Trump Has Decided on Supreme Court Nominee, After a Morning of Seeking Advice

[Ghostpanther]

I've been grappling with this lately. I'm a firm believer in everyone having a voice, as someone who has at times found himself with unpopular but strongly-held opinions. The idea that even if people's opinions don't jive with yours, they still deserve a seat at the table, where discussion can be had. I sort of extrapolate this out to the Supreme Court, because interpretation of the Constitution may differ between people, and it's not right to de facto deny one side a seat at the table.

However, the Constitution does say what it says.





These are tough issues for someone who wants to be fair to everyone. Is such a thing even possible? If I really believe, for example, in the Constitutional right to bear arms, can I simultaneously favor a court that has equal representation among those who believe it to be outmoded?

Tough issues indeed.

I wouldn't. Which is one reason I have no issues with tilting the Supreme Court toward those I feel would interpret it Constitutionally as written. If the Second is outdated and needs to be changed, there is a process outlined in how to do that Constitutionally. Amendments.

[Themius]

Looking for a scotus judge to uphold and apply the law as per the constitution

says no liberals, democrats or leftists ever

So you think a judge that thinks presidents are above the law is upholding and applying the law fairly? Or because he is conservative of course it is good?

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, Obama made a choice for that seat and it sucked so it wasnt confirmed. He doesnt get to keep making picks after he leaves office until he gets one thats good enough to confirm just because the spot opened while he was in office

His choice that was a moderate and in the center... to appease the republicans, but the republicans wanted a radical conservative and so denied him that right? but it is okay because he was a democrat!

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing wrong with gun control, but if you want to enact it then alter the constitution to allow it. Change the 2nd amendment. Dont just violate it. Whether the country wants unrestricted gun control or heavy gun control should be codified in the Constitution rather than argued in various courts for another 100 years. Same goes for abortion. Im tired of hearing the same arguments for these issues on both sides. Change or make an amendment to the Constitution to address these 2 issues and make it clear. Then there will be no need for courts to keep determining their constitutionality.

Where in the constitution does it say every person has unfettered access to all weapons?

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't. Which is one reason I have no issues with tilting the Supreme Court toward those I feel would interpret it Constitutionally as written. If the Second is outdated and needs to be changed, there is a process outlined in how to do that Constitutionally. Amendments.

But you see there's one side that is in the pockets of the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically a judge that will stop any investigation against Trump if asked.

But that's good because he's a republican!

[Slybak]

Scalia deliberately missing the point for partisan benefit, basically his chosen career.

The most cogent of Scalia's legal opinions was that you could basically replace him with an early 19th century dictionary.

[reliquit-salis]

If by rejected you mean rewarded for their extremism by being given control of all branches of government and a huge local majority
Again you just want democrats to continue to be the compromising doormats they have been for so long unfortunately for you their base seem to be finally holding their feet to the fire.

oh. no i dont mean that at all because that isnt true. the 'alt right' is this tiny irrelevant fringe thing. they have no power and they never did. now certain people and outlets will tell you otherwise. they do so because they want you to believe a few false narratives. primary these 1. racists racists everywhere and 2. that mr trump didnt win because americans love their country. also check this link. we dont want them in our party or near us so how would they be running things. its a video of them being run off by us. its also not isolated thankfully.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...19258326319104

[Draco-Onis]

oh. no i dont mean that at all because that isnt true. the 'alt right' is this tiny irrelevant fringe thing. they have no power and they never did. now certain people and outlets will tell you otherwise. they do so because they want you to believe a few false narratives. primary these 1. racists racists everywhere and 2. that mr trump didnt win because americans love their country. also check this link. we dont want them in our party or near us so how would they be running things. its a video of them being run off by us. its also not isolated thankfully.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...19258326319104

Donald Trump started as an alt right birther, after he won the election one of his fist interviews Alex Jones. Steve Bannon self proclaimed leader of the alt right part of his administration, Sebastian Gorka the list is rather long. So you claiming that they have no power and never did means you are either lying or blind to facts, Trump would not be where he is without the alt right.

You would have been better off Trump won because Hillary was terrible candidate at least then you might have a point.

[Bullettime]

Put more details in the other thread on this guy but this has the larger post count so.

Anyways, this guy's financial disclosures are super fucking shady and has given multiple reasons he should be auto disqualified. He's either a liar, has an addiction that could be leveraged against him, or is financially compromised.

[Xyonai]

Put more details in the other thread on this guy but this has the larger post count so.

Anyways, this guy's financial disclosures are super fucking shady and has given multiple reasons he should be auto disqualified. He's either a liar, has an addiction that could be leveraged against him, or is financially compromised.

Mind tossin' a sauce at us to look through? Because this sounds hilariously damning and I'm surprised that it wouldn't have been brought up yet.

[Bullettime]

Sauce

edit: Basically, guy makes 220k a year in his position. Wife makes 65k a year. He got into big credit card debt recently being a scalper of Nationals tickets and has been in and out of considerable credit card (60 to 200k) since at least 2006. Meanwhile, his home equity is around a million, mortgaged, and he claims to only have between 15k and 65k in assets.

The money doesn't add up unless either A) gambling addiction, B) finances wrapped up in non disclosed (shady) sources, or C) he lied on his forms.

[Dacien]

Sauce

edit: Basically, guy makes 220k a year in his position. Wife makes 65k a year. He got into big credit card debt recently being a scalper of Nationals tickets and has been in and out of considerable credit card (60 to 200k) since at least 2006. Meanwhile, his home equity is around a million, mortgaged, and he claims to only have between 15k and 65k in assets.

The money doesn't add up unless either A) gambling addiction, B) finances wrapped up in non disclosed (shady) sources, or C) he lied on his forms.

That article doesn't really substantiate the claim that he was a scalper. A White House Spokesman reports that he bought them for friends, who have since paid him back. Kavanaugh himself declined to comment. In order to make the claim that he's scalping tickets (that is, that he bought these tickets in order to sell them off for profit) requires more substantiation than this article provides. It's quite a serious claim, as it is illegal in many states.


Also, he hasn't really been "in and out" of credit card debt, according to the article:

Shah said the payments for the tickets were made at the end of 2016 and paid off early the next year.

“He did not carry that kind of debt year over year,” Shah said.

One additional note is that his home equity is not "around a million". The value of his residence and his government retirement account equal around a million, and both of them are not required to be disclosed.

I'd encourage everyone opposed to Kavanaugh to be extremely scrutinizing in the coming weeks toward news articles about him.

[Thekri]

Sauce

edit: Basically, guy makes 220k a year in his position. Wife makes 65k a year. He got into big credit card debt recently being a scalper of Nationals tickets and has been in and out of considerable credit card (60 to 200k) since at least 2006. Meanwhile, his home equity is around a million, mortgaged, and he claims to only have between 15k and 65k in assets.

The money doesn't add up unless either A) gambling addiction, B) finances wrapped up in non disclosed (shady) sources, or C) he lied on his forms.

Actually inclined to agree with @Dacien on this one, the article you linked doesn't really add up to the claims you just made. It says he wasn't rolling the credit card debt, and his retirement account and home value weren't included. Considering he bought a 1.2 million dollar home, that is probably where the money went. As far as the credit card debt, it says he never actually carried the debt long term, which is reasonable when you look at his official income over that period.

In other words, all this does make sense for a judge that hasn't really worked private sector and is making $220k a year. I don't really see anything suspicious here. If there is something then we can guarantee it is about to get dragged out in the open in a completely humiliating fashion. But I doubt anything will.

[I Push Buttons]

Sauce

edit: Basically, guy makes 220k a year in his position. Wife makes 65k a year. He got into big credit card debt recently being a scalper of Nationals tickets and has been in and out of considerable credit card (60 to 200k) since at least 2006. Meanwhile, his home equity is around a million, mortgaged, and he claims to only have between 15k and 65k in assets.

