ADVERTISEMENT

Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes on at 87

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[1] This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.

That is the Wiki. I have several dictionary
Originalism sounds like a crock.

I can't wait for Gorsuch to opine that "the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified" means that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect any weapons except blades, clubs and muzzle loading guns and cannons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Having a hearing and vote on Garland would have forced the Republicans to disclose their reasons for rejecting Garland.

McConnell allowed them to lurk in the shadows without going on the record.

And? About half of the Dems in the Senate voted against John Roberts. Arguably the most qualified candidate to ever be nominated. Obama still got elected for 2 terms and the Dems took the Senate. A vote would've changed nothing.
 
The National Review article pointed out that 29 times in American history there has been an open S.C. vacancy in a Presidential election year or a lame duck session before the Presidential election. The President made a nomination in all cases...Washington 3 times, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
A. Lincoln, US Grant, FDR, Eisenhower, and Oblameless. 22 of 44 Presidents faced this situation, and all 22 made the decision to send up the nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate

NYT interview with Ginsberg, July 2016.

Asked if the Senate had an obligation to consider Oblameless' nominee M. Garland to replace the deceased A. Scalia before the 2016 election:

" That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being the President in his last year".

It was Harry Reid who, in 2013 changed the rule from 60 votes to a simple majority for judicial nomination approval.

Dimcrats are reckless and stupid.
I like to think their stupid!
 
Of course they did and it is appropriate to bring the nomination at any time during a Presidency. McConnell changed the rules in 2016 and I don’t see hypocrisy in asking that he follow his rule now. What he did in 2016 is one of the most partisan acts in US history. You seem to be minimizing what he did.
I’m not minimizing it. It was wrong and it is still wrong now. My beliefs on this have never changed.
 
The National Review article pointed out that 29 times in American history there has been an open S.C. vacancy in a Presidential election year or a lame duck session before the Presidential election. The President made a nomination in all cases...Washington 3 times, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
A. Lincoln, US Grant, FDR, Eisenhower, and Oblameless. 22 of 44 Presidents faced this situation, and all 22 made the decision to send up the nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate

NYT interview with Ginsberg, July 2016.

Asked if the Senate had an obligation to consider Oblameless' nominee M. Garland to replace the deceased A. Scalia before the 2016 election:

" That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being the President in his last year".

It was Harry Reid who, in 2013 changed the rule from 60 votes to a simple majority for judicial nomination approval.

Dimcrats are reckless and stupid.
The article I read said the same.
 
No nomination has been put forth this close to an election. Rather, in some cases, presidents won re-election, and then nominated someone after the election. Per 538. It sounds like an important distinction NR might be glossing over.

What is the argument for deferring government action because of an election? Does this rationale apply to other actions besides judicial appointments? What if we are about to award a sizable government contract for new widgets to be delivered over 4 years. Should that also be delayed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
Pack the court.
Bring in 4 reliable democrat members to the Senate
End the Filibuster
Tear down the wall
Expand voting to non-citizens
Ease up on China in exchange for $$$$ for the donors and rent seekers.

All stated Democratic positions. The Democrats don’t give two shits about the country. They just want the power. Glad my life expectancy is short. And I’m already past the age when Biden’s chief health adviser said I should die.
For starters: What wall? Are you talking about the one Mexico is going to pay for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Well, everyone knows she was raised in the Jewish faith and was the first Jewish woman named to the Supreme Court, so there's no reason for him to gratuitously act like he hopes she is Christian -- except that he thinks this gives him an excuse to talk about his own religion i.e. trying to proselytize us once again.

I'm thinking "everyone knows" doesn't actually apply to VPM. He doesn't really seem to have much grasp of current events or even facts...
 
What did they do to Kavanaugh? Dare to bring up his past? I guess , considering Trump, they should have known Republicans don’t really care about sexual assault. Unless a Dem is involved.
Come on, Zeke. There’s as much solid evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted me as there is that he assaulted anyone else.

What the Democrats did to him was despicable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and dbmhoosier
Come on, Zeke. There’s as much solid evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted me as there is that he assaulted anyone else.

What the Democrats did to him was despicable.
There rarely is solid evidence in sexual abuse cases.
 
What is the argument for deferring government action because of an election? Does this rationale apply to other actions besides judicial appointments? What if we are about to award a sizable government contract for new widgets to be delivered over 4 years. Should that also be delayed?
New administrations routinely suspend all pending regulatory actions for review upon taking office. Lame duck Congresses also routinely pass CRs for the newly-elected Congress to pass a budget.

The Administration and GOP Senate is within its rights. Just like the next Administration and Congress can expand the number of justices.
 
Glad you find sexual abuse funny. Many, many women NEVER tell. And the way people react is exactly one of the many reasons why.
We’re not talking about sexual abuse, we’re talking about what happened to Kavanaugh.

There’s no viable evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted anyone. There was none then. There is none now.

What was done to him was despicable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and mcmurtry66
I find your post and ridiculous biased nature funny. Prosecutors take sex abuse cases EXTREMELY seriously. Wait thirty years - not so much.
I find the fact that you know absolutely nothing about why women keep quiet and you are proving it in your posting, extremely sad, not funny. Every time i hear men pontificating on the old why did she keep quiet for so long, as they are reinforcing the EXACT reason women keep quiet to be extremely depressing. It really doesn’t take too much time or research to learn about it.
 
We’re not talking about sexual abuse, we’re talking about what happened to Kavanaugh.

There’s no viable evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted anyone. There was none then. There is none now.

What was done to him was despicable.
She just told her therapist about it... but made that up years ago just in case she wanted to pull it out of the bag later?
 
I find the fact that you know absolutely nothing about why women keep quiet and you are proving it in your posting, extremely sad, not funny. Every time i hear men pontificating on the old why did she keep quiet for so long, as they are reinforcing the EXACT reason women keep quiet to be extremely depressing. It really doesn’t take too much time or research to learn about it.
I find it sad and not funny that a man’s life can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims by women. What’s more your post was just more nonsense. Prosecutors aggressively prosecute sex claims. Evidence is not hard to procure. At all. Keep filling your head with biased, woke, bubble bullshit. Fill out a PR. go to the ER. Call your doctor. Blah blah blah. Making a contemporaneous, confidential record is very easy to do. Honestly you must spend all day reading huff post articles and Alyssa Milano tweets.
 
It’s disgusting to watch Democrats using a dead woman to try to get their way!
 
We’re not talking about sexual abuse, we’re talking about what happened to Kavanaugh.

There’s no viable evidence that Kavanaugh assaulted anyone. There was none then. There is none now.

What was done to him was despicable.
What "happened to Kavanaugh" was that he was protected by Moscow Mitch and never was completely vetted. As a result, we don't know how bad Kavanaugh is, or isn't.

Moscow Mitch imposed an arbitrary deadline to vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation that effectively ended the investigation by the FBI (and anyone else) and blocked any new information from Kavanaugh's acquaintances from even being received, even though more people were still coming forward.

Kavanaugh's embarrassing yearbook entries paint a picture of a partying privileged preppy who very well could have done everything he was accused of. He was a minor at the time of his crazy preppy parties but his brilliant mature defense at the Senate hearing was, "I like beer!!"

There were ways to quietly investigate these matters but McConnell (and, to some extent the Democrats too) failed to call a timeout and confirm Kavanaugh was the kind of person we want to serve on the Supreme Court before having a public spectacle. McConnell's goal was to make it impossible for Democrats and the FBI to present all evidence on Kavanaugh and then blame the Democrats for not having a convincing case after he made that impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid
What "happened to Kavanaugh" was that he was protected by Moscow Mitch and never was completely vetted. As a result, we don't know how bad Kavanaugh is, or isn't.

Moscow Mitch imposed an arbitrary deadline to vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation that effectively ended the investigation by the FBI (and anyone else) and blocked any new information from Kavanaugh's acquaintances from even being received, even though more people were still coming forward.

Kavanaugh's embarrassing yearbook entries paint a picture of a partying privileged preppy who very well could have done everything he was accused of. He was a minor at the time of his crazy preppy parties but his brilliant mature defense at the Senate hearing was, "I like beer!!"

There were ways to quietly investigate these matters but McConnell (and, to some extent the Democrats too) failed to call a timeout and confirm Kavanaugh was the kind of person we want to serve on the Supreme Court before having a public spectacle. McConnell's goal was to make it impossible for Democrats and the FBI to present all evidence on Kavanaugh and then blame the Democrats for not having a convincing case after he made that impossible.
Feinstein could have, and should have, turned it over to the FBI for a “quiet” investigation when she was aware of the allegation. She didn’t.

There has been plenty of time for energetic investigative reporters to dig into this. If they have, they’ve found nothing. Additional accusations proved false and the original accusation has never been substantiated. It was a totally unfair crap show initiated by Democrats. There is nothing for Democrats to be proud of in that episode.
 
Originalists are activist judges by a different name. The fact that they always find that the Founders intent matches current right wing ideology gives the game away.
That’s because current Republican ideology is more in line with constitutional values and principles.
 
Feinstein could have, and should have, turned it over to the FBI for a “quiet” investigation when she was aware of the allegation. She didn’t.

There has been plenty of time for energetic investigative reporters to dig into this. If they have, they’ve found nothing. Additional accusations proved false and the original accusation has never been substantiated. It was a totally unfair crap show initiated by Democrats. There is nothing for Democrats to be proud of in that episode.
Typical.

I posted about what McConnell actually did, and you tried to come to McConnell's rescue by talking about what Feinstein and "energetic investigative reporters" could have done.
 
I find it sad and not funny that a man’s life can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims by women. What’s more your post was just more nonsense. Prosecutors aggressively prosecute sex claims. Evidence is not hard to procure. At all. Keep filling your head with biased, woke, bubble bullshit. Fill out a PR. go to the ER. Call your doctor. Blah blah blah. Making a contemporaneous, confidential record is very easy to do. Honestly you must spend all day reading huff post articles and Alyssa Milano tweets.
I’d be willing to bet you know some women who have been sexually assaulted. And you don’t even know it. My mind isn’t filled with anything except experiences of women who have been abused and kept quiet. The fact that you don’t even attempt to understand the how or the why is sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
So she said. Even that was unsubstantiated.
Her therapist said it was. She also passed a lie detector test. The FBI was limited in their investigation and never even got in touch with several people who said they had information. Wonder why that was?
 
I find it sad and not funny that a man’s life can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims by women. What’s more your post was just more nonsense. Prosecutors aggressively prosecute sex claims. Evidence is not hard to procure. At all. Keep filling your head with biased, woke, bubble bullshit. Fill out a PR. go to the ER. Call your doctor. Blah blah blah. Making a contemporaneous, confidential record is very easy to do. Honestly you must spend all day reading huff post articles and Alyssa Milano tweets.
Again. Really this is such bs. I cannot believe you sit here and lecture me about women and sexual abuse. If this isn’t the epitome of mansplaining I don’t know what is. Working with college girls for 6 years do you not think I might have some experience with this? Do you not think I know women who have been raped and haven’t reported it? Do you not think I can tell you a hundred reasons why a young girl would not tell anyone about the popular guy forcing himself on her? Do you not think I’ve sat with young women and gone through the pros and cons of reporting ? Do you think I have not seen girls who reported destroyed and had to leave school for trying to stand up for themselves? Shame on you. Do some research before being so condescending in something you know SHIT about.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT