Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 09, 2018

David Brock: I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. ... I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is -- because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights. But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense.

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.

Corrupt the Record knowyourmeme.com

David Brock sucks.

#1 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-09-09 11:49 PM | Reply

Oh, and Kavanaugh sucks too, obviously.

#2 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-09-10 12:02 AM | Reply

Desperation. After Garland, I get it. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh will be confirmed and he should as he's imminently qualified.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 10:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#3 He was appointed by a "president" whose civil and criminal liability will likely be determined by the Supreme Court, and yet he refuses to recuse himself from any matter relating to his benefactor.

He received stolen materials and lied about them under oath in 2006, and has lied under oath about other matters as well.

He is all but guaranteed to be the fifth vote in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.

Nobody disputes his academic qualifications. But if the only thing you need is an ivy league degree and some political/judicial experience then the "advise/consent" process may as well not exist. As someone who claims to respect the Constitution, you may want to give that process more meaning than you currently do.

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-10 10:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"Kavanaugh will be confirmed and he should as he's imminently qualified"

He has proved to the "Party of Principle"
the keepers of "ethics" and "law and Order"

that he can lie adequately for them

and the best part is.
Should he not be confirmed, it will be someone else's fault

#5 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-09-10 10:46 AM | Reply

#3 He was appointed by a "president" whose civil and criminal liability will likely be determined by the Supreme Court, and yet he refuses to recuse himself from any matter relating to his benefactor.

Nothing is even remotely close to coming before SCOTUS regarding Trummp, at this point.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 10:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How do you feel about his perjury?

#7 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-09-10 11:06 AM | Reply

He didn't commit perjury.

Context matters.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I just hope you lefties keep hammering on Kavanaugh, wasted energy.

#9 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-09-10 11:31 AM | Reply

at this point

Keep hedging. You know it's coming.

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-10 11:32 AM | Reply

I think Joe just sprouted a chubby.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 11:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

He didn't commit perjury.
Context matters.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-09-10 11:11 AM | REPLY

You're not a credible judge. Sorry not sorry.

#12 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-10 11:51 AM | Reply

Desperation. After Garland, I get it. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh will be confirmed and he should as he's imminently qualified.

#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-09-10 10:21 AM | FLAG:

Until you condemn Mitch McConnell for violating Obama's constitutional right to replace Scalia your words ring hollow.

#13 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-10 11:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

You mean someone who is up for a political position is being demonized by someone? Wow! Just like the last 6 SC nominees...they are going to single-handedly destroy our nation and possibly cause the big bang to reverse itself...according to the opposing party.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2018-09-10 11:55 AM | Reply

McConnell abused his powers but didn't violate Obama's constitutional right on anything, Laura.

You're just going to have to cry into your ice cream a bit longer.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

McConnell abused his powers but didn't violate Obama's constitutional right on anything, Laura.
You're just going to have to cry into your ice cream a bit longer.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-09-10 11:59 AM | REPLY

Yes yes he did. We've been over this time and time again.

www.acslaw.org

The Appointments Clause explicitly gives Congress the power to divest the president of some appointment powers relating to "inferior officers" and to "vest them as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department." On the other hand, the Appointments Clause does not give Congress (or any other body) the same divestment power with respect to Supreme Court appointments. So there are two interpretive possibilities here. Either the Senate's power to provide "advice and consent" with respect to Supreme Court nominees includes a further unstated power to deliberately divest presidents of their Supreme Court appointment powers (a power which Congress nevertheless explicitly lacks and no other body is explicitly granted when it comes to Supreme Court appointments). Or it doesn't. Where text is ambiguous, historical practice can provide needed clarification. Our study suggests that historical precedent would resolve any textual ambiguity in favor of a rule against divestment of presidents' Supreme Court appointment powers except in the highly unusual circumstances where there are contemporaneous questions about the status of the nominating president as the most recently elected President.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-10 12:18 PM | Reply

Brett Kavanaugh. Not an impartial judge but a Trumpubliscab opportunist running dog.

No offense to dogs intended.

#17 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-09-10 01:10 PM | Reply

Nothing is even remotely close to coming before SCOTUS regarding Trummp, at this point.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

Just like you were arguing last year that nothing connected trump to the russians. You're always WAY behind on seeing what everyone else can clearly see already.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-10 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Just like the last 6 SC nominees...they are going to single-handedly destroy our nation and possibly cause the big bang to reverse itself...according to the opposing party.

#14 | Posted by humtake

If kavanaugh casts the deciding vote that says a president is above the law, then yes, he will have done a large part in destroying the country.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-10 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Brock is still bitter that Queen Hillary wasn't coronated. He will probably never get over the disappointment.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-10 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

20

There should be support groups for that.....based on the number of folks here who could use some group therapy for the same ailment.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-10 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where text is ambiguous, historical practice can provide needed clarification. - #16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-10 12:18 PM
Times that Supreme Court Nominees were delayed or never voted upon:
copy/paste from another liberal site

1 under Andrew Jackson (Roger Taney) - Senate did vote to postpone the nomination indefinitely and not pick it up. After the next election, he was re-nominated and voted in.
5 (sort of) under John Tyler - Reuben Walworth and Edward King both nominated and the Senate put the nominations on hold indefinitely. After the next Congress started they were both re-nominated with the same results. So there was a vote.. sort of. in that they voted to table the nomination and not do anything about it. Then John M. Read was nominated and the Senate once again voted to table the nomination and not do anything about it.
3 under Millard Fillmore - Edward A. Bradford , George Edmund Badger , and William C. Micou
1 under Andrew Johnson - Henry Stanbery, where they just said "no, we have too many justices"
1 under Ulysses S. Grant - George Henry Williams (Senate Judiciary Committee declined to recommend confirmation to the entire Senate)
1 under Rutherford B. Hayes - Thomas Stanley Matthews, who the Senate declined to act on, but was renominated by the next president (James Garfield) and the Senate then confirmed with a vote of 24 to 23
1 under Warren Harding - Pierce Butler, who the Senate refused to have hearings at first. He was later renominated and then voted in.
1 under Dwight D. Eisenhower - John Marshall Harlan II, Senate Judiciary Committee didn't let it out of Committee for vote (in 1954). Eisenhower renominated him in 1955 after the 1954 elections and he was then voted in.

Add Garland to the list.

#22 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-10 01:38 PM | Reply

Just like you were arguing last year that nothing connected trump to the russians. You're always WAY behind on seeing what everyone else can clearly see already.

#18 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Your reaction will be very amusing if Mueller comes up empty on Russian collusion.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 01:39 PM | Reply

Your reaction will be very amusing if Mueller comes up empty on Russian collusion.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah all he'll have left is conspiracy, money laundering, lying to investigators, obstruction of justice...

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-10 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah all he'll have left is conspiracy, money laundering, lying to investigators, obstruction of justice...

#24 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-09-10 01:43 PM

FTFY

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-10 01:47 PM | Reply

Desperation. After Garland, I get it. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh will be confirmed and he should as he's imminently qualified.

#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why does being qualified matter? It wasn't good enough with Garland.

I can come up with a thousand metaphors. Reality is that he has some weird views on the Constitution that shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-09-10 02:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Kavanaugh will be confirmed and he should as he's imminently qualified.

#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's because there are no qualifications. Real low bar you're relying on for this one, literalist.

#27 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-09-10 02:05 PM | Reply

Reality is that he has some weird views on the Constitution ...

I haven't seen anything particularly weird about his views. They are pretty much mainstream. Certainly, there are also mainstream views that counter his but that doesn't make his views any less mainstream. What I see in his opposition is political not legal.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 02:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#28 | POSTED BY ET_AL

He wants to overturn Roe versus Wade and he thinks a sitting president cannot be the subject of a criminal or civil suit. Are you retarded and actually think those are mainstream ideas or are you just talking out of your ass?

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-09-10 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

He wants to overturn Roe versus Wade - #29 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2018-09-10 02:25 PM
Your evidence of that being what?

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-10 02:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#30
He gave a speech praising Rehnquist's dissent in Roe.

He wrote an opinion arguing that the Trump administration could temporarily imprison undocumented women seeking an abortion.

He said during his confirmation hearing that "all roads lead to the Glucksberg test" when it comes to unenumerated rights. And Kavanaugh recently said in a speech that "even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg's approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey."

If you're capable of connecting a few dots, it's pretty obvious how Kavanaugh will rule when it comes to abortion. But you'll play dumb and argue that none of this means anything, because that's your tired m.o.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-10 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Your evidence of that being what?

Idiotjones has no evidence of that other than what he has been told to believe by HuffMediaThinkAlterPoMattersProgressNet.

#32 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-10 02:41 PM | Reply

#31 | Posted by JOE

How does any of that make his views weird or out of the mainstream?

And you're forgetting Roberts. Do you really think he will permit the the kind of damage to the Court and the political and social upheaval overturning Roe will cause?

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How does any of that make his views weird or out of the mainstream?
And you're forgetting Roberts. Do you really think he will permit the the kind of damage to the Court and the political and social upheaval overturning Roe will cause?

#33 | POSTED BY ET_AL

It does take him outside the standard views that we expect from Justices...i.e. Roe not being settled law.

And regardless of damage control, if he is outside the standard view of law then he shouldn't be there regardless of the safeguards.

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-09-10 02:54 PM | Reply

#30 and #30 Why do you inbreds love being so easily proven wrong? Why do you want a SCOTUS justice that goes against the massive majority wishes of our citizens? Why do you hate democracy?

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-09-10 02:57 PM | Reply

he's imminently qualified.
#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Is that what the -------- in your pants is telling you?

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-09-10 02:59 PM | Reply

Is that what the -------- in your pants is telling you?

#36 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

It's telling me that I need to bang my wife.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How does any of that make his views weird or out of the mainstream?
#33 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Joe's #31 was responding to this question:

He wants to overturn Roe versus Wade
#29 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Your evidence of that being what?
#30 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE (ANDRE, A MATTRESS)

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-09-10 03:08 PM | Reply

I need to bang my wife.

Have at it.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-09-10 03:08 PM | Reply

"he thinks a sitting president cannot be the subject of a criminal or civil suit."

Judge Kavanaugh's Testimony on His Constitutional View of Presidential Immunity is Misleading -- and It Also Clinches the Case for Recusal

Contrary to some early commentary on the topic, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has not addressed simply in passing or in ambiguous terms whether a president is immune from indictment –– and perhaps even investigation – – while in office. He has written at length on his view that the president should enjoy that immunity as a matter of constitutional law, and he has spoken publicly about it. Now he suggests that he meant only that this was a matter for Congress to consider and address. The developing record, augmented by his testimony before the committee, is inconsistent with his reassurances.

www.justsecurity.org

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-10 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It does take him outside the standard views ...

I presume you mean "standard views" judged through political glasses. As a legal matter, Roe has been criticized since the day it was decided. That criticism is mainstream and it comes from all over the political spectrum.

... Roe not being settled law.

Yet, he has said it is settled.

#41 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Do you really think he will permit the the kind of damage to the Court and the political and social upheaval overturning Roe will cause?

I don't.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-10 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ryan Goodman @rgoodlaw

The following statements by Judge #Kavanaugh were misleading or false.

The question asked by Republican and Democratic Senators was important:

Had he ever taken a position on the Constitutionality of indicting or prosecuting a sitting President? ...

1. Kavanaugh misleading/false statement to @SenFeinstein:

"I've never taken a position on the Constitution on that question."

2. Kavanaugh misleading/false statement to @LindseyGrahamSC:

GRAHAM: "OK. Now whether or not a president can be indicted while in office ... I think you have written on this topic as well, haven't you?"

KAVANAUGH: "I have not written on the constitutionality."

Author identifies 5 more misleading or false statements Kavanaugh made in response to Senators' questioning:

twitter.com

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-10 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As a legal matter, Roe has been criticized since the day it was decided. That criticism is mainstream and it comes from all over the political spectrum."

Looks like Etsy doesn't think Roe is settled law either. What a shock.

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-10 03:17 PM | Reply

43

Does or has Politifact weighed in on Kavanaugh?

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-10 03:20 PM | Reply

-Do you really think he will permit the the kind of damage to the Court and the political and social upheaval overturning Roe will cause?
I don't.

#42 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-09-10 03:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

This is so funny I could cry.

#46 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-09-10 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Looks like Etsy doesn't think Roe is settled law either.

You should ask rather than think. Your thinking took chose the wrong path at the fork.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 03:22 PM | Reply

This is so funny I could cry.

#46 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

I'm just relieved it didn't make you angry.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-10 03:22 PM | Reply

took

#49 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 03:23 PM | Reply

-This is so funny I could cry.

I know....it's obvious why, too.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-10 03:25 PM | Reply

How does any of that make his views weird or out of the mainstream?

I didn't say anything about mainstream, you reflexive goon.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-10 03:27 PM | Reply

Abortion

More questions centered on a 2003 email exchange that mentioned Roe. vs. Wade. Kavanaugh has not expressed explicit opposition to the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

"I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so," Kavanaugh wrote in regards to another Senate confirmation hearing.

