I think Marc is referring to things like this from Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut that found a right to privacy in the Constitution that is never explicitly mentioned:
quote:The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Ironically, today it is the right that puts the greatest stress on a right to privacy.
Taq may have been asking for examples of decisions based on "whims" as opposed to more or less consistent principles that marc disagrees with.
We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain
What differences have you seen between Merrick Garland's Supreme Court decisions and Antonin Scalia's decisions? Remember, you are the one who said it was inappropriate to replace Scalia with Garland, so let's see those Garland SCOTUS decisions.
Garland has never been on the Supreme Court, so we can't reference any SCOTUS decisions of his. But we can reference his decisions and philosophies in other positions he's held.
Big on environmental regulations, big on pleasing big labor, and big on gun control. Nothing like Scalia. Though moderate enough to probably mislead a lot of conservatives into thinking he'd rule from the center. That's what Ginsburg managed to pull off, since she was confirmed 96 to 3.
Now if you're going to accuse me of having a double standard, since I'm judging Garland without him having a SCOTUS record, and crying foul when Chiroptera judges Kavanaugh without HIM having a SCOTUS record, what I see is Garland's record from his lower positions making it very clear that he has no respect for the second amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. What part of the Bill of Rights, (or any other part of the Constitution) do you and Chiroptera clearly see that Kavanaugh will disrespect?
I was asking for decisions based on "consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party". Can you name any such decisions?
Percy writes:
I think Marc is referring to things like this from Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut that found a right to privacy in the Constitution that is never explicitly mentioned:
There are tons of examples. It's a rabbit trail I don't care to go down in this "Trump" thread. Not going to take this "off topic" bait. (you're welcome )
At a rally in Montana Trump appears to have praised Greg Gianforte's assault on Guardian journalist Ben Jacobs.
We endorsed Greg very early. But I heard that he body-slammed a reporter. This was the day of the election or just before, and I thought, ‘Oh, this is terrible! He’s going to lose the election.’
Trump continued: And then I said, ‘Wait a minute, I know Montana pretty well, I think it might help him.’ And it did.
The line prompted another huge cheer from the Montana crowd.
The US president finished his account of the physical assault by saying of Gianforte: He’s a great guy. Tough cookie.
In a statement, the Guardian US editor, John Mulholland, said: The president of the United States tonight applauded the assault on an American journalist who works for the Guardian. To celebrate an attack on a journalist who was simply doing his job is an attack on the first amendment by someone who has taken an oath to defend it.
In the aftermath of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it runs the risk of inviting other assaults on journalists both here and across the world where they often face far greater threats. We hope decent people will denounce these comments and that the president will see fit to apologize for them.
We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain
Garland has never been on the Supreme Court, so we can't reference any SCOTUS decisions of his. But we can reference his decisions and philosophies in other positions he's held.
Why can't we do the same for Kavanaugh who is replacing a liberal judge?
They did, and I imagine the conversation went like this:
Donald Trump: I will nominate Brett Kavanaugh because he is the perfect ideological match for Justice Kennedy, which is the traditional way that Supreme Court justices are chosen.
Mitch McConnell: Kavanaugh is the ideological match for Kennedy? Then I will make sure that he is confirmed because it would be untraditional to try to get a right wing conservative to replace Kennedy.
Chuck Grassley: The Judiciary Committee will certainly support Kavanaugh's confirmation because if there is one thing this Committee has always done it's respect tradition.
-
In the future:
Brett Kavanaugh for the majority: It should be no surprise that I am voting to require bakers to create wedding cakes for same sex marriages, because I am an ideological match for Kennedy. Oh, and Roe v Wade is settled law, 'cause that's the way Kennedy would have decided as well.
Republicans every where: We did it! Hurrah for tradition!
We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain
Today's Daily Beast ran this article about Michael Avenatti's complicated legal and financial entanglements with his ex-wife, his ex-law firm, his ex-partners, his ex-racing team, and the IRS: Michael Avenatti Lived the High Life While Owing Millions to IRS. I just sent this email to Mr. Avenatti:
quote:Dear Mr. Avenatti,
I’m contacting you at your law firm because this is the only email address I could find, and I do not use Twitter or Facebook. I believe they have too much potential to diminish, demean and cheapen our political discourse.
I shook your hand at the Hillsborough County Democratic Picnic and called you Mr. Future President. An LA Times reporter overheard me and asked why, and I said it was because you spoke truth to lies. But after reading today’s Daily Beast article it seems possible that you only speak truth to lies when it is convenient, when it is about someone else’s lies, someone else’s lack of transparency.
I have no interest in trading one combative, secretive liar for another. You *have* been right about Trump and Michael Cohen, but it seems possible that you have been wrong, or at least behaved very badly with self-interest your primary motivation, about many other things. If you run in 2020 it had better be after you’ve cleaned this up with full transparency by revealing all the truth, both good and bad, for all the world to see. Then let us judge if you should be our president. I like the way you combat Trump, but not all this other stuff. Treat your ex-wife, your creditors, the courts, the people you believe have wronged you, with dignity and respect and fairness and openness, and do not stiff people. Only by this can you earn my vote.
It will be hard. Trump has kept much about his life and businesses from becoming public through aggressive use of NDAs and threats of legal action. For anyone eschewing such approaches it won’t be so easy maintaining a positive public image. I sincerely wish you good luck, because we do need you.
Trump decided to go ahead with a planned campaign rally in Illinois yesterday, the same day as the synagogue massacre in the Squirrel Hill district of Pittsburgh, justifying it by falsely claiming that the New York Stock Exchange opened the day after 9/11. The reality is that the NYSE did not reopen until 9/17, six days later. It was the longest closure of the NYSE since the Great Depression. (Source)
Rhetorical question: How many messages in this thread have been titled Trump Lies Again?
A Letter to Trump from Jewish Leaders in Pittsburgh
Jewish leaders in Pittsburgh are asking Jews and allies across the nation to sign an online letter to President Trump demanding that he commit himself to these demands else he is not welcome in Pittsburgh:
Fully denounce white nationalism,
Stop targeting and endangering all minorities,
Cease your assault on immigrants and refugees, and
Commit yourself to compassionate, democratic policies that recognize the dignity of all of us.
Trump is vowing to end the right to US citizenship for those born in the US to noncitizens.
Trump:
quote:We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end. ... It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t. ... You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.
The 14th Amendment:
quote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
He knows he can't do it. He's just stirring up his base again. What does it say about a base that is so easily and transparently stirred and manipulated, and that finds messages of hate so energizing and enthralling? After Trump is gone they'll still be here.
AbE: Trump apparently lied again when he said the US was the only such nation. NumbersUSA says there are 33 such nations: Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship. The US and Canada are the only developed countries on the list.
He knows he can't do it. He's just stirring up his base again.
It's likely just political grandstanding. As you said, its to rally the base.
A sitting president can't just use executive orders to overrule the constitution. Otherwise, one of them could just overturn the 2nd amendment and make guns illegal.
What makes me scratch my head is how he can make such a flagrant claim whilst simultaneously indicating how important it is to hold up the constitution. Something his base is also very rabid about. Guess the irony is lost.
quote:I am often told how calm I sounded speaking to passengers, crew and air traffic control during the emergency. In every situation, but especially challenging ones, a leader sets the tone and must create an environment in which all can do their best. You get what you project. Whether it is calm and confidence or fear, anger and hatred people will respond in kind. Courage can be contagious.
Today, tragically, too many people in power are projecting the worst. Many are cowardly, complicit enablers, acting against the interests of the United States, our allies and democracy; encouraging extremists at home and emboldening our adversaries abroad; and threatening the livability of our planet. Many do not respect the offices they hold; they lack or disregard a basic knowledge of history, science and leadership; and they act impulsively, worsening a toxic political environment. ... For the first 85 percent of my adult life, I was a registered Republican. But I have always voted as an American. And this critical Election Day, I will do so by voting for leaders committed to rebuilding our common values and not pandering to our basest impulses. ... We cannot wait for someone to save us. We must do it ourselves. This Election Day is a crucial opportunity to again demonstrate the best in each of us by doing our duty and voting for leaders who are committed to the values that will unite and protect us. Years from now, when our grandchildren learn about this critical time in our nation’s history, they may ask if we got involved, if we made our voices heard. I know what my answer will be. I hope yours will be yes.
Germany was a civilized country before a propagandist instigator brought out the basest instincts in an entire people and brought upon the world the greatest conflagration it had ever seen. The people we see at Trump Rallies chanting "Lock her up" and "Animals" and "Build a wall — kill them all" must be good people at heart. They need a leader who will bring out the better angels of their nature.
Barbra Stresand will soon be releasing her new Album "Walls," directed at her least favorite president. One song has already been released, "Don't Lie to Me":
)
™ Version 4.2
(1)