Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
The second half of your statement seems poorly thought out. I’m going to assume there was a better way to state what you intended and given time, you might clarify that statement.
Because I’d surely rather trust a justice I vehemently disagree with (John Roberts for example) but whose values and reason seem well equipped then someone whose aren’t surely can’t be trusted to “uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights” with any degree of confidence, regardless of the side of the political spectrum you align with.
If what you say is in fact what you’ve meant, a lot of the clever stabs you make around here regarding your respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves just got a lot cheaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
If I thought that Kavanaugh would not adjudicate by original constitutional text, I would not vote for him even if it were proven that his character was as pure as the white of newly driven snow. Nor would I vote for a judge with a record of Progressive judicial review even if his character was proven so to be.
Kavanaugh's record as a judge gives me as much confidence as I could reasonably be expected to have, that he is a textual originalist.
Good character is a wonderful thing. But at the eleventh hour, when the choice is Kavanaugh with a tainted past he's lied about, or someone picked by a Progressive President choosing on the basis of a judge's past record of Progressive jurisprudence, I'll take Kavanaugh in a heartbeat.
And especially so since it appears that Kavanaugh is no longer, nor has been for several years, the person he is portrayed by some as being when he was 17 years old.
I do not want to be judged now by how I acted as a teenager. And I am not interested in what any of our judges or politicians (the difference between those becoming less discernable as the Court has been shifting toward Progressive ideology) were like as teenagers. Some of the most aggressive and sexually loose men I've known during teen years became the most loving and trustworthy men in their adult years, especially as they married and had children.
I don't mean to be "clever" in my "respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves." I passionately wish to preserve those things. That is why I want to retard and reverse the trend of our federal government becoming, as simply put as some would say, too big for its britches--its britches being the Constitution. If it is allowed to continue on the path of not only intruding in every aspect of our lives, but dictating how we must live, then the Constitution, and the ability to govern ourselves will become a museum piece to be admired as some quaint relic no longer relevant to some currently proscribed society. And we will be ruled by a law that has no limits or boundaries in its ability to define what we can do and who we are.
That may be "extreme" to some, but I think the Constitution as originally meant to be understood is the most moderate structure of an actual practicing government ever conceived. It is, for me, a most reasonable dividing line between lawlessness and tyranny.
Again, I don't see Kavanaugh as a threat to the Constitution. I may be wrong about that. But I don't think I am wrong about the threat of jurists from a Progressive persuasion. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise. I have asked for that discussion many times on this forum. No one from the left or so-called "center" seems to want to engage in that dialogue.
Will you?