Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SCOTUS non partison ?
Since when ?

Where a Justice comes down on a decision is one of the most predictable events in nature. How could this happen if justices didn't have political agenda ?Even a bookie wouldn't make any money on court decisions. So, I don't think anybody should feign surprise with Kavanaugh's display of political hackery during that circus in the Senate hearings. He is a political hack. He was nominated to overturn Roe v Wade, period. It was a promise made by Trump. 

Ford's testimony was deemed credible by almost everybody, including me. Something happened. It is sad to say, but aside from the smothering, it was a "boys will be boys" situation played out often by alcohol fueled powerful frat boys during that era. Sexual assaults portrayed in movies like Animal House, Porkys etc were considered funny. I do believe it should be disqualifying, but the corroberating evidence is not there, atleast yet.

My problem with Kavanaugh is his predispostion to overturn Roe v Wade. I personally have no skin in that game, and I find abortion distasteful. And I don't know anybody who has or will get an abortion. But I believe it tryanny at it's highest for government to force control over a person's body. For the SC to make those decisions would be the ultimate in "legislating from the bench". Liberties would have to be taken on the 4th, 9th and 14th amendment as well as redefining the traditional meaning of "personhood".
Good to hear from you j.p.
There have been several pieces written by some insightful writers that destroy Ford's supposed credibility, too many to list here.
Then you have Kavanaugh's testimony that seems to be supported by everyone except the Amy Shumers of the world.

Then you have the Constitution that guarantees life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Stopping a beating heart is the opposite of that. Some might even call that murder - which is illegal and immoral, regardless of what a bunch of black-robed dicks say.
This is a nice shiney place. We should try hard not to foul it.

The constitution does not directly address the philosophical question of what constitutes life. The goofs in the black robes however have inferred that personhood happens well after vital organs form, which includes heart.
Brings up the question why Doc Kevorkian who assisted patients, at their request, assisted in stopping their hearts and went to prison. Makes one wonder.
(10-05-2018, 09:41 PM)k.d. Wrote: Brings up the question why Doc Kevorkian who assisted patients, at their request, assisted in stopping their hearts and went to prison. Makes one wonder.

just more government tyranny
Interesting, coming from a government worshiper. Oh! maybe that's only when the Democrats run things.
I've been consistant about the right to end your own life. I view Kerorkian as an American hero.
Yourself is considered your property. Do you agree? Where you are inconsistent is in defending ALL property rights of each individual.

Can't think of when I've been inconsistent about defending ALL property rights of an individual. And I've been consistent in acknowleging that perceived property rights of an individual often restricts the property rights of another individual.
I suppose you want to bring up the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple. Clearly, he has no obligation to make a cake for anyone, anymore than a bar owner has an obligation to serve someone he feels has had more than enough.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)