The money doesn't add up unless either A) gambling addiction, B) finances wrapped up in non disclosed (shady) sources, or C) he lied on his forms.

What doesn't add up about his financial situation?

He and his wife's income was $313k before taxes (he made $220k from judge salary + $27k teaching at Harvard, his wife made $66k as a town manager)... What is shady about people making that much having a $1.2 million house (recently refinanced their mortgage to $865k)? If it was a 30 year mortgage and he had a standard rate he would only be paying like $4800/month...

And what is strange about having multiple credit cards with lots of debt? Especially when his family is bog standard upper middle class, and don't come from wealth, etc. Those are like the prototypical people who live above their means...

[Thekri]

What doesn't add up about his financial situation?

He and his wife's income was $313k before taxes (he made $220k from judge salary + $27k teaching at Harvard, his wife made $66k as a town manager)... What is shady about people making that much having a $1.2 million house (recently refinanced their mortgage to $865k)? If it was a 30 year mortgage and he had a standard rate he would only be paying like $4800/month...

And what is strange about having multiple credit cards with lots of debt? Especially when his family is bog standard upper middle class, and don't come from wealth, etc. Those are like the prototypical people who live above their means...

Living above their means is incredibly damning for a judge, since it opens them up to bribery. But they actually aren't, that credit card debt all got paid off, they aren't carrying large amounts of debt. The are actually living completely reasonably for 313k. They just aren't building wealth.

[Dacien]

If there is something then we can guarantee it is about to get dragged out in the open in a completely humiliating fashion. But I doubt anything will.

On a completely unrelated note, this rationale is an important consideration in my evaluation of the Trump/Russia collusion allegation (along with all the assuaging research). Incriminating information indicating such would be the most valuable information a person could possibly possess today, and extremely high prices would be paid for it, if a price even needed to be paid. If there was evidence of such a thing, criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, we would have heard about it a long, long time ago.

But I digress.

[Thekri]

On a completely unrelated note, this rationale is an important consideration in my evaluation of the Trump/Russia collusion allegation (along with all the assuaging research). Incriminating information indicating such would be the most valuable information a person could possibly possess today, and extremely high prices would be paid for it, if a price even needed to be paid. If there was evidence of such a thing, criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, we would have heard about it a long, long time ago.

But I digress.

Yeah... that is all bogus as hell. I agree with you on Kavanaugh's financing, but Trump/Russia is shady as all hell. It is completely and totally different, there is no precedent for accusing a sitting President of collaboration with a foreign power. The idea it would get tossed out in a haphazard manner immediately is ridiculous. If you have noticed, the evidence keeps boiling to the top of the pot every couple of days, but you ignore it. When the final charges come they are going to be with hundreds of witness and millions of documents, that is how Mueller does business.


So yeah, that is a completely unrelated note and has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

[Mormolyce]

The most cogent of Scalia's legal opinions was that you could basically replace him with an early 19th century dictionary.

I quite like this one:

Michael Waldman, who has just published a book on the Second Amendment, observes that Scalia, in his opinion, “has the feel of an ambitious Scrabble player trying too hard to prove that triple word score really does exist.”

Tee hee.

[Draco-Onis]

On a completely unrelated note, this rationale is an important consideration in my evaluation of the Trump/Russia collusion allegation (along with all the assuaging research). Incriminating information indicating such would be the most valuable information a person could possibly possess today, and extremely high prices would be paid for it, if a price even needed to be paid. If there was evidence of such a thing, criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, we would have heard about it a long, long time ago.

But I digress.

Not really they are called conspiracy for a reason which is why investigations are needed people said the same thing about watergate and a number of big scandals.

[shimerra]

They wouldn't praise him they would find a way to say he's selling out.

Just like how you’d find a way to jam trumps member another inch down your throat when you flipped to praise him for it.

I mean you already are a massive hypocrite so it’s no surprise like with the justification for why a slightly left judge was a liberal socialist commie hack but someone fither right than garland was left is magically the conservative Centris we all need!