Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump’s mature decision to nominate Brett Kavanaugh

Trump’s mature decision to nominate Brett Kavanaugh

Trump now has nominated two Justices who have the potential to be intellectual heavyweights in the place we need that weight the most.

So this is my quick take on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

My overwhelming focus as the drama unfolded tonight was not Kavanaugh’s record. I’m not sufficiently familiar with Kavanaugh’s record to reach an independent judgment on him. But Kavanaugh has passed muster with a wide range of conservatives who are familiar with his record and background, particularly Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society. I’ll rely on, and accept, their judgment on future Justice Kavanaugh.

When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, we really do need OUR best and brightest. We need our Scalias on the high court. From what I’ve been able to gather, Kavanaugh is among our best and brightest, as was Gorsuch.

Trump now has nominated two Justices who have the potential to be intellectual heavyweights in the place we need that weight the most.

Since the announcement, I’ve been focused on the maturity of Trump’s decision to nominate Kavanaugh. It’s on par with his decision to nominate now-Justice Gorsuch.

The closest I came to a prediction was when I commented:

The “rational” me says someone in Trump’s position would take the safe pick, Kavanaugh. Barring a skeleton in the closet, he’ll be confirmed before the First Monday in October.

But I suspected that Amy Coney Barrett would be the nominee because of the politics of the anti-Catholic bigotry focused against her. And it certainly would have made for amazing political theater. But Trump took the rational and mature approach.

That maturity has been the hallmark of Trump’s approach to reshaping the judiciary. And we will benefit from that maturity for a generation to come.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

caseoftheblues | July 9, 2018 at 11:04 pm

And Trumps rational, mature, thoughtful choice will be met with an unrelenting parade of immature, foot stomping, tantrum theater, unhinged, untrue, extremist hysteria from the left.
Its official….

The. Left. Is. Insane

    great unknown in reply to caseoftheblues. | July 9, 2018 at 11:09 pm

    I must disagree. The. Left. Is. Evil.

    I do not grant them the insanity defense.

      Milhouse in reply to great unknown. | July 9, 2018 at 11:56 pm

      The left is not one entity. Certainly the elite college students who were eagerly denouncing this choice several days before it was made are too stupid to be evil.

        Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 12:11 am

        Sure. Nothing to see hear, move along. Odd how we can always count on you to make excuses for the Left.

        Meanwhile, here is a montage of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Media fear mongering before the selection was even chosen:

        https://pjmedia.com/video/montage-of-democrats-scotus-nominee-rhetoric-can-only-be-described-as-unhinged/

        Yes, he/she will rule birth control illegal…

          Fen in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 12:15 am

          “We’re looking at the destruction of the Constitution of the United States” – 2020 front runner for Democrat nomination to the Presidency, Sen Kamala Harris

          Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 9:21 am

          I think from now on we should always refer to her as ,la. Not original to me, but the more I write it, the more I like it.

        Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 12:25 am

        Someone had the box of pre-printed signs ready to go. Even if the kids out front don’t understand what they are doing, whoever set them up does.

        jakee308 in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 2:14 am

        Granted one is encouraged to not stereotype anyone or anything. However stereotypes exist for a reason. There is such a thing as “typical behavior”. This encompasses the object’s normal actions and reactions to stimuli.

        The left as individuals may not be evil but as a hive mind and group think political identification the left has been at the forefront of actions and ideas that have turned out to be evil for large numbers of people who were not associated with them.

        Thus the perhaps the ways to say it would be:
        The left is most likely to act evilly and become more so as it is thwarted in it’s desire for power and acceptance.

        Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 1:39 pm

        “The left is not one entity.”

        Technically correct. However, there is a very strong urge amongst those on the left for conformity. They madly chase after what they think is the “right” thing now, changing positions like a new born gets diapers changed. After the loss over the Florida voting back in 2000, my understanding is, the left on the Supreme Court is much more likely to write unified opinions. Those on the right might vote together, but offer different opinions for why they voted the way they did. Original thinking is not a strong point for the left.

      Aonghus in reply to great unknown. | July 10, 2018 at 12:10 am

      Never attribute to malice what can be explained away by pure stupidity.

        Simon’s Law:
        It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

          Tom Servo in reply to MSimon. | July 10, 2018 at 9:23 am

          Heinlein’s razor (the modified version) – Never attribute to Malice that which can be attributed to Stupidity – but don’t rule out Malice.

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to great unknown. | July 10, 2018 at 12:23 am

      The two are not mutually exclusive. The same solution for either, with the combination squared.

    Insane people dont know right from wrong.

    Leftists are either purile narcissists, corrupt hacks, power hungry maniacs, angry losers or just bums – or, in the case of obama – all the above. But add to that: world-class pussy: there isnt a battle the wimp could ever fight himself.

    harleycowboy in reply to caseoftheblues. | July 10, 2018 at 8:10 am

    Signs are already printed with a generic anti-pick slogans.

great unknown | July 9, 2018 at 11:11 pm

In the President’s view, Justice Ginsberg is not long for the Court. I think he is saving Judge Barrett for that time – it would certainly obviate the “female quota” argument.

Comanche Voter | July 9, 2018 at 11:16 pm

Barrett to replace Ginsburg? Popcorn futures would hit an all time high. That said—I like it! We’ll see.

    jakee308 in reply to Comanche Voter. | July 10, 2018 at 2:16 am

    A majority in the Senate would make that row a little easier to hoe.

    Unless Ruthie kicks off in the next month or so we’ll find out.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Comanche Voter. | July 10, 2018 at 5:54 am

    “Barrett to replace Ginsburg?” This time around I can say that I was relieved that Barrett was not chosen. While I have no doubt that being on the short list of recognized contenders put together by respected conservative institutions which meant to me she might be qualified for SCOTUS; it really bugged me that the most touted qualification was Barrett’s gender. This made me uneasy.

      When the MSM is concentrated on one particular facet of a potential nominee (for any appointed position of an administration), you can be forgiven for thinking that is the only facet of the individual which is worthy of mention.

      https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/who-amy-coney-barrett/

      Tom Servo in reply to Paul In Sweden. | July 10, 2018 at 9:24 am

      My thought was that she needs more time in her current position in order to build up a body of work that speaks to her judicial qualifications.

      tom_swift in reply to Paul In Sweden. | July 10, 2018 at 3:51 pm

      it really bugged me that the most touted qualification was Barrett’s gender. This made me uneasy.

      Yes, one party devoted to the puerile “identity” game is more than enough; we really don’t need two.

      Merely pissing off Liberals is not a durable judicial accomplishment. Adult intelligences should be able to find better things to worry about.

My name is Nancy Pelosi, you killed Barack Obama’s dream, prepare to ….. I forget

“Barring a skeleton in the closet…”

How many women are being offered bribes tonight to declare that Kavanaugh “bad touched” them 20 years ago?

I put the number at least ten or higher.

    Milhouse in reply to jack burton. | July 9, 2018 at 11:58 pm

    It won’t matter. That mine has played out.

    If there were any genuine skeletons they’d have come up during the three years the Dems kept him cooling his heels for confirmation to the DC circuit.

      Keyword there “Genuine”

      rdm in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 6:35 am

      ‘Milly’ You know the left, and yes I said ‘the left’ because leftism is an inherently evil and corrupting philosophy, feels no need whatsoever to constrain themselves to things which actually happened.

        Milhouse in reply to rdm. | July 10, 2018 at 9:06 am

        And it won’t matter. The mine is played out. The dog won’t hunt.

          Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 9:31 am

          Agreed – the left is trying that right now with Jim Jordan, and the push is already falling apart. The biggest “tell” in his accusers, at least so far as I see it, is how they all seem to keep saying “Well, he HAD to have known.” That’s important phrasing – that means the speaker doesn’t actually know whether he knew or not, and more importantly, doesn’t have any evidence as to what the state of affairs was. The accuser is simply making a huge assumption and then asserting it MUST be true, because they say so. And of course the key to that accusation is that it’s logically impossible for the accused to “prove” that he didn’t know something at some point in the past. (if the accused says “there’s no evidence of me ever saying anything at all about it at the time!” then the accusers say “yeah the lack of evidence just proves how good you were at covering it up.”)

          That’s not evidence, that’s nonsense at best, and slander at worst. And it’s already being discounted because of that.

Im concerned. Didnt he come up with the ‘its a tax’ idea for O’care?

    Milhouse in reply to unommin. | July 10, 2018 at 12:08 am

    No, he didn’t come up with it. The idea was floated before it passed. And he didn’t even rule it was a tax, but merely that it was enough like a tax that it was covered by the Anti-Injunction Act.

    But for once I’d like those who say it wasn’t a tax to explain exactly how it differed from one, and how it resembled a penalty. In what other instance is it perfectly lawful to ignore a “mandate” and pay the “penalty”? In what other instance does the government anticipate that many people will make such a choice, and budget for significant revenue from them? What other “penalty” is linked to ones income and collected by the IRS together with ones income tax?

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 12:19 am

      That’s what they call a distinction without a difference. Whatever hair-splitting language he used, he ruled it was a tax.

      You need to talk to the Democrats who passed it, and the president who signed it. They’re the ones who claimed it wasn’t a tax.

      Anyway, it’s too late to split hairs. He’s the nominee, for good or ill. I just hope he’s no worse than Kennedy and afraid he’ll end up a Breyer or Souter. Rush Limbaugh has a postulate: If you’re not a conservative when you get to DC, you’ll end up a liberal. Kavanaugh doesn’t strike me as a conservative.

        Colonel Travis in reply to txvet2. | July 10, 2018 at 12:44 am

        Kavanaugh was born and raised in the DC area. With the exception of college and I think maybe 1 clerking job, he’s always been there.

        I share your concerns about the Obamacare thing. But I will say that he didn’t think the case you’re talking about should have ever reached the court at that point. He is also not a fan of Congress having the power to make people buy things.

        Read this from a clerk of his during that decision, I found it interesting and it’s not exactly the narrative that has gotten out there.
        https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | July 10, 2018 at 1:14 am

        That’s what they call a distinction without a difference. Whatever hair-splitting language he used, he ruled it was a tax.

        No, he didn’t. He ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act applied. That is a very different thing.

        You need to talk to the Democrats who passed it, and the president who signed it. They’re the ones who claimed it wasn’t a tax.

        Indeed they did, but as Justice Roberts pointed out, so ****ing what? Since when do courts take Congress’s word for what something is, rather than looking at the thing itself and making up their own minds? Congress lies; that is not news. According to you, Congress could pass any law it liked, merely by claiming that it’s constitutional, and the courts would have to pretend to believe it.

        The precedent Roberts relied on was from the 1930s, when Congress tried to get away with unconstitutionally banning something by pretending merely to tax it. The Supreme Court at the time said this is not a tax; it’s set too high for anyone to be able to afford to pay it, it’s not expected to raise any revenue, and it’s to be collected by the DOJ, not the IRS. Your calling it a tax is a lie, and we refuse to go along with it. The exact same logic applied to the 0bamacare “mandate”; Congress calling it a penalty was a lie, because in every single way that taxes differ from penalties this behaved like a tax. Therefore, Roberts said, it was one.

        Are you seriously telling me he was wrong, that he should have bowed to Congress’s word games? Or do you think the courts should take Congress’s word only to strike laws down, but not to uphold them? How would that be a principled stand?

          Tax laws must originate in the House.

          Says so in the Constitution.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 9:09 am

          The bill that passed the senate did originate in the House. The practice of amending every word of a bill is standard procedure not only in the US congress but in every parliament, and no court has the authority to tell Congress it can’t do so.

          MSO in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 11:02 am

          ”The practice of amending every word of a bill is standard procedure not only in the US congress but in every parliament, and no court has the authority to tell Congress it can’t do so.”

          So much for the court ”… looking at the thing itself and making up their own minds…”

          txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 12:20 pm

          You’re not even internally consistent. “Are you seriously telling me he was wrong, that he should have bowed to Congress’s word games?” I’m not trying to tell you anything of the kind. You wanted to know who said it wasn’t a tax, and I told you. I also told you that saying it’s “close enough to a tax” is a meaningless distinction, if his ruling treated it like a tax.

          Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 1:34 pm

          Yes, Milhouse:
          “The bill that passed the senate did originate in the House. “

          Sort of like a tech support response. Technically correct, but obscuring the facts.

          Yes, it did. My recollection is that the original language was stripped, or gutted, and replaced with the Affordable Care Act language. An objection may or may not have been raised that the amended language was not germane to the original language. However, with the evil Senator Reid of Nevada there, such niceties were not observed. That should not have happened. The Democrats plead for order and rules in the minority, and abuse the rules in the majority.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2018 at 2:41 am

          txvet2, I am completely consistent. I did not want to know who said it wasn’t a tax. I know who says that. I don’t know where you got the idea that I asked for that information.

          What I asked was for those who say it wasn’t a tax to explain exactly how it differed from one; so far nobody has even attempted to do so.

          You said it wasn’t a tax because the Democrats said so; it would seem to follow that you believe judges should just take the Democrats’ word for things, which is a sure recipe for disaster. Roberts correctly rejected that approach, recognizing that Congress lies.

          Kavansugh’s ruling treated it like a tax for the purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act. That does not mean it is a tax; all it means is that the Act applies to anything Congress calls a tax. If you call a tail a leg a dog still has only four legs, but if Congress calls a tail a tax then the Anti-Injunction Act will apply to tails.

          Milwaukee, there is no such rule that amendments have to be germane to the original bill. The practice of amending a bill or motion by deleting all words after the initial “That” and replacing them with other words is completely normal in every legislature I’ve ever heard of, and has been done since before Dingy Harry was even born. It doesn’t violate any “nicety”.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2018 at 4:16 am

      “But for once I’d like those who say it wasn’t a tax to explain exactly how it differed from one, and how it resembled a penalty.”

      It didn’t resemble a penalty. It was black letter law; Congress passed it as a penalty, and Obama signed a penalty into law.

      Since when do courts take Congress’ word for something? When they use that word in a bill, and the bill subsequently becomes law, that’s when. Instead we had judges rewriting the statute for them.

      Of course that wasn’t Roberts’ most egregious sin (Kavanaugh had nothing to do with this). Despite the fact the ACA made a clear distinction between exchanges established by the federal government, and exchanges established by the states, Roberts got the court to go along with his rewrite of the law. Despite the fact that the two types of exchanges were covered in two entirely different sections of the ACA Roberts and his cronies ruled that the federal exchanges were exchanges established by the states. And for blatantly political purposes. Only people who bought their insurance from the state exchanges were eligible for subsidies. And if employees weren’t receiving subsidies then employers wouldn’t have been subject to all those penalties.

      That’s what the law says. But Obamacare would have collapsed if Roberts had followed the words printed on those pages of the ACA. So he ignored them and substituted his own. Quite literally, he substituted his own words for the words Congress wrote and admitted that’s exactly what he was doing although not as blatantly as I’m putting it now.

      Prof. Jacobson wrote this post at the time. I will quote sparingly of his analysis but liberally from the opinions.

      https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare-subsidies/

      “‘The Court found Obamacare so ‘inartfully drafted’ that the Court essentially wrote the law for Congress through ‘statutory interpretation.”

      ‘The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through ‘the traditional legislative process.’ Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013). And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as ‘reconciliation’ which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. Id., at 159–167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation….'”

      The poor dears in the Democratic party couldn’t possibly have been expected to actually write the law properly since they were so desperate to ram it through they used all kinds of chicanery. So Roberts decided to “fix” it for them. An honest judge would have simply declared it unconstitutional as written and said next time don’t use all those legislative tricks but write it properly. But Roberts was about to demonstrate that he isn’t an honest judge. Instead he pretended the unambiguous words they used were in fact ambiguous. Quite simply he didn’t want to rule that the law actually meant what it said because he accepted the Obama administration argument that if he read the law as written it would send Obamacare into a death spiral. So in order to save it he decided to read the law as it wasn’t written.

      Scalia wrote the dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, and it was beautiful. Scalia detailed all the dishonesty of the majority opinion better than I can. As Prof. Jacobson wrote at the time it was also “correct as to the absurdity of the Court contorting itself to save the law.”

      “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so. [at 1]…

      This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an ‘Exchange established by the State.’ The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

      Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ …. [at 2, italics in original]

      ‘Scalia argued — persuasively — that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language:’

      ‘[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. [at 2-3]’

      ‘Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law ‘with no semblance of shame:’

      ‘The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [at 3]’

      ‘Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare:’

      ‘Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).

      The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an ‘Exchange established by the State.’ This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.

      We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. [at 20-21, emphasis and hard paragraph breaks added.]…

      Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax, ‘further [Medicaid] payments to the State’ means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

      I dissent.'”

      It’s a despicable ruling. And note that Scalia includes the fact that Roberts chose to read “penalty” as “tax.” Any man who would go that far won’t stop there. And indeed Roberts didn’t. Consequently I will have nothing but contempt for the man forever.

        Excellent analysis.

        Summing it up: Roberts is a POS, and likely extorted into selling out his country, as boehner was.

        Fen in reply to Arminius. | July 10, 2018 at 5:54 am

        Arminius, thank you so much for that analysis. It’s why I keep coming back to this site. For occasional gems like this one.

        You briefly touched on what motivated Roberts. But his behavior seemed so out of character, a betrayal to many. Can you elaborate on what happened, what caused him to take up this position. It seemed contrary to everything he testified to in his confirmation. Thanks.

          Arminius in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 11:08 am

          I have no special insight, but I also have no reason to doubt Roberts when he wrote.

          “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt. [at 21]”

          So, pace Milhouse, here’s Roberts not only taking Congress at their word when it came to legislative intent (words that are not actually in the statute) but positively reading their minds. Since they wrote the law in such a way that it would destroy health insurance markets, and the fool Roberts didn’t understand that was really the intent all along (Hello, single-payer Medicare for all!) it was his duty, he says, to interpret it in such a way as to save the law if at all possible. Since it wasn’t possible he applied an impossible interpretation.

          And the he’s going to look like even more of a fool because he just delayed the death spiral. A head for business and economic insight, Roberts has not.

          Scalia understood this perfectly.

          “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed … will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

          So I can only conclude that Roberts was, like Bush, a “compassionate conservative.” In other words a big government statist liberal who approved of the law. So he joined the judicial activists of the left and borrowing their methods decided that since he approved of the ACA’s goals then he was going to never, ever find it unconstitutional no matter how obviously it was and indeed rewrite it and call it interpretation.

          Bust did after all nominate Roberts. No doubt they saw eye-to-eye when it came to their love of big government.

        And when it comes to interstate commerce and there is no commerce, state or interstate the government can interfere.

        Raich. Scalia.

        All because Scalia didn’t like cannabis. He didn’t like it a LOT.

        In the words of Thomas this granted the Feds unlimited power.

        The Oh So Constitutional Scalia.

        I neglected to mention the failure of any Justice in that case to notice that we don’t have a Drug Prohibition Amendment.

          Arminius in reply to MSimon. | July 10, 2018 at 10:53 am

          Actually we do, although it’s not an amendment but a law. It gives the FDA the authority to establish different categories of drugs. Some drugs can be sold over the counter, some require a prescription, some can be used for research purposes, and others can’t be used for any purpose at all.

          Mary Jane falls into the latter category.

          Since this law is entirely constitutional then yes Scalia was “oh so constitutional.” If he wasn’t he might have engaged in a little judicial activism and arrived at the conclusion you would have preferred, pothead. You know, like a liberal.

          lgbmiel in reply to MSimon. | July 10, 2018 at 1:36 pm

          Arminius:

          Actually we do, although it’s not an amendment but a law. It gives the FDA the authority to establish different categories of drugs. Some drugs can be sold over the counter, some require a prescription, some can be used for research purposes, and others can’t be used for any purpose at all.

          Mary Jane falls into the latter category.

          Since this law is entirely constitutional then yes Scalia was “oh so constitutional.” If he wasn’t he might have engaged in a little judicial activism and arrived at the conclusion you would have preferred, pothead. You know, like a liberal.

          Maybe you could kindly provide Constitutional authority for the federal government to establish an FDA and federal laws over any kind of drugs at all.

          I ask for this because the Country had to pass an amendment to delegate authority to the government over alcohol, then rescinded that authority, so…

          You make a terribly wrong assumption about marijuana, the Constitution, and liberals.

          Authority over all drugs rightfully belongs to the states and the People, not the federal government.

          Arminius in reply to MSimon. | July 10, 2018 at 5:41 pm

          So, I take it, lgbmiel, you aren’t familiar with the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause? That’s sufficient constitutional authority to establish and FDA in the first place. Specifically it was brought into being by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 although the agency that enforced this and similar, later laws wasn’t renamed the FDA until 1930.

          When it comes to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 we can add Article II, Section II, Clause 2 to the list.

          “He [note: the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;…”

          We have binding treaties with other nations to prevent drug trafficking. Which is why the CSA has survived every constitutional challenge the recreational drug users have thrown at it. One of the purposes of the CSA is to meet our treaty obligations. The Commerce clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, and what is informally known as the Treaty clause provides sufficient authority to give the feds the power to ban the growth, sale, and use of pot even within a state that has legalized it. If you are engaged in any of these activities and are criminally prosecuted under federal law, challenge the law’s constitutionality. Go ahead. You’ll get crushed.

          So I am making no assumptions about the Constitution as I have actually read it. You are making assumptions about it. I may be making assumptions about liberals, but they’re informed assumptions as they almost always prove to be accurate. On the other hand I am not making any assumptions about Cannabis. I know for a fact it does have medical uses. Cannabis isn’t vital as there are other drugs that have the same effects.

          We derive many of our medicinal drugs from plants. But we don’t smoke them because among other things you can’t be sure what dose you’re getting from the raw product. So we extract the useful components, purify them, and put them in a form where we can measure out the dosage.

          I also know the Israelis did develop a true medical marijuana. You see, it really is medicinal as it won’t get you high. But it has all the beneficial effects medical marijuana users claim to get from smoking pot.

          But the potheads have no interest in any Cannabis that won’t get them high. See that was one of my assumptions about liberals. They were lying when they said they wanted medicinal marijuana. And I’ve been proven right.

          Arminius | July 10, 2018 at 10:53 am

          The Republican Party as it usually does – see Prohibition, Alcohol election 1932 – is the last to give up on a failed government program that suits its socialist tendencies.

          I’d rather that disn’t happen. Again. I’d also like to see the Constitution enforced.

          Passing a law does not make a law Constitutional. You know that. Don’t you?

          I do like strong conservative values.

          “Government SAVE us. We are being attacked by plants.”

          lgbmiel in reply to MSimon. | July 10, 2018 at 7:00 pm

          None of what you said is Constitutional authority to establish an FDA or federal laws over drugs.

          None of what you said establish authority, especially since the government needed an amendment, which was repealed, to ban alcohol. If the commerce clause, n&p clause, or treaty clause was sufficient, why was an amendment needed for alcohol?

          Treaties are only valid if they are made under the authority of the US. The authority of the US is found in the Constitution. The government can’t accomplish by treaty that which they were granted no authority over through legislation.

          Show me the Constitutional authority.

        Anonamom in reply to Arminius. | July 10, 2018 at 10:08 am

        Thank you for this excellent post, Arminius. Sadly, I had to stop reading shortly into your quote of J. Scalia’s dissent, because I felt my blood pressure rising and feared that my head might explode.

        “It’s a despicable ruling.” That is a MOST excellent summary, and I am still so angry about it that I could just about spit.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 11, 2018 at 2:46 am

        Arminius, I’m not plowing through that essay, but you seem to be quoting from King v Burwell, not from NFIB v Sibelius. That’s a completely different decision, which we were not discussing.

The “have it out with the progs” in me wanted Barrett. The smart in me wanted Kavanaugh.

Save the prog fight for the next one, when we should have better ammunition.

    Fen in reply to Barry. | July 10, 2018 at 1:34 am

    Oh I think the Left will dial it up to 11 on this one. They’ve been promoting it to their base as Armageddon.

      Barry in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 2:26 am

      Of course they will.

      The fight, here, is not with the “D” progs, it’s with the “R” progs. Barrett, IMO, had no chance of confirmation without several D senators which was unlikely. After the election she will have a chance with more R senators in place.

      Cybrludite in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 4:35 am

      They’ve been promoting *everything* to their base as Armageddon. Since the election, they’ve been so freaked out that they’ve had to figure out what the plural of “apocalypse” is.

    One of the places Progs want smaller government – Drug Prohibition – Republicans fight them with all the effort they can muster.

    Isn’t it ironic?
    Don’tcha think?

      I see we have at least two people attached to a Government Policy that has been failing for over 80 years.

      I suppose 80 years makes it traditional. Thus the defense.

      It is still not working.

      Drug Prohibition is socialism for criminals. Says Milton Friedman. There are a LOT of Republican Socialists.

      Socialism is bad enough. But specifically for criminals?
      Why is our government supporting gangsters. Again. 1920 to 1933 wasn’t enough?

I shall pray we have selected the correct path.

But Trump took the rational and mature approach.

Why would he do otherwise? And why would anyone expect him to do otherwise? Next to the Easter Egg Roll, judicial appointments must be the least surprising or unexpected parts of the Chief Executive’s job. We know what the offices are, we know who fills them, we know the pool of candidates for replacement—it’s a large pool, but still limited. The only questions are when a space opens up (and all we can say for sure is that judges in general hang on long past what any reasonable person would consider their “use by” dates) and how many senators can be lined up for confirmation. Nothing hangs on current events or unexpected developments. President Trump has, in fact, proceeded in a far more orderly manner than most Presidents in his appointments, mainly because he consults the experts before firing from the hip. There’s no need to fire from the hip. There’s plenty of time for preparation … so, like a reasonable manager, Trump prepares. His carping critics seem to find this shocking. They’re not very perceptive.

From the start of the Presidential campaign, critics have invariably latched onto the most elementry possible model of Trump behavior. Oh, he treats the Press like it’s a gaggle of performing seals? Trump only knows how to handle seals! Trump dominates the short-term news cycles with tweets? Trump can only communicate by tweets!

This is just stupid. When a man is playing a pretty good game of tic-tac-toe, we don’t say Holy Cow! This guy doesn’t know how to play chess! And then when he’s later seen playing a pretty good game of chess, we don’t express surprise that he’s not playing like he thinks it’s tic-tac-toe. That would be dumb.

As he’s done from the beginning, Trump handles each job in a way appropriate for that job. It’s called efficiency. Nobody has to be a fanatical member of the President’s “base” to see this. It should be obvious to even casual observation. Abandon prejudice and look at results.

    rdm in reply to tom_swift. | July 10, 2018 at 6:39 am

    Oops. That thumbs down should be an up but fat fingers …

    And the press IS a gaggle of performing seals.

    Tom Servo in reply to tom_swift. | July 10, 2018 at 9:39 am

    Rags is going to swallow his tongue and hide from this entire thread, because there’s no possible way to criticize Trump here. Not without going the full Maxine.

      kenoshamarge in reply to Tom Servo. | July 10, 2018 at 10:54 am

      And yet you dragged someone who didn’t comment onto the thread. WTH?

        Dathurtz in reply to kenoshamarge. | July 10, 2018 at 11:20 am

        I really think they just can’t help it. It does get tiresome. Pretty much every downward spiral in the comments starts exactly the same way.

          Fen in reply to Dathurtz. | July 10, 2018 at 11:52 am

          Running from it is not going to help. The hypocrisy of the NeverTrumpers is thick, their credibility suspect. I think letting people vent it out is the only path through it.

          If that brings too much drama to bear, bring out more fainting couches.

          Dathurtz in reply to Dathurtz. | July 10, 2018 at 2:57 pm

          Actually, Fen, I tend to see the problem opposite of the way you do.

          Here is the pattern I see most often (though not always):
          1) Somebody puts out some unsupportable nonsense about Rags/Milhouse in a comment for literally no reason.
          2) Rags/Milhouse respond by calling out that unsupportable nonsense as the unsupportable nonsense that it is.
          3) A downward spiral of irritating nonsense ensues.

          I will probably never need a fainting couch, but who knows the future? While I do wish Rags wouldn’t use such silly language, I really wish people like you wouldn’t start stupid crap for no reason. It is one thing if you post a reasonable comment and somebody jumps on you for it. It is quite another when you intentionally misrepresent somebody to call them out in a message thread where they haven’t even commented yet. It is just silly and leads to a degradation of a comment section that has the potential to be filled with a lot of great insight.

        Barry in reply to kenoshamarge. | July 11, 2018 at 2:29 am

        Of course, some people remember how nevertrump rags tried hard to sell the idea that Trump would appoint his sister, or someone like her to the SC. All because Trump had the temerity to say something nice about his sister.

        Undoubtedly, Tom Servo remembers this and made his comment. If you are going to post a thousand comments a day, mostly BS, it should be no surprise when someone mentions the facts.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Tom Servo. | July 10, 2018 at 3:54 pm

      Like Bugs Bunny, he’s been “vewy vewy quiet”.

    Dimsdale in reply to tom_swift. | July 10, 2018 at 10:09 am

    Considering Sotomayor, the self described “wise Latina,” nothing more needs to be said about the qualifications of Kavanaugh (before or after the announcement!).

    Dimsdale in reply to tom_swift. | July 10, 2018 at 10:17 am

    Considering Sotomayor, the self described “wise Latina,” nothing more needs to be said about the qualifications of Kavanaugh (before or after the announcement!). The libs should also consider how badly they treat the candidate and Trump this round, given Notorious RBG’s health and age, he could go full conservative for that position as well. Would be fun to watch!!

    Why would he do otherwise? And why would anyone expect him to do otherwise?

    Exactly! That was my first thought, too, when I read “mature approach.” Nothing like damning President Trump with faint praise. How insulting.

this guy clerked for Kennedy so that’s what America will get another Kennedy, inconsistent, not always originalist constitution, Leftist when it comes to crunch time just like Kennedy, a CINO conservative in name only aka a GOPe a Bushie

God I hope not. I’m so tired of GOP appointments to SCOTUS turning out to be weak sisters.

I’m still trying to understand what happened to Roberts on Obamacare. It’s as if he was blackmailed at the last moment. I think the dissent was originally his confirming a 5-4 ruling.

Trump is as smart and patriotic as GOPe hacks are dumb and corrupt.

DieJustAsHappy | July 10, 2018 at 5:49 am

“But Trump took the rational and mature approach.”

The very reason I voted for him. When it came to decision-making I considered it was no contest between him and Hillary, at least this is what I hoped. He’s demonstrated time and again that the well-being of the country, despite those who refuse the “feast,” is far better off than many thought it might be. And, he hasn’t even been in office two years!

THe SCOTUScare ruling is set up for overturning

– the mandate penalty was the key
– Congress removed the mandate by repeal
– the act is still nonseverable
– collapses into the dust

Judge K was on an inferior court

– had to act within the confines of precedent
– Roberts and the Supremes followed his decision
– the internal logic is now set to implode

This is our opposition.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/8xnoqi/i_accept_my_nomination_to_the_supreme_court/

Canned outrage, loosed carelessly, and caught in the act.

Kavanaugh looked like the best of the choices on Trump’s shortlist. But the choice wasn’t a slam dunk this time. Could Kavanaugh become a Kennedy like dissappointment? It’s about time Trump starts adding Judges to his list.

Kavanaugh is a swamp creature. Elian Gonzales attorney, involved with the Vince Foster coverup, involved with the Ken Starr investigation, tight with the Bushes, yuck yuck yuck. But, I guess you need some swamp creatures on your side sometimes.

    MSO in reply to rotten. | July 10, 2018 at 11:26 am

    Kavanaugh just had to mention that he was from DC, that his mother taught mostly African-American kids and that most of his law clerks were women. The usual source of such claims is found primarily on the other side of the divide…

That Trump chose a candidate who was less objectionable than another is no surprise. I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Trump is not a political ideologue. He does not govern as a conservative of a liberal. He is a pragmatist. And, he did not want a bigger fight over a SCOTUS nominee.

No Republican appointed justice has ever been a bomb-throwing conservative. Not ever Antonin Scalia [his decision in Heller and McDonald proved that, when he rewrote the language of the 2nd Amendment]. And, at one time or another, ALL Republican appointed justices have disappointed conservatives. Kavanaugh will do the same. If he is confirmed, we will have to see when, and to what extent, he disappoints.

Realistically, there is really NO truly conservative judge anywhere in the federal judiciary.

Regarding Tom Servo’s comments about Jordan, I recall a contributor here talking about the fallout from the Cosby re-trial being that the standards of admissible evidence had fallen and thus hearsay, previous arrest, and a pattern of accused behavior could by used as actual evidence. So it is sad that “he had to know” can pass the test just as “he knew.” Funny how this never came up when Neil Goldschmidt was being discussed, and absolutely everyone pled the Sgt. Schultz. The #metoo campaign took this to the a similar level, wherein now the only requirement for guilt is an accusation. It has become a blackmailer’s dream. But at the same time, I pretty much ignore all accusations that haven’t warranted police or court action which requires an accuser to walk the walk. I am curious how some of this will play out for those who do the accusing. I have a people to avoid list for a good reason, and those who made these accusations probably w/o basis may have in fact caused themselves just as much harm. So sorry Gwyneth, I’m busy this Saturday night and all foreseeable Sat. nights as well.

A commenter at PowerLine notes that the Women’s March press release on the nomination of XX is mistaken: he’s an XY

Good thing joe biden isn’t veep anymore. Those poor girls would have been molested on television by him again.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend