Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 312

Thread: Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

  1. #1
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,277

    Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

    An already contentious nomination is set to even get more so now that there are stories out there that he may have lied under oath in 2005 and 2006.

  2. #2
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Kamala Harris earns 4 Pinocchios.

    Did Brett Kavanaugh signal he supports ‘going after birth control’?

    It won't matter and she probably doesn't care. She might ask the staffer who fed her that line of questioning to be more careful.
    Last edited by U-Ute; 09-11-2018 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Fix link

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  3. #3
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,277
    You know, I'd be a little more on board with the "there is no there there" on this if it didn't seem like the Republicans were working overtime to hide something about him.

  4. #4
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  5. #5
    I am so tired of this type of crap. I have not seen anything that suggests that Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    I am so tired of this type of crap. I have not seen anything that suggests that Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

    I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

    1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

    2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

    3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

    1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

    2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

    3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.
    I agree with each item you mention and while those views are troubling to me personally, I don't believe that holding them make him unqualified.

  8. #8
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

    1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

    2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

    3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.
    It’s all a matter of one‘s political persuasion, I guess. When Kagan came
    up for confirmation there was no doubt how she would vote on the issues you described. And yet people on my side of the aisle pretty much figured that Obama had won the election, and he had the right to appoint a justice he liked. Of course, the difference was that Kagan was not going to be a swing vote, like Kavanaugh will be (and that’s only because of how the Democrats defeated Bork, then Ginsberg was found to have smoked marijuana [!!!], and we ended up with Kennedy, who turned out to to be the favorite justice of many liberals). Had the situation been different, there might have been more of a GOP outcry against Kagan. I’m not sure — I don’t think Republicans have mounted campaigns against judicial nominees the way the Democrats have. That might just be a matter of how each nominee came up, and when.

    As I’ve said before, I think the Supreme Court is just too darned important now. People on both sides of the aisle, but mainly on the left, see the SCOTUS as a means of achieving their policy goals, usually goals that can’t be achieved at the ballot box. That sounds like a slam, and it is, but it’s only a very gentle one. But this is all just a matter of the tides of history, I guess. Maybe that is the proper role of the courts. I don’t think so, but nobody ever checks with me about these things in advance. It’s very frustrating for me.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    It’s all a matter of one‘s political persuasion, I guess. When Kagan came
    up for confirmation there was no doubt how she would vote on the issues you described. And yet people on my side of the aisle pretty much figured that Obama had won the election, and he had the right to appoint a justice he liked. Of course, the difference was that Kagan was not going to be a swing vote, like Kavanaugh will be (and that’s only because of how the Democrats defeated Bork, then Ginsberg was found to have smoked marijuana [!!!], and we ended up with Kennedy, who turned out to to be the favorite justice of many liberals). Had the situation been different, there might have been more of a GOP outcry against Kagan. I’m not sure — I don’t think Republicans have mounted campaigns against judicial nominees the way the Democrats have. That might just be a matter of how each nominee came up, and when.

    As I’ve said before, I think the Supreme Court is just too darned important now. People on both sides of the aisle, but mainly on the left, see the SCOTUS as a means of achieving their policy goals, usually goals that can’t be achieved at the ballot box. That sounds like a slam, and it is, but it’s only a very gentle one. But this is all just a matter of the tides of history, I guess. Maybe that is the proper role of the courts. I don’t think so, but nobody ever checks with me about these things in advance. It’s very frustrating for me.
    I agree; it is a matter of political persuasion. McConnell hit the jackpot when he refused a vote on Merrick Garland. At the time, I thought he was foolhardy, and would end up with someone Hillary appointed much more liberal and younger than Garland. On both sides, i wish that they had kept the filibuster for Sup. Ct. nominees, to keep people on the extremes from getting nominated. And I do believe that while Kavanaugh is very qualified, he is extreme.

    And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile; we all remember that even Hatch has said Garland would make an excellent justice.
    Last edited by concerned; 09-12-2018 at 03:48 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile
    I don't know. Garland would have voted with the liberal justices on every hot button issue. Maybe he'd have been conservative on some of the cases that only lawyers know about. I'm sure that conservatives would not have experienced Garland as a compromise.

    When a vote is a discrete yes/no, it doesn't really matter that ideology is a continuous spectrum.

  11. #11
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile; we all remember that even Hatch has said Garland would make an excellent justice.
    I thought the Garland nomination was very clever. He is center-left and moderate — very vanilla. Kennedy was center-right, with occasional forays to the left (to the rapturous delight of liberals, and the outrage of conservatives). So although Garland looked like a very reasonable nomination, the shift on the Court would have been significant — and I think Garland was around 63 years old at the time. Clever.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I thought the Garland nomination was very clever. He is center-left and moderate — very vanilla. Kennedy was center-right, with occasional forays to the left (to the rapturous delight of liberals, and the outrage of conservatives). So although Garland looked like a very reasonable nomination, the shift on the Court would have been significant — and I think Garland was around 63 years old at the time. Clever.
    Clever is how bipartisan efforts get done.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I don't know. Garland would have voted with the liberal justices on every hot button issue. Maybe he'd have been conservative on some of the cases that only lawyers know about. I'm sure that conservatives would not have experienced Garland as a compromise.

    When a vote is a discrete yes/no, it doesn't really matter that ideology is a continuous spectrum.
    We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

  14. #14
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?
    Sure. Kavanaugh is a conservative. Then again, so is John Roberts, who has been more independent than expected. Kavanaugh is just one vote, after all. Right now there are 4 almost 100% predictable liberals and 3 equally predictable conservatives, and Roberts. Who knows what will happen? Roe is so settled, as is Obergefell, and so many permanent societal adjustments have been made around those decisions, I can’t really imagine either one being overturned.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Irving Washington View Post
    We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?
    Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.
    Last edited by Scratch; 09-12-2018 at 10:38 PM.

  16. #16
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don;t think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.
    You don't believe in emanating penumbras?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Sure. Kavanaugh is a conservative. Then again, so is John Roberts, who has been more independent than expected. Kavanaugh is just one vote, after all. Right now there are 4 almost 100% predictable liberals and 3 equally predictable conservatives, and Roberts. Who knows what will happen? Roe is so settled, as is Obergefell, and so many permanent societal adjustments have been made around those decisions, I can’t really imagine either one being overturned.
    I think Breyer is about as independent as Roberts. Roberts shocked everyone on the ACA decision, but has he been "independent" anywhere else? An while his decision certainly impacted the ACA decision didn't impact anything beyond the ACA and his analysis won't impact other cases or issues.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    You don't believe in emanating penumbras?
    I guess we'll have to wait and see. Roberts may see the possible negative political impacts of more "aggressive" conservative decisions, and try to restrain the other conservatives.
    The next great movement might be to strip corporations and other entities the status persons for the purposes of constitutional protections. That's the only way to prevent money from controlling politics.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.
    It was 40 years ago that I read it, so I couldn't even begin to comment on its analysis. If it's so bad, why isn't it ripe to overturned with Roberts being the most moderate of five justices? At least four of the justices are adherents of the Federalist Society. What's it's stance on Griswold and penumbral rights?

  20. #20
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Roberts has expressed one unifying principle of his approach to constitutional jurisprudence. He calls it “judicial modesty.“ I think we saw that with the ACA decision. He simply doesn’t think courts should assume the role of overturning an act of Congress that passed with a large majority, for example. My guess is that belief was what motivated his effort not to overturn the ACA in a 5-4 decision. I also guess, and that’s all I am doing, that his bitter dissent in Obergefell (the gay marriage decision) was motivated by the same belief — don’t make a hugely important decision on an issue like that in a 5-4 vote. Instead, let the people work it out in their legislatures.

    So I doubt that a Roberts-led court is going to be remaking the constitutional law of the land much, especially when there is a 5-4 split and he is a potential swing vote, and he is the chief justice who has responsibility for guiding the court as much as possible. We will see. I think our institutions are pretty sound and pretty durable, thanks to the wisdom of a bunch of now-dead white males 250 years ago.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

    I don't have that confidence. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner were all settled law. And you can chip away and circumscribe into oblivion without overturning.

  22. #22
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    I don't have that confidence. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner were all settled law. And you can chip away and circumscribe into oblivion without overturning.
    Isn't that what liberals want the SCOTUS to do with 2nd Amendment precedent? (I am not a gun owner or gun rights enthusiast, BTW.)

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Isn't that what liberals want the SCOTUS to do with 2nd Amendment precedent? (I am not a gun owner or gun rights enthusiast, BTW.)
    Not me. Heller said the right to bear arms is an individual right, subject to regulation. The question is what is a reasonable regulation within the 2nd amendment. The DC Cir upheld certain regulations; Kavanaugh dissented. I want the Supreme Court to uphold and not chip away the regulations that have been enacted or upheld by the lower courts--assault weapon bans, magazine limitations, background checks, mental health restrictions, etc. The NRA would strike them all down.
    Last edited by concerned; 09-13-2018 at 01:46 PM.

  24. #24
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Asked to compare the Kavanaugh hearings to her own, she says, "The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong."


    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  25. #25
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    The NRA would strike them all down.
    I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?
    I am afraid that many many people feel the same way.

  27. #27
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    16,722
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    I am afraid that many many people feel the same way.
    Count me as one conservative Republican who just doesn’t accept that way of thinking and never will.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Asked to compare the Kavanaugh hearings to her own, she says, "The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong."

    I'm sure in the way it was Garland would have come up for a vote. I'm sure Kavanaugh prefers his experience to Garland's, unless there's something in the letter about his youth.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?
    We don't have to imagine, we just need to look at history of the 1930s.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  30. #30
    I'm not a lawyer, and am probably completely out of my depth on a discussion such as this, but at this time I just don't see a court case getting anywhere near the Supreme Court that could over turn Roe v Wade, though the odds might be just a little better than on the possibility of an amendment ever getting out of the congress and being ratified by the requisite number of states.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •