Feinstein’s opening statement in Barrett hearings

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No kidding. Take a civics class for gods sake. Or take the time to read the constitution, instead of letting Rachael Maddow tell you what it says.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Laws get passed and you have elections, but if you’re in favor of unelected lifetime appointments having the power of a king, that’s your choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm OK with judges being unelected, I'd be OK with a finite term. As for how much power, if they follow the constitution, they don't have the power of a king. It's liberals who want activist judges in there making policy, which I agree is way too much power for people not elected.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

White greviences are not in the constitution nor are white fire fighters mentioned so if your an originalist you cant use that argument

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more constitutionally ignorant post on the entire Internet today.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What was the Constitution’s original meaning about telecommunications, air travel, machine guns or nuclear weapons, slavery, or gender equality?

The original meaning of amendment to the Constitution was allowed in it. Slavery was addressed by the 13th amendment. The other items, for the federal government to be able to control in some manner, would have to fall within some enumerated power in the Constitution. The treaty clause in the Constitution can be used to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution can uphold equality under the law for all individuals. Insofar as there is actual commerce involved in telecommunications or air travel that crosses state lines, the federal government can regulate that through the Commerce Clause. If there are no constitutional enumerations that can include a subject, the power to impose restrictions is left to the states.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Maybe you should tell that to sue happy Republicans

except republicans are generally in favor of tort reform (to reduce frivolous lawsuits), and democrats are generally opposed to tort reform.

My god, you can't get one right on this thread even by accident.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But anti discrimination laws are in the constitution. And the equal protection clause, means that everyone is free from discrimination, even white firefighters. This is news to you?.

You're having a rough time on this thread, you can't shred what I'm saying this time, you really can't.

seems you havent been paying attention


Marriage equality under threat from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

except republicans are generally in favor of tort reform (to reduce frivolous lawsuits), and democrats are generally opposed to tort reform.

My god, you can't get one right on this thread even by accident.

ok jim whos filing all the election law suits nation wide your a just a partisan hack you live in an alternative universe

tort has nothing to do with the supreme court but there you go again comparing apples to oranges but every one else has it wrong

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

seems you havent been paying attention


Marriage equality under threat from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

First, I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, and I was so when 96% of democrats still opposed it.

That being said, discrimination is what happens when you treat two things differently, when they are the same. For example, a white firefighter seeking a promotion and a black firefighter seeking a promotion, are similar, there's no logical basis to treat them differently (even though the liberals who run the city of New Haven, as well as the liberals on the SCOTUS, wanted them treated differently).

An argument can be made, that a heterosexual couple is meaningfully different than a homosexual couple, in that one can produce life (which we, you know, need in order to exist) and one cannot. Treating things differently when they are in fact different, could be construed as not being discriminatory.

I don't make that argument, but I see some merit in it.

[Pete F.]

Donald J. Trump (Covita) earns the position of civil justice hypocrite-in-chief simply because his hypocrisy is one for the record books. Trump has tried to block the courthouse doors to others in his business dealings and during his year and a half as President. But when he believes that he or his companies have been wronged in some way, he has always run straight to court. He has done so thousands of times.
Trump has long used forced arbitration clauses to prevent anyone from bringing legal cases in open court against him. Typical is the case involving Stormy Daniels, a former adult film actress who received “hush money” before the 2016 presidential election as she shopped a story about a sexual liaison with Trump a decade earlier. On May 3, 2018, Trump tweeted (referring to his lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen) :Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
These agreements are..... ...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair....

https://www.almcms.com/contrib/conte...tes-Report.pdf

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You'd be hard-pressed to find a more constitutionally ignorant post on the entire Internet today.

your the ignorant one who cant tell sarcasm from being serious

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your the ignorant one who cant tell sarcasm from being serious

no one thought you were being sarcastic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Donald J. Trump (Covita) earns the position of civil justice hypocrite-in-chief simply because his hypocrisy is one for the record books. Trump has tried to block the courthouse doors to others in his business dealings and during his year and a half as President. But when he believes that he or his companies have been wronged in some way, he has always run straight to court. He has done so thousands of times.
Trump has long used forced arbitration clauses to prevent anyone from bringing legal cases in open court against him. Typical is the case involving Stormy Daniels, a former adult film actress who received “hush money” before the 2016 presidential election as she shopped a story about a sexual liaison with Trump a decade earlier. On May 3, 2018, Trump tweeted (referring to his lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen) :Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.
These agreements are..... ...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair....

https://www.almcms.com/contrib/conte...tes-Report.pdf

hold on...you’re saying they Tump had the audacity to look out for his own interests when running his business? Call Ripleys believe it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

hold on...you’re saying they Tump had the audacity to look out for his own interests when running his business? Call Ripleys believe it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What’s a “tort reform” hypocrite? It’s someone who complains about people who file lawsuits and says compensation to injured people should be limited.
Yet when they’ve been harmed, they go straight to court and sue for everything they can. No one likes a hypocrite. Yet one would be hard pressed to find more hypocrites than in the “tort reform” movement.

And Covita is Number One, and you claim I don't say he excels at anything...........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No one likes a hypocrite.

....

Biden is a naked, glaring hypocrite. how many times has he changed his tune on filling supreme court vacancies in an election year? yet democrat voters like him.

no one likes hypocrites, unless they are in the same
party. you’ve never, not once, called out a liberal hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Just keep defending the Plaintiff in Chief, he'll be around a little while longer.
Covita has lied to America 25,000 times as POTUS, hid his negotiations with Putin and his taxes and his extramarital affairs and his medical records and his foreign business deals and his creditor list—et cetera—but you won't stop yelling that Biden didn't answer a hypothetical

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just keep defending the Plaintiff in Chief, he'll be around a little while longer.
Covita has lied to America 25,000 times as POTUS, hid his negotiations with Putin and his taxes and his extramarital affairs and his medical records and his foreign business deals and his creditor list—et cetera—but you won't stop yelling that Biden didn't answer a hypothetical

Pete, which one of us, has a history of praising and criticizing both sides, and which one never, ever goes against his own side?

[Pete F.]

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

Most of us would agree with Jefferson that the Constitution is not a religious document. But he also believed that until a Constitution is replaced, it is the law of the land or it is worthless.

They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

Jefferson is being a bit hyperbolic here. I don't know of anyone with an acceptable amount of intelligence who ascribes anything to previous generations as being more than human. And if he is implying that the wisdom of a previous generation is not relevant to the next, then how much credence should be placed on what he says here by the generations following him? And the Constitution does have a provision for amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

Hence, the amendment clause in the Constitution and the provision for a constitutional convention to change it.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

Institutions do change. And more and more rapidly with advancing technology and "the progress of the human mind." So fast now, indeed, that new constitutions would have to be drawn every decade and soon after in single digit years if they had to be discarded because of Jefferson's noted changes. But basic human nature changes far more slowly than surface societal changes. The history and experience Jefferson admires tells us it takes thousands of years for it to change (if it ever has), so the principles founded on that nature will still apply. And they should be applicable and even in small ways adaptable to institutional and circumstantial changes. The Constitution as written still applies to human liberty.

Of course, if liberty, individual freedom itself, has become defunct, as some would have it, then a benevolent dictatorship might be better. But then, if human beings have any integrity of self, the nature of the dictators had well better be evolved into some immutable and selfless honesty, honor, and patriarchal/matriarchal protector and nurturer of the people or there will be more revolutions. Or we might somehow evolve into fully libertarian societies with no government structures at all
.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

The style and function of the coat may change, but it still will be a coat. We have not yet evolved to the point where we no longer need or wear coats.

Jefferson also said: The instability of our laws is really an immense evil. Which seems to contradict the surface context (and your silently implied interpretation) of the Jefferson quote.

He also said these very interesting things about government which, after the over two centuries since he said them, they, contrary to how some would interpret your Jefferson quote, still apply and to which our Constitution has answers:

When all government ...in little as in great things... shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power; it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.

Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.

The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

[Pete F.]

You ought to tell Covita about the debt stuff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You ought to tell Covita about the debt stuff

Congress is supposed to take care of that. (You knew I would say that, but you just couldn't resist.)

And, BTW, even if Congress did get serious and try to reduce the debt, it would take a combination of the kind of economy that was blooming in 2017-2019 ("Trump's") and a much stricter adherence by the federal government to its limitations in the Constitution. The greatest contributor to the debt has been federal spending on things that the Constitution doesn't give them the power to meddle in.

But we may have to wait till Hell freezes over for that to happen. More likely, what will happen is that we will reach such a financial crisis that the federal government will impose some unconstitutional total regulation and control of society in order to concoct some scheme that will assure its total unimpeded power to "fix" the mess it has created, and from which will evolve the final destruction of the constitutional order and its "outdated" focus on the pesky and selfish notion of individual freedom. And thus usher us into the much desired Progressive/socialistic era of an all powerful and benevolent governmental administration of experts who will ensure, in whatever way they deem effective and efficient, that the people's greed will no longer be allowed to throw society into financial chaos, but rather we will be nourished by government largesse and a people trained into altruism and equal outcomes for all.

[Got Stripers]

Amazing dodging of simple law questions today, questions any judge worth the price of their robes could answer, I certainly hope the voters make the GOP pay for their hypocrisy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Congress is supposed to take care of that. (You knew I would say that, but you just couldn't resist.)

And, BTW, even if Congress did get serious and try to reduce the debt, it would take a combination of the kind of economy that was blooming in 2017-2019 ("Trump's") and a much stricter adherence by the federal government to its limitations in the Constitution. The greatest contributor to the debt has been federal spending on things that the Constitution doesn't give them the power to meddle in.

But we may have to wait till Hell freezes over for that to happen. More likely, what will happen is that we will reach such a financial crisis that the federal government will impose some unconstitutional total regulation and control of society in order to concoct some scheme that will assure its total unimpeded power to "fix" the mess it has created, and from which will evolve the final destruction of the constitutional order and its "outdated" focus on the pesky and selfish notion of individual freedom. And thus usher us into the much desired Progressive/socialistic era of an all powerful and benevolent governmental administration of experts who will ensure, in whatever way they deem effective and efficient, that the people's greed will no longer be allowed to throw society into financial chaos, but rather we will be nourished by government largesse and a people trained into altruism and equal outcomes for all.

Come on now
Covita wants to send everyone a check so they’ll vote for him
Even His Senators are shying away but the Turtle will round them up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Come on now
Covita wants to send everyone a check so they’ll vote for him
Even His Senators are shying away but the Turtle will round them up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, Mr. Pete F'd up, the Dems are more generous with their stimulus package than the Repubs, so I guess they want folks to vote for Trump too.

[Pete F.]

Covita wants his name on it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Amazing dodging of simple law questions today, questions any judge worth the price of their robes could answer, I certainly hope the voters make the GOP pay for their hypocrisy.

Ginsberg made famous the "not a forecast, not a peek" response to a nominee saying how they'd rule n hypotheticals. There are actually ethical rules precluding judges from doing that. But that doesn't matter?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Covita wants his name on it

The Dems are making a prolonged big deal about it and getting her media allies to make sure she gets credit for her fighting for the little guys and the Repubs are stingy. And if someone named Covita signed the check, folks would probably think it was some clerk in the Treasury Dept.

[scottw]

it's fun when these loathsome fools are casting aspersions and weighing judgment on someone as wonderful as ACB.... I hope America was watching....is Sheldon the dumbest rock in congress?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ginsberg made famous the "not a forecast, not a peek" response to a nominee saying how they'd rule n hypotheticals. There are actually ethical rules precluding judges from doing that. But that doesn't matter?

he doesn't know...he's just yelling at the wall...what do you think a judge robe costs anyway?...might be a good halloween costume this year

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You'd think you would also want a President faithful to the Constitution.

Yes, I would also want a President faithful to the Constitution. That's why in the primaries I voted for Ted Cruz. He didn't win. So now my choice, knowing that only a Republican or a Democrat will win, my choice is between Trump or Biden. Between the two, Trump has shown his governing politics to be far more faithful to the Constitution than Biden's long history of becoming more and more Progressive and whose present position will be dictated by the Democrat Party which has actually become the Progressive Party trending heavily toward socialism and is being supported by the Communist Party and leftist organizations and movements.

I have no doubt, absolutely none, that the Progressive party, given enough power and a little more time, will gut the Constitution with novel interpretations making it absolutely moot, totally irrelevant, and finish replacing it with it's dream of some form of an unhampered Administrative State--or maybe with a whole new Constitution, or none at all.

If you don't know what the American version of the "administrative state" is, and what is the Progressive project of making it our functioning form of government while rejecting the Constitution, the following two articles give a clear picture.

The first, https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state is a concise neutral explanation of what it is.

The second and more interesting one details the Progressive project of rejecting the Constitution and basically replacing its functional powers with a centralized administrative government: https://federalistforum.com/the-admi...ed-government/

I think Pete F and Spence, if they read the articles, will agree with the notion of an administrative state, and prefer it over the Constitution and its separation of powers doctrine.

[RickBomba]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Feinstein said that ginsberg was a tireless advocate for women’s rights.

which, if you’re smart, means that ginsberg was a terrible, terrible judge. it’s not a judges job to champion the underdog, it’s a judges job to decide if something is constitutional.

this is why the statue of lady justice which is at every courthouse, is blindfolded

the court was not designed to be a rubber stamp to approve everything liberals want to happen.

All I hear is “Waaaaaa” right now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device