Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Brett Kavanaugh

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,675
    Thanks
    377
    Thanked 461 Times in 401 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cromwell View Post
    Yes it has,it calls in to question her integrity and contradicts some statements she has made.

    ?

    All she did was standard procedure in America and not relevant to the case. Given the culture of teenage males in middle class America when at college and university I don't believe a word Kavanaugh says. (Or when it comes to sexually abusing females in their youth anyone of Kavanaugh's class.)

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leaving the EUSSR
    Posts
    10,413
    Thanks
    2,427
    Thanked 2,356 Times in 1,780 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by lankou View Post
    All she did was standard procedure in America and not relevant to the case. Given the culture of teenage males in middle class America when at college and university I don't believe a word Kavanaugh says. (Or when it comes to sexually abusing females in their youth anyone of Kavanaugh's class.)
    And as usual you pick out some small part which you think supports your argument and ignore and fail to answer that which questions your assertions.

    Like so often a waste of time trying to engage with you.
    The new parliamentary democracy,it's not the will of the people that counts but the will of 650......will come back to haunt them.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,675
    Thanks
    377
    Thanked 461 Times in 401 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cromwell View Post
    And as usual you pick out some small part which you think supports your argument and ignore and fail to answer that which questions your assertions.

    Like so often a waste of time trying to engage with you.
    I am merely commenting on the corrupt nation that America is.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts
    What is most disturbing about this whole issue is not the alleged details of Kavanough's past but that this supreme court nomination is so politically charged. This is one seat of nine which would represent a casting vote between Republican and Democrat. In the UK we value the judiciary being independent of politics - one may argue that the bunch of largely elderly people we have as judges in the UK tend to be rather conservative (with a small "c"), but then they do not rule on matters of state and only on the interpretation of the law - and, in any case, most value this distinction I believe. This Supreme Court does have more political remit in that ...

    " ... 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."

    This seems OK at first sight but can stop legislation on this basis. An example may be laws on carrying firearms may be ruled against as damaging the rights of a minority (should this situation arise) even if agreed in both houses. This issue may be a constitutional matter, but even if it were not this would not stop this group vetoing such legislation. One issue is that " President Donald Trump has asked Congress to reinstate the line-item veto, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 1990s." Should this occur it increases the power of the President significantly.

    I really find it surprising that so many Republicans support Trump, even if slightly reluctantly. It is tribalism in Spades!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,375
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 344 Times in 270 Posts
    The reason why the SC is so important in the US is that the Dems (in the main) have given up trying to change things through the ballot box and rely on decisions by the Court to advance their agenda. The classic example being Roe V Wade - rather than leaving it up to 9 Justices the Dems could campaign on changing the Law through Congress, same with Gun Control, immigration etc. etc.

    Until that changes the SC will remain a partisan dog fight.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked 309 Times in 243 Posts
    As I understand it the Roe vs Wade case resulted in Texas not being allowed to pass a law restricting rights to abortion (in simple terms). They simply were basing this on the law and the rights of an individual as they are supposed to do. It was 7-2 in the SC. It seems to me that the Democrats are worried by a Republican party being under the power of Trump and blocking the will of the elected representatives. This is rather the opposite of what you are saying unless you are suggesting that every decision has to go before a countrywide referendum.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    10,029
    Thanks
    2,018
    Thanked 1,850 Times in 1,330 Posts
    I think that the abortion issue is at the heart of all of this trouble and it is next on Trump's agenda, to fulfil another part of his policies.
    Abortion on demand may soon be a thing of the past in the USA.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,140
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 148 Times in 125 Posts
    If you believe that Donald Trump is morally against abortion or moral or religious grounds, I would humbly suggest that you are rather naive.I suspect he is against abortion being available to poor people as long as it makes him popular in the polls, but makes an exception for any kind of inconvenient situation that rich people like himself might get into.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,375
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 344 Times in 270 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by grumzed View Post
    As I understand it the Roe vs Wade case resulted in Texas not being allowed to pass a law restricting rights to abortion (in simple terms). They simply were basing this on the law and the rights of an individual as they are supposed to do. It was 7-2 in the SC. It seems to me that the Democrats are worried by a Republican party being under the power of Trump and blocking the will of the elected representatives. This is rather the opposite of what you are saying unless you are suggesting that every decision has to go before a countrywide referendum.

    Prior to RvW abortion was a State issue - some allowed it, some didnt. Supporters could have enacted a federal Law to allow abortion across the US but knowing they wouldn't get that through Congress they got the SC to mandate it.

    The way it was done was perfectly within the constitution but to be clear, it was only done that way because there wasnt the support in Government to legislate on the issue. Its the same with firearms and immigration.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,375
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 344 Times in 270 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I think that the abortion issue is at the heart of all of this trouble and it is next on Trump's agenda, to fulfil another part of his policies.
    Abortion on demand may soon be a thing of the past in the USA.
    If that is what the people want then why should anyone stop them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •