question.......no really, it was.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-10 10:35 PM | Reply

www.uscourts.gov

Role
The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

#64 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-10 10:38 PM | Reply

"They are not there to ask, "Is it right?"

This is technically true but it's kind of overdoing it and oversimplifying it. Both at the same time. Womp womp.

They are there to see if the law is being carried out right, or, in all of the cases I mentioned in #40 that you really ought to comment on, that the law itself is "wrong" because it cannot be construed in a way that complies with the Constitution.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-10 10:38 PM | Reply

Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices. -#59 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-07-10 10:15 PM
Obama does not have the right to appoint a Supreme Court justice, unless the Senate is not in session. Instead, he has the right to nominate a justice
"[The President] shall ... nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..."
He made his nomination, did not get the consent that the constitution Requires for him to make an appointment.
You've been absolutely wrong from jump street on this as I have shown you.

#66 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WRONG What Mitch did was violate the constitution by obstructing Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Sounds like Kavanaugh is your man. www.minnesotalawreview.org

My idea on this issue is simple, and echoes sentiments advanced in recent years by President Clinton,57 President Bush,58 then-Chief Justice Rehnquist,59 and the American Bar Association,60 among others.61 The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the President.

#67 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-10 11:30 PM | Reply

Why do you hate civil rights?

#44 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Because what they want is civil privileges, granted by the majority to minorities (with conditions). Only the Master Race has rights. Problem is, in a few years they will only be the largest minority, not a majority. Guess they'll just have to make sure nobody gets to vote unless they vote Republican. And of course, there's always the (pre-1994) South African model.

MAGA! Like it was before Brown v Board. (1954)

#68 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-07-11 01:03 AM | Reply

"That is just plain dumb. Federalism has nothing to do with bigotry.
#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

What does "States Rights" mean, JeffJ, in the context of American History?

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 01:03 PM | Reply

"That is just plain dumb. Federalism has nothing to do with bigotry.
#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"
What does "States Rights" mean, JeffJ, in the context of American History?

You are going all of the way back to the 19th Century?

The 13th abolished slavery.

Race-baiting is a convenient way to try and stifle discussion about the merits of federalism.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-11 02:58 PM | Reply

You are going all of the way back to the 19th Century?
#70

Jim Crow laws?

#71 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-07-11 03:13 PM | Reply

Without the courts

Women would not have the right to choose.
Gays would still not have the right to marry
Interracial couples would still not have the right to marry
Environmental issues as well.

Now the courts will have to recognize transgender rights.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr

A right is something no one can take from you. All those things can be ended by man.

#72 | Posted by boaz at 2018-07-11 05:12 PM | Reply

A right is something no one can take from you. All those things can be ended by man.

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-07-11 05:12 PM | REPLY

Your beta status is showing.

#73 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-11 05:16 PM | Reply

"A right is something no one can take from you."

And what pray tell do you have that no one can take away from you, Kunta Kinte?

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 06:17 PM | Reply

"You are going all of the way back to the 19th Century?"

I sure am, because it so succinctly makes the point you wish weren't true.

I'll ask again: What does States Rights have to do with Federalism, JeffJ?

Is States Rights a pro-federalist point of view or an anti-federalist point of view?

"The 13th abolished slavery."

The 13th took away states rights. It is an affront to Federalism. If you are capable of intellectual honesty, you'd acknowledge that fact. But instead you'll just accuse me of race-baiting, when all I'm actially doing is explaining what Federalism means, by way of demonstrating that Federalism is why slavery was permitted to exist in America in the first place.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 06:27 PM | Reply

I still remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards all over the South in the 1960's because of his position on Civil Rights...talk about whining. Hundreds of small academies sprung up when they started integrating public school....talk about whining...

#25 | POSTED BY DANNI

Ohhhhhh bless your heart, sweetie--those were DEMOCRATS!

#76 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2018-07-12 08:12 AM | Reply

"Ohhhhhh bless your heart, sweetie--those were DEMOCRATS!"

I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that nearly all those people, should they still be alive today, are Republicans.

#77 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-07-12 08:45 AM | Reply

#75

It's ridiculous to erect a straw man whereby advocating for federalism is advocating for slavery.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:16 AM | Reply

It's ridiculous to erect a straw man whereby advocating for federalism is advocating for slavery.
#78 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:16 AM | FLAG:

Sorry but the civil war had everything to do with federalism IE the right of the states to own slaves. If you can't recognize that southerners advocated for that very thing something is amiss within you.

#79 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:19 AM | Reply

Laura,

People who advocate for federalism today are not advocating for slavery or bigotry or discrimination....

That is a stupid straw man intended to stifle debate. Nothing more.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People who advocate for federalism today are not advocating for slavery or bigotry or discrimination....
That is a stupid straw man intended to stifle debate. Nothing more.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:25 AM | REPLY

Like hell they aren't.

www.nationalreview.com

Yesterday the Trump administration preserved federalism, respected the principle of local control over local schools, and corrected one of the Obama administration's many lawless and radical executive actions. With a simple, two-page letter, the Departments of Education and Justice withdrew and rescinded two Obama-administration letters that purported to unilaterally redefine Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Obama administration had expanded Title IX's explicit ban on sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions to encompass "gender identity" discrimination and then imposed intrusive "guidance" on every federally funded school in the nation, on matters ranging from pronoun usage to eligibility for sports teams and access to showers, bathrooms, and sleeping quarters on overnight trips.

My words follow

Classic example of the right insisting on federalism for the sole purpose of discrimination based solely on bigotry. NOTHING more.

#81 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:35 AM | Reply

Laura,

You are ridiculous.

My reasons for favoring federalism have NOTHING to do with bigotry or any other nonsense you want to falsely assign to me.

Jesus, you don't even discuss issues any more.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:37 AM | Reply

"People who advocate for federalism today are not advocating for slavery or bigotry or discrimination...."

You couldn't be more wrong about that.

Letting states decide gay marriage, like you've suggested, lets states decide for themselves if they want to be bigots on that issue.

Federalism sets the table for bigotry and invites it to sit down and join the family.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:38 AM | Reply

All that undoing of Obama's "dear colleague" letter does is put control back at the state level, where it belongs.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:39 AM | Reply

"My reasons for favoring federalism have NOTHING to do with bigotry or any other nonsense you want to falsely assign to me."

Your "reasons" are irrelevant.
The impact of Federalism is to carve out room for bigotry by calling it "States Rights."
And you should take a step back and look at the actual agenda of people who support Federalism.
Do you find a lot of Federalist support for gay marriage? I'm asking because you should know the answer.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:40 AM | Reply

Federalism as practiced here is a big damp dream for corporations and bigots. States are much easier and cheaper to buy off politically and control.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-12 11:40 AM | Reply

All that undoing of Obama's "dear colleague" letter does is put control back at the state level, where it belongs.
POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:39 AM | REPLY

-------- Rights don't belong to the states nor the local level that's why they call them rights. The states have no business with that.

#87 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:40 AM | Reply

#83

The states were already rapidly moving to recognize gay marriage.

It's a red herring issue anyway due to Ogerfell.

The way you tell it we should just abolish all state lines and cede ALL powers to the federal government. That's how you come across.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:41 AM | Reply

"All that undoing of Obama's "dear colleague" letter does is put control back at the state level, where it belongs."

And what does putting control back at the State level do, from the point of view of those impacted by the "Dear Colleague" letter?

The dots are there, you just don't like connecting them.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:41 AM | Reply

"The states were already rapidly moving to recognize gay marriage."

^
That is not responsive to my question or the issue of Federalism.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:42 AM | Reply

"The way you tell it we should just abolish all state lines and cede ALL powers to the federal government."

The way you tell it you're a blind man and can't see the actual impact of Federalism on American society.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:42 AM | Reply

-------- Rights don't belong to the states nor the local level that's why they call them rights. The states have no business with that.

#87 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

The Constitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government and anything not enumerated falls to the states and the people. In a country this large and diverse, local control over local issues is paramount.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The states were already rapidly moving to recognize gay marriage.
It's a red herring issue anyway due to Ogerfell.
The way you tell it we should just abolish all state lines and cede ALL powers to the federal government. That's how you come across.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:41 AM | REPLY

No they weren't not by a long shot. That's why we must gain our rights from the Supreme Court. We can't rely upon anyone else.

#93 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:45 AM | Reply

The way you tell it you're a blind man and can't see the actual impact of Federalism on American society.

#91 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Are you advocating eliminating state and local governments? Do you think the Constitution places any limits on federal power?

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:45 AM | Reply

#93

What rights are you being denied?

Genuinely curious.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:46 AM | Reply

The Constitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government and anything not enumerated falls to the states and the people. In a country this large and diverse, local control over local issues is paramount.

#92 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:44 AM | FLAG:

Loving v Virginia eviscerates that notion.

#96 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:46 AM | Reply

What rights are you being denied?
Genuinely curious.

#95 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:46 AM | FLAG:

Public accommodations such as restroom access and I'm more concerned with the young in the school systems.

#97 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:47 AM | Reply

"The Constitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government and anything not enumerated falls to the states and the people."

Uh huh.
And if "ending racism" isn't one of the specific powers enumerated to the Federal government, what happens when the states get to chart their own course on that issue?
Is there room for racism in society, under the framework you've described?

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:48 AM | Reply

"Are you advocating eliminating state and local governments?"

I'm advocating you understand what the impact of Federalism is on American society.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:49 AM | Reply

#97

Thank you for answering my question.

#98

This discussion is going nowhere. You have a pre-programmed response to the word "federalism" and have no idea as to what I'm actually advocating.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 11:50 AM | Reply

"This discussion is going nowhere."

Answer the question in #98 and it will go somewhere.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:52 AM | Reply

Here we go again

Jeffyj knows as much about the constitution as he does economics

And when I say "knows" I mean he read and is repeating some garbage from the federalist fanboy site

#102 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-12 11:53 AM | Reply

This discussion is going nowhere. You have a pre-programmed response to the word "federalism" and have no idea as to what I'm actually advocating.

#100 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 11:50 AM | FLAG:

Come on you aren't trying to insult my intellegence are you??? You have a 14 year record here. Not too hard to figure out.

#103 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:54 AM | Reply

--The way you tell it we should just abolish all state lines and cede ALL powers to the federal government. That's how you come across.

That's the goal. Centralize all power in Washington, DC. Create a Kremlin-by-the-beltway. One stop shopping for progressives and corporations who would otherwise face the expense and inconvenience of lobbying in 50 separate states.

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-12 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is why we must get our rights from the Supreme Court. We literally have no choice.

#105 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 11:56 AM | Reply

-You have a 14 year record here.

you've been here a long time as well, Laura... ... ..

you're acting like you went to law school.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-12 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"That's how you come across."

That's what your prejudiced ears have been trained to hear when anyone questions the virtues of Federalism.

Oh look, Nulli is here to help you reinforce those stereotypes.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 12:02 PM | Reply

I bet none of these self-appointed constitutional scholars have read the Federalist Papers.

#108 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-12 12:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-You have a 14 year record here.
you've been here a long time as well, Laura... ... ..
you're acting like you went to law school.

POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-07-12 11:57 AM | REPLY

You just jump in just to troll. You're acting like you have something cogent to say but really don't.

#109 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

This is why we must get our rights from the Supreme Court. We literally have no choice.

#105 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

So, just abolish congress?

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 12:16 PM | Reply

109

Well, I'm reading through the thread and I'm not baiting you into anything.

If that's trolling then guilty as charged.

108

Exactly.

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-12 12:17 PM | Reply

That's what your prejudiced ears have been trained to hear when anyone questions the virtues of Federalism.

#107 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Project much?

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 12:18 PM | Reply

- Create a Kremlin-by-the-beltway.

What's funny is that Dulli is still a doddering victim of the Red Scare... what with Russia being an alt right crony corporatist oligarchy and all.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-12 12:19 PM | Reply

"Loving v Virginia eviscerates that notion."

how?

#114 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-12 12:20 PM | Reply

Laura, you understand there are thousands and thousands of constitutionally sound laws passed at the state level the SCOTUS never touches, right?

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2018-07-12 12:24 PM | Reply

"Project much?"

Dodge the question in #98 much?

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 12:26 PM | Reply

"I bet none of these self-appointed constitutional scholars have read the Federalist Papers."

^
Look kids, more bias and personal prejudice to help JeffJ and Eberly understand the thread!

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 12:39 PM | Reply

Laura,

Surely you realize that Congress has the power to pass a public accommodations law to your liking, yes?

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 12:54 PM | Reply

Surely you realize that Congress has the power to pass a public accommodations law to your liking, yes?

#118 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 12:54 PM | FLAG:

Ummmmmmmmmmm they don't need to. Title IX Plus the Title VII does that already plus the civil rights act of 1964. It isn't being recognized by the bigoted GOP hence the necessity of the court to end the whole denial shebang.

#119 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 01:10 PM | Reply

"Surely you realize that Congress has the power"

hey look
a pathological liar is still pretending we have a functioning congress.

#120 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-07-12 01:12 PM | Reply

Neither Title IX nor VII address public changing rooms.

Separate legislation is needed for that.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 01:16 PM | Reply

"Surely you realize that Congress has the power to pass a public accommodations law to your liking, yes?"

Could they now?

"That's the goal. Centralize all power in Washington, DC."

The thing you're advocating for is precisely the thing you're opposed to.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 01:17 PM | Reply

Could they now?

Yes. But it wouldn't be easy. Legislating is rarely easy.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 01:20 PM | Reply

Neither Title IX nor VII address public changing rooms.
Separate legislation is needed for that.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 01:16 PM | REPLY

God you're stupid.

cdn.ymaws.com

#124 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 01:27 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

Between 2010 and 2016, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance explaining that transgender students are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. It instructed public schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in academic life. A student who identifies as a transgender boy, for instance, is allowed entry to a boys-only class, and a student who identifies as a transgender girl is allowed entry to a girls-only class. This also applies to academic records if that student is over the age of eighteen at a university.[62] The memo states in part that "[a]ll students, including transgender students, or students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. Under Title IX, a recipient generally must treat transgender, or gender non-conforming, consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes."[62]

In February 2017, the departments of justice and education under the Trump administration withdrew the guidance on gender identity issued by the Obama administration.[63]

The Education Department headed by Betsy DeVos announced on 12 February 2018 that Title IX did not allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their gender identities.[64]

#125 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 01:30 PM | Reply

"Surely you realize that Congress has the power to pass a public accommodations law to your liking, yes?"

According to Obergefell, Congress made it illegal to ban gay marriage in 1868.

You, and the legal system, didn't realize that until 2015.

Not to mention, you think Obergefell was adjudicated poorly. So you might still not realize it.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 01:31 PM | Reply

BTW Public changing rooms are included in public restrooms because they are open to the public. You're just inserting a BS Bias to the discussion Jeff because it makes you feel icky.

#127 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 01:32 PM | Reply

"Neither Title IX nor VII address public changing rooms."

Meanwhile, you think Title IX is a massive Federal overreach in the first place. So it's no surprise you construe it to have as narrow a scope as possible.

It's like you don't even understand how you think.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 01:40 PM | Reply

God you're stupid.
cdn.ymaws.com
#124 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I don't think it's wise to call God stupid.

There is no way congress was taking transgenders into account when those laws were passed given gender dysphoria was considered to be a mental disorder at the time.

Those laws do not address public changing rooms and restrooms. Sorry.

You need a new law to address that issue. It's how our government is structured.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-07-12 02:49 PM | Reply

"You need a new law to address that issue."

Not at all.
See Obergefell.
Equal Protection has been the law of the land since 1868.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 02:52 PM | Reply

There is no way congress was taking transgenders into account when those laws were passed given gender dysphoria was considered to be a mental disorder at the time.
Those laws do not address public changing rooms and restrooms. Sorry.
You need a new law to address that issue. It's how our government is structured.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-07-12 02:49 PM | REPLY

Doesn't matter what congress had in mind at the time. Courts have expanded those to include gender and that includes gender identy.

#131 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-07-12 02:53 PM | Reply

"There is no way congress was taking transgenders into account when those laws were passed"

So what? The fact that Congress didn't take transgenders into account doesn't exempt them from law.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-12 11:32 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort