Trump selects Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Feb 7, 2007
15,205
23,169
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#62
Seems more likely he was picked because of his belief that President should not be indicted while in office.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the government just turned corrupt in January 2017. It was corrupt under Obama, it was corrupt under Bush. The rich and politically connected do not get indicted for crimes the same as the rest of us would. If you think that didn't already apply to Trump then you haven't been paying attention. It was true for Lerner, it was true for Clinton, it is true for Trump and it would continue to be true no matter who takes Kennedy's place. The political elite do not live under the same rules as you and I, whether they are Republican or Democrat. Period.

Basically, the ideology of a new SCOTUS has very little personal impact on the Clintons or the Trumps of the world but it has a huge impact on the rest of us for decades to come. For that reason, I like this pick. I still don't like Trump, but the list of reasons for why I am glad he won instead of Hillary is several pages long now and this adds one more item to the list.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,229
1,124
243
Left field
#63
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the government just turned corrupt in January 2017. It was corrupt under Obama, it was corrupt under Bush. The rich and politically connected do not get indicted for crimes the same as the rest of us would. If you think that didn't already apply to Trump then you haven't been paying attention. It was true for Lerner, it was true for Clinton, it is true for Trump and it would continue to be true no matter who takes Kennedy's place. The political elite do not live under the same rules as you and I, whether they are Republican or Democrat. Period.

Basically, the ideology of a new SCOTUS has very little personal impact on the Clintons or the Trumps of the world but it has a huge impact on the rest of us for decades to come. For that reason, I like this pick. I still don't like Trump, but the list of reasons for why I am glad he won instead of Hillary is several pages long now and this adds one more item to the list.
Congratulations then! I on the other hand have witnessed many a Christian friend and relative make a Faulstian bargain and ignore things they would have punished their children for from this President just to obtain these Supreme Court judges whilst knowing full well that you can not mandate morality or eliminate the separation of church and state in order to create a Christian Taliban on everyone that doesn't believe EXACTLY like the majority.
As I spent my career in public schools I've probably had to adapt my attitudes more than most in order to accommodate my clientele. I could not really push my beliefs on others by law, and that's not a bad thing. Students are a captive audience .
If you don't have a personal relationship with Christ are you saved? Group think and pressured morality often lead to rebellion not compliance. The preachers kids are too often the wildest. Forced compliance to majority rule doesn't sound like the type of country I've grown accustomed to. You may be pleased with this abrupt change but it worries the hell out of me. What's next? Can't buy or sell without the mark of the beast? All hail Trump! MAGA lol kinda
 
Oct 30, 2007
2,515
2,313
1,743
#64
Nothing yet, but what if ........ it ends up in the Supreme Court?
Richard Nixon appointed 4 SC justices during his presidency. When Watergate reached the SC, 1 of those justices recused himself because he had previously served under Nixon as AG. The other 3 voted unanimously against him and forced him to give up the tapes.

Brett Kavanaugh will likely have the opportunity to serve on the SC for the next four decades assuming his health holds out. I don't think he or Gorsuch would hesitate to properly interpret the law if a case involving Trump was ever brought before them. Why would they?
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,229
1,124
243
Left field
#65
Richard Nixon appointed 4 SC justices during his presidency. When Watergate reached the SC, 1 of those justices recused himself because he had previously served under Nixon as AG. The other 3 voted unanimously against him and forced him to give up the tapes.

Brett Kavanaugh will likely have the opportunity to serve on the SC for the next four decades assuming his health holds out. I don't think he or Gorsuch would hesitate to properly interpret the law if a case involving Trump was ever brought before them. Why would they?
I hope they would put their love of the law and the country above loyalty to a President. Also that none are as self righteous as Scott Pruitt appointment.
 
Feb 7, 2007
15,205
23,169
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#66
Congratulations then! I on the other hand have witnessed many a Christian friend and relative make a Faulstian bargain and ignore things they would have punished their children for from this President just to obtain these Supreme Court judges whilst knowing full well that you can not mandate morality or eliminate the separation of church and state in order to create a Christian Taliban on everyone that doesn't believe EXACTLY like the majority.
As I spent my career in public schools I've probably had to adapt my attitudes more than most in order to accommodate my clientele. I could not really push my beliefs on others by law, and that's not a bad thing. Students are a captive audience .
If you don't have a personal relationship with Christ are you saved? Group think and pressured morality often lead to rebellion not compliance. The preachers kids are too often the wildest. Forced compliance to majority rule doesn't sound like the type of country I've grown accustomed to. You may be pleased with this abrupt change but it worries the hell out of me. What's next? Can't buy or sell without the mark of the beast? All hail Trump! MAGA lol kinda
Umm what? Where in my post did I make this a religious issue? You said Trump nominated the guy to avoid being indicted for some, as of now, non-existent crime. I told you he was already safe from any such crime that may or may not be revealed in the future. If you wish to discuss this nominee based on religious issues then please provide me with specific examples of what you are afraid of and I'd be more than willing to discuss them. If you have read any of my posts over the years you know that I am against legislated morality and think the Republican party caters to that too much.

Avoiding forced compliance to majority rule (or worse plutocratic rule) is EXACTLY why we should want a strict constitutionalist on the court. You seem to be implying just the opposite and I don't understand.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,229
1,124
243
Left field
#67
Umm what? Where in my post did I make this a religious issue? You said Trump nominated the guy to avoid being indicted for some, as of now, non-existent crime. I told you he was already safe from any such crime that may or may not be revealed in the future. If you wish to discuss this nominee based on religious issues then please provide me with specific examples of what you are afraid of and I'd be more than willing to discuss them. If you have read any of my posts over the years you know that I am against legislated morality and think the Republican party caters to that too much.

Avoiding forced compliance to majority rule (or worse plutocratic rule) is EXACTLY why we should want a strict constitutionalist on the court. You seem to be implying just the opposite and I don't understand.
The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation are hard right organizations. Roe v Wade, Brown v Board etc. could all be overturned, a so called moral majority white supremacist orgasm, and he's favorable to leaving the President untouched while in office, and was as fawning as any cabinet member during his nomination acceptance speech. Great! All we need is another person in a powerful post pledging loyalty to a president, how about the people and the Constitution.
You said you didn't like Trump but liked what he does. This is THE reason given by my religious friends and relatives . The end justifies the means.
 
Last edited:

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,171
8,092
1,743
#73
I would make a bet, but that would be against the good of the country.
Neither Roe v. Wade nor Brown v. Board of Ed is getting overturned... not by this court, and not BECAUSE of the latest appointment. All of that talk is just drummed up panic incitement.

EVEN if and when Ginsberg gets replaced by a Trump appointee, they are still quite safe.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,229
1,124
243
Left field
#74
Neither Roe v. Wade nor Brown v. Board of Ed is getting overturned... not by this court, and not BECAUSE of the latest appointment. All of that talk is just drummed up panic incitement.

EVEN if and when Ginsberg gets replaced by a Trump appointee, they are still quite safe.
Well as much as I appreciate your sentiments, this so called tin foil hat wearer is under the assumption that this President is on a mission to destroy everything status quo or even normal. But then I've always felt the Republican Party had far to many anarchist in their midst.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
26,757
15,337
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#75
Well as much as I appreciate your sentiments, this so called tin foil hat wearer is under the assumption that this President is on a mission to destroy everything status quo or even normal. But then I've always felt the Republican Party had far to many anarchist in their midst.
The SCOTUS would be impeached by Congress if Brown Vs Board or Roe Vs Wade were overturned. Very unlikely it would happen, but Congress can impeach SCOTUS if necessary.

I would bet you will see more attempts to get potential overturns of these before they SCOTUS though with this pick
 
Feb 7, 2007
15,205
23,169
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#77
The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation are hard right organizations. Roe v Wade, Brown v Board etc. could all be overturned, a so called moral majority white supremacist orgasm, and he's favorable to leaving the President untouched while in office, and was as fawning as any cabinet member during his nomination acceptance speech. Great! All we need is another person in a powerful post pledging loyalty to a president, how about the people and the Constitution.
You said you didn't like Trump but liked what he does. This is THE reason given by my religious friends and relatives . The end justifies the means.
Despite what you may believe, neither conservative republicans, nor moderate Republicans, nor far right radical social conservative christian fundamentalists want to bring back segregated schools. Your argument loses credibility to even suggest such a thing.

Roe v Wade being overturned would not make abortion illegal, it would simply give the control back to states to decide one way or the other, in other words, just what the constitution intended. Yes, it would eventually be made illegal in some states but not in others.....it would still be available to everybody, some might just have to drive a little to get there, yes not ideal for those that want it but not impossible either. And while I understand those on the left are opposed to this, I as someone who was put up for adoption before Roe v Wade was the law, am not. Even so, I highly doubt this will happen.....I always hear it as a big scare tactic from the left but I've never seen any momentum to even start such a campaign.

The issue that you should have seized on, and which I would have agreed with you on, is gay marriage. Kennedy being a moderate was the swing vote when that issue was recently voted on and I can certainly see a push from the GOP to overturn this and I think that would be not only wrong, but also a HUGE mistake that would cost the party at the polls. I admit the system is not perfect.....but if I have to choose between a justice who wrongly votes against gay marriage and a justice who wrongly votes against the 2nd amendment, I'll hold my nose and take the former every day of the week while continuing to fight for a society in which both are upheld.
 
Nov 26, 2008
4,604
1,868
743
#78
It's strange to me that the Democrats havent gotten out of (insert latest Trump action) will kill/harm/threaten the lives of thousands/millions of immigrants/women/everyone mode.

How haven't they realized that there is 2 - 6 more years of this and average joes around the country have already tuned them out. If everything is going to kill you and you keep living each doomsday scenario becomes less meaningful.

They haven't been able to even dial it back a little for any sort of going on.

Ive come across plenty of independents and political fence sitters who were anti-Trump pre and post election, but have started to see good economic numbers, good unemployment numbers, etc. and laugh at the everyone is going to die and this tiny bit of quasi-evidence / trivial news factoid is going to END Trump attitude the Democrats have had. Seriously, we're on to like the 1,749th 'BREAKING NEWS:' item that was going to result in a new President right?

If you look forward 2 - 6 years Trump is probably going to be the beneficiary of a lot of low expectations, but why are the Democrats the ones constantly setting them???
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,365
17,839
1,743
#80
The SCOTUS would be impeached by Congress if Brown Vs Board or Roe Vs Wade were overturned. Very unlikely it would happen, but Congress can impeach SCOTUS if necessary.

I would bet you will see more attempts to get potential overturns of these before they SCOTUS though with this pick
The entire Roe vs Wade argument is misleading.

If overturned by SCOTUS it would simply revert back to a state issue, where it should be in the first place.