Trump appointing Judge Kavanaugh

[blcoach8]

Personally, I think Trump did a great job in selecting Kavanaugh.  What was amusing was the brain-dead liberals picketing outside the Supreme court building with carrying signs with STOP________________  and then a blank area so they could write in the name of whoever Trump appointed.  If Jesus Christ was still on earth and Trump appointed him, the liberals would be screaming about that. It made no difference who Trump picked, we would be hearing the same garbage from these idiots who are desperate to stop the SCOTUS from being predominantly conservative.  They are trying to scare people into thinking they will lose their healthcare if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe vs.  Wade would be overturned, etc.  All desperate cries from the crybaby democrats who want to preserve what is left of the legacy of the worhtless Muslim who Trump followed to the White House.  The Republicans blocked Obama from appointing Merrick Garland and the dems are determned to stop Kavanaugh.  They tried to stop Gorsuch and failed......they will fail to block Kavanaugh. Then, when Ginsberg drops dead trying to hold on to her seat until Trump leaves office......probably after the 2024 election.. Trump can replace this old hag and have it so the liberals are kept from controlling the court for decades.  

These fools who are screaming and protesting Kavanaugh are showing a big reason why Trump won the election and will more than likely be re-elected.

When Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and those morons are all screaming against Kavanaugh, we know Trump made the right choice.

[thomasj13]

Welcome to politics.

[Deleted]

Kavanaugh was probably the least desirable of the four finalist.

Trump caved to the lady senators of Alaska and Maine, as Kavanaugh was the only one of the four to recognize that Roe V. Wade is established law, and not to be changed. These ladies will be needed for Trump to get the 51 Senate votes for confirmation.

He's also less likely to be a conservative activist in the vein of Thomas or Gorusch, and will be more like Kennedy as a strict constitutionalist

[blcoach8]

Trump probably thought he had to have the votes of the lady senators to be sure his choice was confirmed. We need a judge who will adhere to the letter of the the Constitution, The left wants someone go along with their agenda.

[koolade2]

Two of my main concerns were the 2nd and Obama Care    ACA  He is very strong Pro 2A and has ruled that the AR15 is a common use weapon is legal.

He also has ruled that ACA Obama Care was Illegal.

[blcoach8]

Personally, I think Roe vs. Wade legalizes murder and needs to be over-turned. We need a judge who interprets the constitution as written and wants to uphold the second amendment and abolish Obamacare.

[m240]

Jul 11, 2018 15:06:05 GMT -6 @txheat10k said:

Kavanaugh was probably the least desirable of the four finalist.

Trump caved to the lady senators of Alaska and Maine, as Kavanaugh was the only one of the four to recognize that Roe V. Wade is established law, and not to be changed. These ladies will be needed for Trump to get the 51 Senate votes for confirmation.

He's also less likely to be a conservative activist in the vein of Thomas or Gorusch, and will be more like Kennedy as a strict constitutionalist

And that kind of outcome is really not so bad.  If the court is stacked to high with ultra conservatives then the next time we have a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled Congress we will wind up with a law increasing the number of Supreme Court justices so that the court is stacked in their favor.  As an example let's assume that Kavanaugh gets the 51 votes and that both Justices Ginsberg and Souter retire next year and that the Republicans hold the Senate.  So now 7 of the 9 Justices would most likely be conservative.  The Democrats then win the White House and the Congress in 2024 and then they pass a law that ups the number of Justices from 9 to 15.  If things get to far out of balance then there will always be a counter move back towards the center.  The problem is making sure it does not swing too far as it has with Obama and if the above scenario plays out with the power moving too far to the right.    

[ɮօʀȶǟʐ]

It would take a constitutional convention to change the number of justices, wouldn’t it?

[Deleted]

I don't think so, because I do know it was done in the CW era.

Quick wiki update.

Size of the Court[edit]
Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six "judges". Although an 1801 act would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.[69]

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[70] where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[71] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in Congress.[72] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice Willis Van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[73]

[ɮօʀȶǟʐ]

After further study, I see that it can be done by act of Congress.

[m240]

Jul 15, 2018 11:55:07 GMT -6 ɮօʀȶǟʐ said:

After further study, I see that it can be done by act of Congress.

So there you go.  The balance of the Supreme Court is only an election away from changing and when it does it will change forever. 


The reason that the progressive movement keeps turning the country farther away from our roots is that they have learned the art of incremental change.  If you take the second amendment as an example.  The progressives take every opportunity to highlight every negative event in such a way as to turn a few more people away from the rights that we have under the second amendment.  Making "common sense" changes often means losing some of your freedom and once lost they turn their attention elsewhere so that people can grow comfortable with the new norm and then boom there you go again.  They move the ball ever so slightly again.  Conservatives want to keep things the same so after they grow comfortable with the way things have changed it becomes time to move it again.  Conservatives have to learn to use this to recapture what we hold dear.  We have to learn that nothing stays the same and when you just try to keep things the same you are destined to lose because nothing, nothing ever stays the same.   

[talshill]

I agree, but there's probably no stopping the one-world government from eventually happening. The strongest oak can be felled by removing a thin slice from the base and these folks have been sawing away for decades. I think some very hard times are coming. They've worked very hard to make the populace dependent; FDR's "New Deal" should really be called the Raw Deal. Old Ben Franklin was right when he said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money (from the public treasury) that will signal the end of the republic."

[astrosdoug]

From a late 19th century text:

"10.23.



Such measures will enable us to gradually withdraw any rights and indulgences that we
may have been forced to grant when we first assumed power. Such indulgences we will
have to introduce in the constitution of governments in order to conceal the gradual
abolition of all constitutional rights, when the time comes to change all existing
governments for our autocracy. The recognition of our autocrat may possibly be realised
before the abolition of constitutions, namely, the recognition of our rule will start from
the very moment when the people, torn by dissensions and smarting under the insolvency
of rulers (which will have been pre-arranged by us), will yell out: "Depose them, and give
us one world-ruler, could unify us and destroy all causes of dissension, namely, frontiers,
nationalities, religions, state debts, etc. ... a ruler who could give us peace and rest,
which we cannot find under the government of our sovereigns and representatives."
"

Sound familiar?

[marshall]

That was already tried when Roosevelt (not Teddy) tried to stack the court by increasing it to 15 members. It was defeated in the Senate. It was referred to as PACKING the Supreme Court.

www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

[m240]

Jul 16, 2018 7:13:29 GMT -6 marshall said:

That was already tried when Roosevelt (not Teddy) tried to stack the court by increasing it to 15 members. It was defeated in the Senate. It was referred to as PACKING the Supreme Court.

www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Yes he did so because he could not get his agenda passed.  In those days the honor and importance of the court was universal.  In today's world all of our institutions are under attack.  The intent of those who hate our constitution and the system that has created the greatest country in history is to tear down these institutions.  We see it today with the misuse of the FBI, the IRS, and other federal agencies, the attacks on the church, free speech ect.  The court will begin to see this when the balance of the court gets too far out of balance and then the esteem that the court now has will go up in smoke.  1001 justices, why not, who do those guys think they are.  The concept is already being discussed at Harvard and Princeton as well as other institutions that I am not aware of.  

[marshall]

Jul 16, 2018 17:10:10 GMT -6 m240 said:

Jul 16, 2018 7:13:29 GMT -6 marshall said:

That was already tried when Roosevelt (not Teddy) tried to stack the court by increasing it to 15 members. It was defeated in the Senate. It was referred to as PACKING the Supreme Court.

www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Yes he did so because he could not get his agenda passed.  In those days the honor and importance of the court was universal.  In today's world all of our institutions are under attack.  The intent of those who hate our constitution and the system that has created the greatest country in history is to tear down these institutions.  We see it today with the misuse of the FBI, the IRS, and other federal agencies, the attacks on the church, free speech ect.  The court will begin to see this when the balance of the court gets too far out of balance and then the esteem that the court now has will go up in smoke.  1001 justices, why not, who do those guys think they are.  The concept is already being discussed at Harvard and Princeton as well as other institutions that I am not aware of.  

The only thing I will argue about is whether the SCOTUS still has esteem. I haven't held it in high esteem in my lifetime. My problems with SCOTUS goes all the way back to Marbury vs Madison which essentially said SCOTUS had no check on it's power to reinvent the Constitution to it's liking. Therefore, despite the belief to the contrary, we have been an Oligarchy ever since.

[astrosdoug]

[marshall]

Jul 16, 2018 18:58:34 GMT -6 astrosdoug said:

LOL!

[astrosdoug]

Well, ATT Sportsnet told us that Princess Day is no longer just for girls. It sounds like the Princess Army could be forming ranks as we speak.

[m240]

I had an interesting thought just a while ago.  I was thinking about how convenient it was for the Justice department to hold those twelve indictments until right before Trump's meeting with Putin.  Everyone knew how Trump was going to respond to that question that was asked and his comment back about the DNC server was spot on.  But it gave every Trump hater the reason to light their hair on fire again and talk about what a terrible guy that we have as President.  You know the guy who is lower the taxes, leaving government positions unfilled to demonstrate the lack of a need for those spots, undoing regulations by the truck load and freeing up business to do what it does best, pushing back on in roads against private property rights by the epa, illegal immigration, defense, ect.  You know doing smart stuff with the government for a change.  

Well it occurred to me what the end game is.  You see if they hold off on some made up charge against someone in the Trump campaign until October or right before the confirmation vote on Kavanaugh, then they can raise holy hell and tell the Senate that they need to hold off on the confirmation until after the election and they just might get enough Senators to go along with them.  Then if they muddy the waters even more right before the election then who knows what happens in some of the tight races.  Of course after the election everything will prove to be phony as always but then it would be too late.  That folks is the game plan.  

[koolade2]

More people are getting tired of this Anti Trump stuff it's been going on since day one. What do all these people have now better Jobs etc. More People are #walkaway than the Democrats are willing to admit. They have jumped on the wrong Bandwagon.
MS13 or just looking for a better life
treating illegals better than Citizens especially Vets
Socialism
The list could go on

Google #walkaway

[ɮօʀȶǟʐ]

The group that the Dems are most in jeopardy of losing are black voters. Trump's economy has helped black people more than anything since emancipation or 1964 ERA.

[m240]

Jul 17, 2018 17:06:22 GMT -6 ɮօʀȶǟʐ said:

The group that the Dems are most in jeopardy of losing are black voters. Trump's economy has helped black people more than anything since emancipation or 1964 ERA.

The more you have the more you have to lose.  The more you have to lose the less likely you are to back someone who says you did not make that, it belongs to us.  

[m240]

My point was not that the American people would fold though that might happen depending on what the allegations are.  My real point was that the Senators would not vote on him before the election. Then who knows what happens.