• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kavanaugh a pleasant surprise

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,846
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Like John Roberts, Brett has been a bit of a surprise of late. Though both are far from liberal, they certainly are not Trump toadies. And, for that America is grateful.

Kavanaugh dismays conservatives by dodging pro-Trump election lawsuits

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dismayed conservatives this week when he cast what appears to be the deciding vote preventing the Supreme Court from taking up pro-Trump election lawsuits.Kavanaugh’s appare…
thehill.com
 
There's nothing about Kavanaugh that's pleasant.
 
Rattlesnakes don't only bite you.

It does bring up a valid point regarding outcome of appointing judges based on them doing your bidding. The appointments will at times be very disappointing. Some even rather often.
 

They were both nominated and approved to apply existing law to cases before them.

Unlike the liberal appointed justices, that is what they are doing.
 
The wonders of the world never cease. Fortunately this time they broke for America; right now America needs a break.
 
code1211 said:
Can you point to a decision showing they are holding positions not supported by law?
Click to expand...


Typical code. Asking of others the burden of which is originally upon yourself. Your claim came before the poster's claim for which you request evidence of support.

In post #5, you said:

"They were both nominated and approved to apply existing law to cases before them."

"Unlike the liberal appointed justices, that is what they are doing."

So, what cases were liberal justices decisions not in keeping with the application of "...existing law to cases before them." as opposed to Roberts and Kavanaugh?
 
code1211 said:
Can you point to a decision showing they are holding positions not supported by law?
Click to expand...
The matter in question in the op fits. No? Since Alito and Thomas voted opposite of Kavanaugh and Roberts, they must not be abiding by the law. That, or you were wrong to begin with when you said Kavanaugh was abiding by it.

You can't have it both ways.
 
I feel with you. Trump was a similar pleasant surprise for me.
 
code1211 said:
Can you point to a decision showing they are holding positions not supported by law?
Click to expand...
Well, I see you have painted yourself into a corner here.

On the one hand, you are basically saying that Alito and Thomas follow the law, which would mean that opposing them cant possibly be following the law, thus making your claim about Kavanaugh wrong.

On the other hand, you also said that Kavanaugh follows the law, meaning that opposing him would not be following the law, thus making your question about Alito and Thomas a dumb one to ask....

Pretty impressive work there....
 
call me when he is support of voting rights.
 

According to this article from USA Today, Conservatives render decisions that depart from partisan ideologies to follow the law. Liberal appointees are, judging by their decisions, far more likely to be ideologues.

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.
www.usatoday.com
<snip>
Liberal justices vote together at high rates
There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June.
In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times,

while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times.

And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals.

By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

That dynamic isn’t something that sprang up in the Trump era or with the court’s newest personnel. In the 2014-15 term, with Kennedy at the height of his “swing vote” power —the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and resulting year-long vacancy —

the four liberals stuck together in 55 of 66 cases, while the four conservatives (not counting Kennedy) voted as a unit in 39.
<snip>
 
That’s because the “liberals” voted correctly.
 

Opinions can be arrived at based on law that are not identical. Lord knows we have a bunch of laws and precedent from which we can choose.

That is why I asked for the actual rulings that were in question. Often, a justice will explain his ruling and often the explanation ties the dissenting opinion to solid law.

In refusing to participate in the Kangaroo Court once again going after Trump, Roberts seemed to be letting everyone know that he disagreed with the foundation for the action.

Roberts general position seems to be to give to the Legislature what is their's and to give to the court what is their's. In this case, he refused to dive into the cess pool they were inviting him to swim in.

USA Today writes that Liberally Appointed Justices render decisions that are ideologically predictable much more often than do Conservatively Appointed Justices.

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.
www.usatoday.com
 

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.
www.usatoday.com
 
Stopped reading at that ridiculous remark. See, unlike Right Wingers, I don't bend over backwards to excuse an insurrectionist attempt to violently overturn an honest and fair election.
 
calamity said:
That’s because the “liberals” voted correctly.
Click to expand...

If you are rooting for wins for your "Home Team", that's okay.

You need to be aware, though, that rooting for the home team is problematic and leads to decisions like Dred Scot and Brown v Board of Education.

Ruling on matters of law requires that members of the court check their ideologies at the door. Sadly, this seems to be more rare than it should be.

Liberal Justices have agendas and those biases seem to override anything else to permit ideologies to overrule prudence.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Man, that strawman had no chance....

What does that have to do with what I said?
Click to expand...

It shows that Liberally Appointed justices march in lock step showing allegiance to their partisan masters.

It also shows that Conservatively Appointed Justices depart from the ideologies of their appointers and review law and precedent in rendering decisions.

It might even show that Liberals appoint justices who demonstrate partisan bias in their rulings and that Conservatives appoint justices who rule based on law and precedent.
 
calamity said:
Stopped reading at that ridiculous remark. See, unlike Right Wingers, I don't bend over backwards to excuse an insurrectionist attempt to violently overturn an honest and fair election.
Click to expand...

Which statement caused your reason to collapse?
 

Great....what did that have to do with what I actually said? Let me help you focus a little....

My post was in direct relation to a statement that Kavanaugh and Roberts follow the law and that Alito anf Thomas also follow the law. The question I asked was if one of those groups rules one way and the other dissents, who was using the law, and if you can say one group WAS following the law, by definition its impossible for the other group to be doing so.

Your post does absolutely nothing to explain that aby further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…