# Who wants to audition for Supreme Court? Kavanaugh vs. YOU (compare your answers to his)



## emilynghiem (Sep 30, 2018)

Instead of judging people by drunken molestation complaints
during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.

Here's the link I found:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
The cases and Constitutional rulings are Subheaded by topics of:
*Abortion, Religion, Guns, Executive Agencies, Terrorist Detainees,
Voting laws, Climate/Business Regulations, Campaign Finance*
so I listed these in a Poll.

I propose that anyone here who thinks they can make a better Judge
and stay more representative of the people with respect to the
integrity of Constitutional law, government, principle and process,
please review Judge Kavanaugh's opinions summarized in the link.

And state what you would agree with or what you would rule differently.
Especially object if you spot any bias from political belief or party
that unfairly excludes, penalizes or discriminates against people of other beliefs,
and/or establishes a faith based belief or bias to the point of being
“proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”

Ready?
If some good answers come out of this exercise, I will consider
inviting more of the public and more politicians to review our
Reviews, and take into consideration any shortfalls or conflicts
that should be looked at more in depth to resolve them.

=================================
Example:

*Religion*

Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues in a 2015 case about a part of the Affordable Care Act that required insurers to cover contraception. Under the law, employers must provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine. But employers who oppose contraception on religious grounds can bypass the requirement by submitting a form to their insurers, which then cover the workers’ contraception at no expense to the employers.

Some religious organizations challenged that arrangement, contending that even submitting the form made them complicit in providing contraception. An appeals court panel rejected their argument, and the full appeals court decided not to rehear it — over Judge Kavanaugh’s objections.

Forcing employers to submit the form violated their religious liberty, he wrote, though he acknowledged a Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggested that the government “has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations.” The same outcome could be achieved, he contended, if employers instead only had to notify the government of their objections and let the government deal with the insurers.

Separately, in a 2010 case, some atheists challenged the saying of a prayer at presidential inaugurations and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath of office. A three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit. But while the other two judges merely said the plaintiffs had no standing, Judge Kavanaugh weighed in on the merits.

He upheld the practice as constitutional, citing the principle that government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at public events where prayers were traditionally said do not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion, so long as the prayers are “not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”

My opinions:
I believe this shows a slight bias TOWARD allowing prayers so long as they are not "proselytizing or exploitative" but AGAINST involvement in contraception because of belief-based objections.

The same standard of FREE CHOICE should be applied to both.
Not that prayers should be "removed altogether" but more strongly specify that
individuals and states have that right and responsibility to decide on whatever criteria
because it is faith based.  Someone may object to any involvement for any reason,
whether it is imposing or not.  As long as it is faith based, and conflicts with beliefs
of someone, they have a right to consent or dissent. I don't think Govt should be in the
business of REGULATION conditions on which that consent or dissent is "justified"
or it's a form of "government regulating faith based activities" by enforcing a condition on the choice.

Secondly, nobody addressed the fact that pushing health care regulations through govt
in itself was a faith based political belief established by legislation.

Had this been addressed in the first place, there wouldn't be this contradiction caused,
where religious minded people or groups with beliefs against certain types of contraception
found themselves forced into it.  This could have been avoided at the start.

I'm not sure if Kavanaugh or others could have written this into their opinions,
if the argument was not brought up.

But if Justice Roberts can suddenly interpret a public health bill as a tax law,
why couldn't the ACA be addressed in terms of establishing a belief?
Was it "proselytizing or exploitative"
My answers and objections
1. mandates included tax penalties that PUNISHED citizens with an ADDITIONAL
cost or loss off their returns if they failed to comply. So for citizens with Constitutional beliefs
against this mandate as a violation, could not comply without violating our beliefs,
but if we didn't we faced a tax penalty. Thus, this law enacted a punishment on
citizens for not complying against our beliefs.
2. the regulations on exemptions included paid membership in religious membership
organizations as approved by govt. So this constituted govt regulation on the basis
of religion, and discrimination by creed as to which citizens were exempt from ACA mandates.
3. The required payment of taxes or fines went into govt run health insurance programs
and thus deprived citizens of equal liberty and choice to pay into other means of
paying and providing for health care. Citizens were not convicted first of violations,
such as proving first that they incurred health care costs to govt BEFORE depriving
them of liberty and compelling them to pay.  So deprivation of liberty without due process
was also a violation of Constitutional beliefs or principles.
4. About half the members of Congress voted against the ACA mandates, and subsequent
shutdown of federal govt in objection to the unconstitutionality of its budget and funding provisions
cost taxpayers over $24 billion because of these conflicts not resolved in advance of passage.
This conflict and the costs related violate the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for
civil servants to seek to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks.
It can further be argued in general that the vote in Congress along party lines, showed
that passing and enforcing this bill put the beliefs and platform of one party over the
Constitutional equal inclusion and beliefs of the dissenting party, also in violation of the Code of Ethics
and public oath putting Constitutional duty of Govt above party.
5. Lastly, the ACA was not passed as the same law through both Congress (which voted and passed it as a public health bill) and through the Supreme Court (where it failed under general welfare or commerce clause, and only passed as Constitutional as a tax bill though it was not passed as one through Congress).

What should have occurred is an agreement or vote in Congress whether adding this
new form of federal functions required a Constitutional Amendment or not.
That would have been more in keeping with Constitutional process and principles,
or at least included Constitutional beliefs of citizens instead of excluding and discriminating
against half the nation and Congress, and would have prevented billions if not trillions in waste and cost
in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service due to failures to resolve conflicts in advance of passage.

- Emily Nghiem
www.ethics-commission.net
^ Please refer to link above that includes the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment,
and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. If I open up this Q&A to the invite more
people, I recommend sticking to these principles so we argue on the same terms.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 30, 2018)

You didn't really give Kavanaugh's positions on the subjects.  Very hard to give a proper response.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.

Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative.  What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.

Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> 
> Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative.  What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.
> 
> Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.



You apply the Constitution, not interpret it.

You would have melted under the pressure on Tuesday.  We should be so lucky to have such an honest, thoughtful, respectable person as a Justice.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> ...



Excuse me --- *I* would have "melted"?

Why?  Do you even know me? 

Strange post dood.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> 
> Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative.  What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.
> 
> Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.



Yeah, right...if Trump nominated Rachel Mitchell at 9 AM...you on the left would be burning her in effigy by 9:05!

You don't care about Kavanaugh's record.  The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into!  If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> ...



Why?  I just endorsed her, and not for the first time.

Do you even know me either?





Oldstyle said:


> You don't care about Kavanaugh's record.  The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into!  If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!



I don't know anything about all that.  But you have a vivid imagination, probably lubricated by chemicals.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 30, 2018)

Kavanaugh is an Originalist, which means the Constitution will be protected from Progressive thought.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Excuse me --- *I* would have "melted"?
> 
> Why?  Do you even know me?
> 
> Strange post dood.



Sure I know you, you spout left wing talking points all day everyday.  Go excuse yourself somewhere else.


----------



## Hossfly (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Yer right, Blackjack "Pogo" Pershing


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me --- *I* would have "melted"?
> ...



So you can't defend your post?

It's a weird post, granted, but I already noted that.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Hossfly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'm guessing that's a drinking game.  Like "Devil's Triangle".


----------



## beautress (Sep 30, 2018)

Thanks for the link, Emily. I believe that birth begins at conception due to a scripture King David wrote in the book of Psalms that says something like "before my mother knew I was in her womb, God knew I was there." In my heart, if God knew I was there, and he allowed me to come into the world, I'd do all I could to live a good life and do what little good only one person can do.
I know a lot of American citizens do not agree with my views on abortion, which are quite dim with re to the practice, except in the gut-wrenching case of a mother's impending death without an abortion when the chances are bad for the fetus she carries. However, if she wills risking to have the baby, I'd have to concede that losing her, though sad, is a testament to her unselfishness and bravery, albeit it might result in the death of two American citizens.
I am somewhat aware my opinions are not particularly popular with right to choosers, but since I consider fetuses as unborn citizens in the country of their parents, I cannot disagree with Judge Kavanaugh's position when so many Americans are disenchanted with the drugs and burdens that come when many countries would like to dump their prisoners on the border of a different country so they would not have to pay for their needs.
I like what Judge Kavanaugh's reasons out before he makes a decision. I have a feeling he has done his homework in many areas of human problems and our limitations to be used as the world's free piggy bank when their countries should be opening opportunities to their own instead of dumping all their problems on somebody else is something we need to look into. Helping people who break the law by barging over the borders in secrecy instead of going through the long process of seeking citizenship through the channels that used to be in place for equal chances for all American citizenship seekers worldwide is not possible when we have to process a million unwanted people from a neighbor who withholds opportunities for all in their land. They want us to deny our people a living through accelerating our taxes so we can pay for their negligent care for their own people. It is a travesty for both sides.


----------



## beautress (Sep 30, 2018)

beautress said:


> Thanks for the link, Emily. I believe that birth begins at conception due to a scripture King David wrote in the book of Psalms that says something like "before my mother knew I was in her womb, God knew I was there." In my heart, if God knew I was there, and he allowed me to come into the world, I'd do all I could to live a good life and do what little good only one person can do.
> I know a lot of American citizens do not agree with my views on abortion, which are quite dim with re to the practice, except in the gut-wrenching case of a mother's impending death without an abortion when the chances are bad for the fetus she carries. However, if she wills risking to have the baby, I'd have to concede that losing her, though sad, is a testament to her unselfishness and bravery, albeit it might result in the death of two American citizens.
> I am somewhat aware my opinions are not particularly popular with right to choosers, but since I consider fetuses as unborn citizens in the country of their parents, I cannot disagree with Judge Kavanaugh's position when so many Americans are disenchanted with the drugs and burdens that come when many countries would like to dump their prisoners on the border of a different country so they would not have to pay for their needs.
> I like what Judge Kavanaugh's reasons out before he makes a decision. I have a feeling he has done his homework in many areas of human problems and our limitations to be used as the world's free piggy bank when their countries should be opening opportunities to their own instead of dumping all their problems on somebody else is something we need to look into. Helping people who break the law by barging over the borders in secrecy instead of going through the long process of seeking citizenship through the channels that used to be in place for equal chances for all American citizenship seekers worldwide is not possible when we have to process a million unwanted people from a neighbor who withholds opportunities for all in their land. They want us to deny our people a living through accelerating our taxes so we can pay for their negligent care for their own people. It is a travesty for both sides.


All that said, Ms. Emily, I have in my heart a deep pity for the plight of the Mexican people of poverty but an equal anger at the kingpins in the country who have billions of dollars in assets with not so much as a nickel going to the peons that society creates. And I think beating up the middle class to the point of making them pay such high taxes they cannot foot college fees for their own children is kinda bad. I can only make quilt tops to be distributed among the poor in my community. I pledge I will give a few more hours each week if I can, just so I can furnish an immigrant child with a small token of warmth that a quilt is. I have to say it ain't much.


----------



## miketx (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> 
> Which means a SCOTUS judge must be impartial, even-tempered, openminded and deliberative.  What I saw from Kavanaugh on Thursday ... which is the sum total of what I know about him.... struck out on all four of those ideals.
> 
> Frankly based on what I saw and heard in that hearing -- from everybody --- I think the next SCOTUS judge, who very much does reflect those qualities, should be Rachel Mitchell.


lol, troll doesn't know his position but is against him. The dim criminal party rules!


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Oh, I know you too well, Pogo!  You've been part of the "RESISTANCE" since Trump took office!  If you were honest you'd admit it but we both know that won't be happening any time soon!


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to quote some posts of mine reflecting that dump you just took.

Whatever you find I'll stand behind.  Three, two, one.... GO.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Let's make it even easier than that, Pogo...show me a post where you DON'T oppose Trump!


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So you can't do it.  Well that didn't take long did it.

Once again, for review:



> You don't care about Kavanaugh's record. The left was massed in protest against him with signs already printed out that they had to insert his name into! If you'd asked the majority of those protesters to give you a brief synopsis of Brett Kavanaugh's judicial record they would have looked at you like you just asked them in ancient Greek!



There's nothing about any "Trump" in there.  Are you pulling a reverse Pogo's Law?  You're  actually so inept at a topic that you want to change the subject _TO_ Rump instead of away from?

You'll STILL owe me a nickel.


----------



## Hossfly (Sep 30, 2018)




----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Hossfly said:


>



Wow, my hair done went dark again.  Been a long time.  

Thanks for the entry but I'm still keeping the present avatar.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You can't even admit that you are part of the Trump "Resistance",  Pogo...can you?  It's obvious that you are...and humorous that you think you can pass yourself off as someone who's not!

Pogo's law?  Pat yourself on the back much?  Do the words "pompous blowhard" mean anything to you?


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do the words "you have no answer" mean anything to you?

Obviously not ya empty ballsack.  I knew you couldn't do it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I can't prove you're part of the Trump "Resistance"?  Dude, I hate to point out the obvious but every time you post and have that silly little screen shot of Putin mussing Trump's hair you've proven my point and when you resort to name calling like "empty ballsack" you're proving your ego is easily bruised!


----------



## Pogo (Sep 30, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So let's recap.

Not only do you have literally nothing to answer my challenge, but you've come back four times now to remind us all that you still have nothing.

Special Bus should be here any minute.


----------



## Oldstyle (Sep 30, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I have nothing?  You have ballsack insults and snide remarks about "special busses".  I will simply continue to calmly point out that your posts are what reveal your true character.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 1, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> You didn't really give Kavanaugh's positions on the subjects.  Very hard to give a proper response.



They are in the LINK.
I asked to refer to the LINK because all those topics there are SUMMARIZED.
Do you want me to copy and paste all that here?
Each topic is as long as the EXAMPLE I did post.
It is very long, are you okay reading the LINK:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
Thanks saveliberty just trying to save SPACE instead of copying and pasting it all...


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 1, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> ...



Dear Oldstyle for every person on the RIGHT who only cares about this because of Trump,
there's someone on the LEFT doing similar.
For every person using FORD for the LEFT there's someone using Kavanaugh for the RIGHT.

Yes, there is TOTALLY a political problem going on with projecting
prochoice and prolife politics, and men vs. women, onto 
Kavanaugh and Ford
Hillary Clinton and Trump.
Yes, for everyone doing that on one side, there is someone on the other.

But that doesn't mean me, Pogo, you or "all people" are doing that for their side!

As for addressing the prolife issue straight on,
why not call for this too?

Instead of making Ford or Kavanaugh victims of politics,
let's get it straight once and for all.
* the prochoice legal defense should only be used to defend due process
from govt criminalization and stop discriminating by holding women more responsible for men
* the beliefs about abortion and right to life itself are BELIEFS and should not be decided by govt
* neither side should be subjected to laws that violate their beliefs
* if we disagree we should separate policies, defund one and fund all health programs we
believe in under the policy of our choice and consent to pay for and be under those terms.
* only where we AGREE on policy should that be made law by consent of all governed affected

And if people CANNOT agree to keep their biases out of public policy,
they should either abstain, recuse themselves or remove themselves from office
if they cannot handle inclusion of representation and due process for
people of all beliefs, regardless of creed and their own beliefs as well.

Either be neutral and keep faith based issues and biases out of govt,
or agree to conflict resolution to come up with mutually agreed solutions.

And quit this bullying and harassing abuse back and forth
because of FEAR one side will push their political beliefs through govt
to the exclusion or discrimination of other creeds!

We need to call a truce.
Then we'll see which parties can produce which leadership
that can handle political diversity and inclusion for all people equally!!!


----------



## Pogo (Oct 1, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> We need to call a truce.
> Then we'll see which parties can produce which leadership
> that can handle political diversity and inclusion for all people equally!!!




"Truce" is well spoken.  But I can't agree we need _parties _to produce leadership.  They don't do that.  If anything they do the opposite.  The dichotomous tribalism proves that every day.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Emily, we cannot appease all beliefs. Thats fantasyland. If I believed in Murdering Folks named Emily on the internet, that should be made legal just for wiw ole me? Of course not.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 1, 2018)

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Dear G.T.
You missed the whole point.
Consent and consensus means the other people too!
So you are welcome to practice your belief between you and all other people who agree
to be murdered. You can agree to kill each other if you all consent.
But other people dissenting might ask for terms first
1. that you all go through spiritual therapy and healing to make
sure you are truly consenting and not mentally ill or legally incompetent and unable to consent due to disability
2. that you all agree to live in a certain district so that it is clear
all people in that district agree that killing is legal so there is no
mistaking homocide for agreed suicide. Only people who AGREE
to make it legal will live there, so the law enforcement agrees to that too.

When people go to WAR, they agree to certain rules about killing
and taking prisoners. So the right to kill would be similar to setting
up terms for allowing executions or abortion or euthanasia.

We should do this for drugs and pitbulls and gun laws anyway, just allow district to pay
for their own policies they want to make legal and only people who
live there are under that and pay for the health care and medical
costs for their own decisions. And if you don't agree, then don't live there!

So G.T. if you are serious sure, I'd support your right
 to form your own district if you want to live by rules
that only the residents of that region agree to enforce.
Then you are welcome to do drugs, kill your brain cells or kill each other,
as long as you all agree to pay for the costs including
health care and any legal disputes over this policy. Fine!
If those are the neighbors you want to live with, ask for that.
Just be careful what you ask for, because that's what you attract.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2018)

jesus fuckin christ

neeever mind


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 1, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> Instead of judging people by drunken molestation complaints
> during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
> opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.
> 
> ...



Man do you have a life beyond cutting and pasting?
Sucking off your socialist SS Medicare VA benefits?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 1, 2018)

Dear G.T.


G.T. said:


> jesus fuckin christ
> neeever mind


See, there is an answer to that question of
what would we do if people abuse that argument to ask for something unlawful?

If you hold people to their own beliefs, you solve the problem!


----------



## Pogo (Oct 1, 2018)

G.T. said:


> jesus fuckin christ



Not sure whether that's anatomically possible.

Laws of physics and all that.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2018)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > jesus fuckin christ
> ...


How about Jesus titty fuckin christ... off of his yo yo dieting.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 1, 2018)

G.T. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



If you could, y'know, go ahead and draw a stick figure diagram of that, that'd be great.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2018)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


----------



## G.T. (Oct 1, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear G.T.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> ...


The glaring issue, and the reason the idea on its face is short-sighted and divisive, is that if magical fairy lands DID exist where you could point to a City that is magically built for only like-minded individuals...


umm, Id like for the 1st two who share the same exact views on all the same exact issues in life........ to please step forward so they can be recognized on the rare species list.


----------



## yiostheoy (Oct 1, 2018)

emilynghiem said:


> Instead of judging people by drunken molestation complaints
> during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
> opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.
> 
> ...


Even a lying strict constructionist who was a boozing teen who molested teenaged Catholic girls is better than Ginsberg on the SCOTUS.

Correct.


----------



## yiostheoy (Oct 1, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Or 7 minutes in heaven !! ??


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 1, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> ...



As applicable in 1788 or interpreted for today?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 1, 2018)

yiostheoy said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Huh?  

I don' git it.  That a movie reference or sump'm?


----------



## OnePercenter (Oct 1, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> Kavanaugh is an Originalist, which means the Constitution will be protected from Progressive thought.



Progressive thought like American Workers should make a living wage?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Oct 1, 2018)

No, not interested in auditioning for the SCOTUS.

I might try to grab a Senate seat, though.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 8, 2018)

Oldstyle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know Kavanaugh's positions on these issues, but nor do I think they would be relevant.  A SCOTUS judge isn't there to legislate; he --- or she --- is there to interpret the Law as to whether a given one fits under the Constitution.  As such, his or her personal opinions on that law should be entirely irrelevant and absent from deliberation.
> ...



Dear Oldstyle from what I gather,
the same people who don't trust what he said at the hearing as being the whole truth,
also do not trust reports that he said he agreed with Justice Roberts on Roe v Wade being a settled law.
If you don't trust prolife people not to turn and support prolife opportunties when given the chance,
nothing is going to change that, not even past rulings or statements on their records.

The whole hearing process was used to justify that distrust, that was already there and just made worse,
mainly because of the rightwing unconditional support and blind faith defensiveness that 
come across as "protesting too much"

Neither side trusts each other, and both Ford and Kavanaugh were caught up in that.
The problem already existed before, and doesn't change just because of one side or another outbullying the other.
The problem of prochoice and prolife politics will be solved when both sides agree to 
come together on a solution they both believe is constitutional and fair, so they have no more reason to 
fight against it if they both agree it's the best principle to endorse and enforce.

What I suggest is we agree that bans and restrictions on abortion touch on political beliefs that people refuse to change
especially not through govt or political force. So we need to agree to stop pushing one sides beliefs or agenda, but agree
on a standard and process for making laws or changes affecting abortion and related beliefs. I suggest separating the
funding and having separate policies for party, where there is no obstruction or imposition involving outside groups
of different conflicting beliefs. Then where the parties agree on policy, that can be recognized as public law. Where
they disagree that must remain outside of govt, and only use a process they agree to in advance, such as whether
to use consensus as the standard of policy (which I believe can work on local levels within groups or communities),
or use 51% majority or 2/3, or 3/4 or 3/5, depending on if people agree on a statewide or federal level of laws. Where
we might have a chance of addressing abortion as well as drug policy and health care provisions is on a state level
where electoral college districts can be expanded and used to provide representation by party, so taxpayers can
allocate their taxes and investments/donations into health care and marriage benefits of their choice, by using
party structures and admin on a local district level, or state and national if they can organize collective agreement
among members. They should be encouraged to set up a sustainable programs within their own memberships first,
prove such a system can work, BEFORE promoting such a policy or system on a statewide or national level for
others to buy into. So this would reward groups for setting up better means and ideas for solving conflicts over
health care, including drug and abortion policy, by creating a different level of govt rather than criminal or civil
laws that our govt process currently makes. I suggest a localized system of ordinances for "health and safety"
that party precincts and electors can create directly with their constituents so it represents those communities.
And there is not the same political pressure that comes with "making laws for the entire state or nation". 

If we can agree to set up a better structure, we won't keep fighting over abortion, drug wars, gun and immigration, etc. But can
set up means for parties to pay for their own policies and terms, PROVE THEY WORK FIRST, and then develop the best
state and federal programs based on WHAT WORKS so people CHOOSE to support it and don't rely on forcing beliefs through govt.


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 8, 2018)

OnePercenter said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Kavanaugh is an Originalist, which means the Constitution will be protected from Progressive thought.
> ...



Dear OnePercenter 
Isn't it ironic that the Socialists were the third party movement that pushed for
social security, and the Unions pushed for paid time off and vacation benefits for workers.
That everyone uses, yet the hard core Conservatives want to bash Unions as not needed anymore.

However, for living wages, the best solutions I have found are teaching people
business management and planning so they become independent of govt all together.
Both Obama and Carson agree that Microlending and business development training
are the key to ending welfare and overreliance on govt handouts that keeps people in poverty.

www.grameenfoundation.org
www.ithacahours.com
www.paceuniversal.com

The best  health care and educational outreach I've seen that empowers people
are NONPROFITS, and they do better when they are not controlled by govt bureaucracy.
In fact, one of the best nonprofits for getting kids out of the cycle of incarceration of their 
families and communities cannot even take funds from govt controlled sources like United Way
because the conditions on the funds interferes with their personal counseling of the clients.
So the best programs rely on private funds where they can do their jobs without obstruction.

Habitat for Humanity was started after Jimmy Carter left office.
Let's hope Obama takes on reforming the criminal justice system
and freeing up resources to pay for health care, education and housing
instead of taxpayer money paying for corrupt contracts fueling a failed
prison and public housing system warehousing people for profit.


----------