Experts told us that indeed, not all academics view Roe as settled law, but that the statement doesn't confirm what Kavanaugh would do. Still, it helps to define what precedent means to him.

"Probably the most telling thing here is his pretty clear statement that the court can always overrule precedent," Ziegler said.

www.politifact.com

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-10 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You should ask rather than think."

Looks like Etsy isn't a fan of thinking. What a surprise!

#53 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-10 03:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Experts told us that indeed, not all academics view Roe as settled law, but that the statement doesn't confirm what Kavanaugh would do."

Since Trump promised to appoint SC judges who will overturn Roe and since Evangelical voters are overlooking a myriad of Trump's sins in order to get that desired ruling, it is a pretty safe bet to assume that Kavanaugh, along with Gorsuch, will do so when give the chance.

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-10 03:35 PM | Reply

#54

Assuming you are correct, two of nine does not a majority make.

#55 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Probably the most telling thing here is his pretty clear statement that the court can always overrule precedent," Ziegler said.

is that true? can the court overrule precedent?

It's been the position of....well....everyone that Roe can be reversed meaning that the court can overrule precedent.

Kavanaugh just wrote words everyone already believes to be true.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-10 03:47 PM | Reply

#55 We can add Alito and Thomas to the overturn side, so, if and until the GOP gets to appoint another SC justice, it will come down to Roberts to decide.

#57 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-10 03:59 PM | Reply

On so many issues, we will now get to see what a real Roberts court looks like.

#58 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-10 04:00 PM | Reply

That criticism is mainstream and it comes from all over the political spectrum.

It's criticism comes from "Pro-lifers" (Pro-Deathers) exclusively. I.E. Christians/Religious nut jobs.

In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party.[4][5] The movement is also supported by secular organizations (such as Secular Pro-Life) and non-mainstream anti-abortion feminists.[6] The movement seeks to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.[1] (wiki)

So mostly evangelical Christians, Conservative Christian groups, Republicans, Catholics, etc.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-09-10 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That criticism is mainstream and it comes from all over the political spectrum.

#41 | POSTED BY ET_AL

No it isn't. It is a fringe opinion held by the least informed and loudest members of society. Just because a plane crash gets more media attention than a car crash does not make plane crashes more mainstream.

An overwhelming majority of US citizens agree that abortion should be legal. Only a small subset of murder-intending conservative sheep wish to criminalize it.

#60 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-09-10 04:41 PM | Reply

#59 | Posted by donnerboy

If you are going to quote me then address the point I made instead of resorting to non sequitur.

From your chosen source, wiki.

Legal
Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[83] Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.[84]
Then follows the identification of at least eight legal scholars from the liberal side, among them Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. I liked what Archibald Cox wrote:
"[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[88]
#60 | Posted by IndianaJones

Read it and weep, Indy.

BTW, I too am in that majority. But unlike you and many others, I can separate personal and political opinions from legal ones.

#61 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 05:11 PM | Reply

#61; What does any of that have to do with your false claim that overturning Roe is a mainstream idea? It objectively isn't; unless your version of "mainstream" for some reason means a tiny but vocal majority. Apparently you are unable to separate your personal opinion that overturning Roe is mainstream from the fact that is is not politically.

#62 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-09-10 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

71% of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, including 52% of Republicans (NBC/WSJ)

63% of Americans agree with Roe (Quinnipiac)

69% of Americans think Roe should not be completely overturned (Pew Research Center)

64% of Americans think Roe should stand (Gallup)

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-10 05:41 PM | Reply

#63

All of which leads me to believe that, like Et Al in #33, that Roberts won't ever let it get to the point where the Court overturns Roe.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-10 05:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#61; What does any of that have to do with your false claim that overturning Roe is a mainstream idea?

Add another one to the list of those needing a tutorial in reading comprehension. I've made no such claim.

#65 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-10 06:13 PM | Reply

#65; You realize that your earlier comments are still visible, right? We can all see where you made exactly the claim that his ideas are within the mainstream. You're like trump saying one thing on twitter in the morning and then claiming he never said it.

"I haven't seen anything particularly weird about his views. They are pretty much mainstream. Certainly, there are also mainstream views that counter his but that doesn't make his views any less mainstream. What I see in his opposition is political not legal."

#28 | POSTED BY ET_AL

#66 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-09-10 06:37 PM | Reply

#64 but Kavanaugh will. And if something were to happen to Roberts, we get another Kavanaugh. Better to stem the tide now.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-10 07:14 PM | Reply

71% of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, including 52% of Republicans (NBC/WSJ)
63% of Americans agree with Roe (Quinnipiac)
69% of Americans think Roe should not be completely overturned (Pew Research Center)
64% of Americans think Roe should stand (Gallup)
#63 | POSTED BY JOE

^
Americans felt the same way about Jim Crow before Jim Crow was overturned.

Fetal Rights is coming, like it or not.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-10 08:42 PM | Reply

"Add another one to the list of those needing a tutorial in reading comprehension."

This is funny from the guy who spent 18 months denying that CrossCheck removed names from the voter rolls because he didn't want to understand it meant Secretaries of State removed the names on the CrossCheck list from the voter rolls.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-10 08:46 PM | Reply

You realize that your earlier comments are still visible, right?

Of course, those comments include all important context. Context that you conveniently omitted in your reference to 28.

You should add a tutorial in context matters to you tutorial in reading comprehension.

#70 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-11 02:12 AM | Reply

#67 | Posted by JOE

If confirmed, Kavanaugh is one of nine. A majority that does not make. Following your logic, no SC nominee can ever be confirmed lest the worst fears of the opposition come to fruition. Remember, many Presidents have been disappointed in the votes of there confirmed nominees. So too the public whether pro or con of the nomination.

My prognostication, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Court will continue its path of chipping at the edges of Roe as it has for decades. The Court will not take on an outright overturn. My prognostication and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Your's will get me a cup. Cheers, may the future reveal.

#71 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-11 02:27 AM | Reply

#69 | Posted by snoofy

You are and remain an obtuse f****** idiot.

The false claim that Crosscheck (emphasis added), the f****** entity if you don't yet get it, disenfranchises minority and low income voters" is well documented on Palast's site, numerous ignorant articles on the internet and the ignorant comments of Danni and others on this site, including you. Crosscheck has not, indeed cannot, disenfranchise any voter ever.

Nor do Secretaries of State. List maintenance is a county level enterprise. Some use Crosscheck as a beginning point tool, consistent with state and federal laws. Some throw it in the trash. I've said that for over 18 months.

So, f*** off, pos troll.

#72 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-11 02:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#72 | Posted by et_al

Please don't get PO'd at obtuse idiots. This is the internet. Try to think of them as a form of emotional support - at least you aren't them.

#73 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-09-11 04:05 AM | Reply

If confirmed, Kavanaugh is one of nine. A majority that does not make.

You can keep speaking in stupid platitudes, or you can acknowledge the reality that Kavanaugh would be joined by Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas in his anti-Roe views and that a Republican-appointed Roberts would be the last thread on which that ruling hangs. You can play stupid all you want but i'm not going to join you.

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-11 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe,

"Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture," wrote Rehnquist, a frequent and vocal critic of the Miranda decision during his earlier years on the bench.

www.washingtonpost.com

Believe it or not, but even conservative jurists show deference to the concept of Stare Decisis especially when talking about prior court rulings that are so firmly entrenched in our culture and society. I'm guessing you find Rehnquist to be repellent, yet when he had his opportunity to overturn a ruling that he was loudly critical of, he deferred to Stare Decisis because of the unsettling societal lurch that would take place were it overturned.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-11 11:23 AM | Reply

"but even conservative jurists show deference to the concept of Stare Decisis "

Got any proof of this from todays justices?

You do realize Rehnquist is dead, right? he died in 2005. its 2018 and "conservatives" aren't what they used to be

#76 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-09-11 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Miranda rights don't have the cultural firestorm behind them that abortion does. The very person you quoted wrote a dissenting opinion in Roe. So I don't really see your point.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-11 01:01 PM | Reply

Joe,

My point is that in spite of a long and loud history of being extremely critical of Miranda, when given the opportunity to undo it, this conservative justice was deferential to Stare Decisis. The cultural upheaval that would have come with undoing Miranda is not even close to that of undoing Roe.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-11 01:13 PM | Reply

So what? That's one justice, who is dead now, who voted to overrule Roe in 1992 despite it being "precedent" then.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-11 01:23 PM | Reply

Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade last week and almost no one noticed

We don't have to guess, however, whether Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a constitutional right to abortion is grounded in this Glucksberg test, because he's already answered that question. As law professor Jim Oleske points out on Twitter, Kavanaugh said in his 2017 speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute that "even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg's approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey."

thinkprogress.org

#80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-11 03:35 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