Reasons For or Against Kavanaugh's Confirmation

[Revoltingest]

You know what they say, can't judge a judge by his testimony before Congress! (Also makes a great bumper sticker.)

And now that liberals will start liking him, they'll be all "Ford who?".

 

[Salvador]

Kavanaugh sides with liberals in what appears to be support for abortion rights.
Kavanaugh Joins Liberals To Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling

I supported this guy during his confirmation process, I honestly didn't know he'd support extremist abortionists; I only support early-term abortions in cases of rape or when there's pregnancy complications causing imminently significant health risks to the embryo's mother. I'm now very disappointed with Kavanaugh's ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood. ...

 

[Revoltingest]

I supported this guy during his confirmation process, I honestly didn't know he'd support extremist abortionists; I only support early-term abortions in cases of rape or when there's pregnancy complications causing imminently significant health risks to the embryo's mother. I'm now very disappointed with Kavanaugh's ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood. ...

He could be simply supporting the Constitution & applicable law.

 

[Salvador]

He could be simply supporting the Constitution & applicable law.

"Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit."

"According to English Common Law, the unborn have all the rights of the born, and these rights have been embodied in our Constitution in the 9th Amendment. All the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the unborn, as well as the born.

The reason why these rights have not been matters of constitutional law before is that, until Roe v. Wade, these were rights protected by State laws, drawing upon English Common Law for their meaning and intent. But those State laws were abrogated and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, thus becoming matters of constitutional law."

Abortion - Pro Life - THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN from Common Law to Constitutional Law

 

[Revoltingest]

"Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit."

"According to English Common Law, the unborn have all the rights of the born, and these rights have been embodied in our Constitution in the 9th Amendment. All the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the unborn, as well as the born.

The reason why these rights have not been matters of constitutional law before is that, until Roe v. Wade, these were rights protected by State laws, drawing upon English Common Law for their meaning and intent. But those State laws were abrogated and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, thus becoming matters of constitutional law."

Abortion - Pro Life - THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN from Common Law to Constitutional Law

Common law is indeed a basis for the Constitution, but the latter expanded on things.
The reasoning behind Roe v Wade can be argued over, but at this stage what matters
most is that it's largely settled law & a powerful force in culture.
Btw, to apply the entire Bill Of Rights to a fetus would be laughed out of court.
The singular right to life (ie, no abortions) would need a really cromulent argument.

 

[Salvador]

Common law is indeed a basis for the Constitution, but the latter expanded on things.
The reasoning behind Roe v Wade can be argued over, but at this stage what matters
most is that it's largely settled law & a powerful force in culture.
Btw, to apply the entire Bill Of Rights to a fetus would be laughed out of court.
The singular right to life (ie, no abortions) would need a really cromulent argument.

There is good reason for abortions to be allowed in cases of rape or when there are pregnancy complications endangering the mother's life, but abortion on demand is wrong. I can't rightfully torture and kill a tame stray dog who wanders onto my property. Likewise, nobody should be able to torture and kill a human fetus who by the way does feel pain as early as in its second trimester of prenatal development.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is good reason for abortions to be allowed in cases of rape or when there are pregnancy complications endangering the mother's life, but abortion on demand is wrong. I can't rightfully torture and kill a tame stray dog who wanders onto my property. Likewise, nobody should be able to torture and kill a human fetus who by the way does feel pain as early as in its second trimester of prenatal development.

That all sounds like the basis for a reasonable compromise under the law.

 

[YmirGF]

This for me is really what cemented my opposition. He didn't even try to hide his political bias.

Why? No one else is these days. It's just a sign of the times.

 

[Quetzal]

Why? No one else is these days. It's just a sign of the times.

In normal politics, I get it. But we are talking about a judiciary body. They have to be as close to unbiased as they can.

 

[YmirGF]

In normal politics, I get it. But we are talking about a judiciary body. They have to be as close to unbiased as they can.

I guess that is why we are all well aware of the political leanings of all the sitting justices. Hey. If it's so unbiased why are Democrats going mental over another conservative judge? Obviously, politics matter (and likely always have).

Oh well, he voted to fund Planned Parenthood, against other conservative justices so he can't be that evil. Or is he still evil, regardless?

 

[Quetzal]

I guess that is why we are all well aware of the political leanings of all the sitting justices. Hey. If it's so unbiased why are Democrats going mental over another conservative judge? Obviously, politics matter (and likely always have).

Oh well, he voted to fund Planned Parenthood, against other conservative justices so he can't be that evil. Or is he still evil, regardless?

We might never know if he is or isn't. All we know if what he does from here on out, we will see.

 

[Nous]

I supported this guy during his confirmation process, I honestly didn't know he'd support extremist abortionists;

Didn't Kavanaugh tell Susan Collins that he considered Roe v. Wade settled law? There's certainly nothing "extremist" about that. It's unquestionably settled.

 

[Nous]

"Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit."

"According to English Common Law, the unborn have all the rights of the born, and these rights have been embodied in our Constitution in the 9th Amendment. All the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the unborn, as well as the born.

The reason why these rights have not been matters of constitutional law before is that, until Roe v. Wade, these were rights protected by State laws, drawing upon English Common Law for their meaning and intent. But those State laws were abrogated and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, thus becoming matters of constitutional law."

Abortion - Pro Life - THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN from Common Law to Constitutional Law

So you dispute the concurrence/dissent of Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Thomas in Casey? The plurality affirmed Roe in that the common law guarded the rights of privacy and bodily integrity against state intrusion as closely as it guarded any rights, and that the state simply does not have an interest in a previable fetus that survives strict scrutiny against such rights. Rehnquist et al. inform that English common law protected the life of a fetus only after quickening. Thus the viability standard in Casey.

 

[Watchmen]

I support the confirmation. Notwithstanding Trump’s election, I believe the country is moving to the left as a whole. I think a conservative court will help balance things during this change.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I guess that is why we are all well aware of the political leanings of all the sitting justices. Hey. If it's so unbiased why are Democrats going mental over another conservative judge? Obviously, politics matter (and likely always have).

Oh well, he voted to fund Planned Parenthood, against other conservative justices so he can't be that evil. Or is he still evil, regardless?

I dont know about other Democrats but I wasnt upset by his conservative leaning, I was upset because he very likely sexually assaulted people and lied about it. If anything, I feel like that's common ground with some Republicans.

 

[Watchmen]

I dont know about other Democrats but I wasnt upset by his conservative leaning, I was upset because he very likely sexually assaulted people and lied about it. If anything, I feel like that's common ground with some Republicans.

Actually, it has turned out that at least one of his accusers lied about it, while there’s no evidence that Kavanaugh ever lied.

 

[Nous]

there’s no evidence that Kavanaugh ever lied.

If true that "there's no evidence that Kavanaugh ever lied," it might be only because Senate Republicans withheld and refused to allow the FBI to collect such evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Senate Republicans withheld and refused to allow the FBI to collect such evidence.

Evidence for this?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Actually, it has turned out that at least one of his accusers lied about it, while there’s no evidence that Kavanaugh ever lied.

Actually? He lied-- multiple times-- during his Monkey Trial (euphemistically titled "conformation hearing"). We have it on record, the lies he told.

But to all Conservatives? Lying only matters if you are a Democrat-- otherwise? It's Don't Care.

 

[Watchmen]

If true that "there's no evidence that Kavanaugh ever lied," it might be only because Senate Republicans withheld and refused to allow the FBI to collect such evidence.

Actually, the FBI did do an investigation.