US Supreme Court

Oct 2010
4,844
DC
#71
Yes, the hypocrisy is astounding, and now someone like Kavanaugh being hounded by the very people who summarily dismissed much more credible accusations against Clinton; but then there is nothing personal in it, they want to destroy Kavanaugh for purely political reasons, not because they have tried to reach any impartial judgement about the value of the claims made against him. This whole sorry business shows why due process is essential when serious cliams are made against anyone.
I agree, of the many things in the constitution and laws of the USA, I think most oftly cited yet rarely undestood (or deliberately misunderstood) are due process and first amendment. That whole hearing charade highlights the first while the whole charade about Citizens United is for the latter.

People's rights are always the target of those who want no part of consensus, the jeopardy of their rights remains a concern of their despite that, and therein lies the hypocrisy.

I actually understand Roe V. Wade and have reached a somewhat similar conclusions before reading its' text, I still believe that the ruling has no constitutional basis to it regardless of agreeing with the outcome. I always wondered, when does a surgery become optional (by choice), necessary (medically). and/or somewhere in between, and how that applies to "elective non-medically necessary" surgery part of insurance coverage.
 
Dec 2011
1,917
#72
I actually understand Roe V. Wade and have reached a somewhat similar conclusions before reading its' text, I still believe that the ruling has no constitutional basis to it regardless of agreeing with the outcome.
You are correct IMO in regard to its constitutional basis.

When Blackmun wrote the majority ruling he was reaching back through history to a dissenting opinion1 by Justice J. M. Harlen that started the long road to placing privacy rights on a legal footing. There is nothing about privacy rights in the constitution. It is all a SCOTUS invention.

Anyway, Justice Douglas used Harlen's rationale in Griswold v. Connecticut to establish privacy rights as constitutional law.

----------------------------------------
1. Poe v. Ullman, 1961
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#73
Yes, the hypocrisy is astounding
The acting is pretty good, too.

Especially, considering how much improvisation is involved, versus, say, Advise and Consent (1962), or that other one they've been replaying on the fly every night, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939).
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#74
@royal744

"I utterly reject the idiotic notion that a candidate who does not win the popular vote is “elected” president. He isn’t. It is just that simple."

No, it isn't that simple, although the US does have some political customs which seem odd to Australians:;

I've always been happy that a great many Aussies have a healthy contempt for politicians as a species. The US however, seems to have an inordinate number of people who mistake what campaigning politicians on any side say as truth or a serious statement of intent.

Under our system of parliamentary democracy , the people do not vote for our head of government. (Our head of state is Queen Elizabeth 11) Our Prime Minister is simply the head of the party which forms government. He/she can be removed at any time by the party. This has actually happened I think 4 times in the last ten years. (twice on each side ) A lot of Aussies are REALLY peeved. This is the last of three stages, ending in having an absolute tizzy. You can always tell when Aussies are annoyed with politicians; the minor parties get a lot more people elected, which can have a nasty effect on the balance of power.

I can't be too be smug because we also have compulsory voting. That result sin a very large number of donkey votes.. AND we have preferential voting, which is probably as confusing to an outsider as the US electoral college is to us.


The Australian electoral system comprises the laws and processes used for the election of members of the Australian Parliament. The system presently has a number of distinctive features including compulsory enrolment, compulsory voting, majority-preferentialinstant-runoff votingin single-member seatsto elect the lower house, the House of Representatives, and the use of the single transferable voteproportional representationsystem to elect the upper house, the Senate

Electoral system of Australia - Wikipedia
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#75
I can't be too be smug because we also have compulsory voting. That result sin a very large number of donkey votes.. AND we have preferential voting, which is probably as confusing to an outsider as the US electoral college is to us.
What is a donkey vote?

Is it this?
"A donkey vote is a ballot cast in an election that uses a preference voting system, where a voter is permitted or required to rank candidates on the ballot paper, and ranks them based on the order they appear on the ballot paper. The voter that votes in this manner is referred to as a donkey voter."
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,840
San Antonio, Tx
#76
To be fair - this isn't restricted to the States or to one side of the aisle, it's part of a general degeneration of civility. Which might be the left's fault.
The “degeneration of civility...might be the left’s fault”? In terms of the degeneration of civility, I think one might want to be a little more judicious in making such a determination.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,840
San Antonio, Tx
#77
Bork was a rejected as part of a political campaign, including TV ads, and the Democrats controlled the Senate at that time. It used to be the Senate honored the President choice, it was not so politicized. The Denocrats tried another sleeze campaign against Clarence Thomas' nomination with nameless accusations, but when they were forced to put up, it was seen their accusations were groundless. The process has been so politicized because the Left has continually used the Supreme Court to achieve what they could not achieve in an actual election.
Oh my, really? Those evil Dems? And the Republicans have never used the Supreme Court to achieve its ends? I hope one day you wake up.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#78
"Some people think they are smarter than the Founders, and, surprise, they pontificate right here."

Ad hominem attack*. Perhaps have ago at addressing the argument, or say mine, below.. Overall, I find a lot of the posts here quite erudite


The Intelligence of the drafters of the US constitution is irrelevent.,except perhaps in the way it was drafted.IE as a living document, capable of being changed. Hence the 27 amendments, with the first ten being ratified together, forming The Bill Of Rights.

Hypocrisy is part of the human condition, found in most people land indeed most organisations run by people.

In a parliamentary democracy, found in UK, Australasia, Canada, and other commonwealth countries, the prime minister is NOT elected as Prime Minister.. The leader of the party which forms government automatically becomes Prime Minister. If the party votes him/her out as leader of the party, he'/she ceases to be PM. The new leader becomes PM. This has actually happened in Australia four times since 2010, twice in each party.


*Ad hominem argument:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

I think this might be considered pontificating.:)
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#79
And the Republicans have never used the Supreme Court to achieve its ends?
Do you have any examples? I have trouble thinking of any.

Then again, for me, I am not clear on what is "using" the court. Are people who want the law interpreted as written rather than deliberately misinterpreted both "using" the court?
Is having an agenda, winning elections, and stacking the bench "using" the court? Or is that how the system is supposed to work?
 

Similar History Discussions