Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

MUST READ: Official: Discuss the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS in this thread.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    64,184
    9,067
    2,743
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    I watched part of Scalia's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary committee. Senator Kennedy's first question was whether or not he was going to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Scalia gave the typical, not going to answer how he would rule answer. He must have believed him because he voted to confirm him.
     
  2. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,892
    380
    398
    Apr 8, 2007
    Let's not also forget that most of the justices on the court at the time (1986) were either in the actual majority on Roe or were believed to be sympathetic to the decision. Only Rehnquist and White were actually hostile to Roe. Kennedy's vote may have been different if Scalia actually represented a threat to principle of freedom of choice.
     
  3. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    98,976
    12,668
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl
    anyone else notice how quickly the libs went from we must protect these illegal foreign national children to we must still be allowed to kill our unborn children
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    5,718
    973
    418
    Oct 30, 2017
    That's because fetuses aren't children. But then again, you're the same guy who defended the policy targeting foreign children, so the hypocrisy you accuse libs of is also true of you in reverse.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,892
    380
    398
    Apr 8, 2007
    Only in the fantasy world of the so called right-to-lifes are first term fetuses sometimes the size of kidney beans children.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    6,209
    833
    458
    Jun 14, 2007
    'Children' refers to a young and tender state of human being.

    That 'kidney bean' sized fetus you refer too, is also a young, tender and vulnerable state of HUMAN being--not a *bean*, nor any other species of being.

    So I guess we can say 'only in the fantasy world of neo-progressive libby *right to privacy* trumps right to life, can a HUMAN BEING be callously disregarded as a....*kidney bean*, because they're about the same size.'

    :rolleyes:

    NB: worth noting...you too, in your existence as a Human being, were once also in a young, tender and vulnerable state of human being, while roughly the size of a kidney bean.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  7. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    98,976
    12,668
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl

    Virginia the problem is you libs are not content with the first trimester abortions-you want abortions right up to the delivery day


    and lawyer- I noticed you did not deny what I said

    as far as illegal foreign nationals- they have no right to entry into our country- I think we need to focus on Americans and send every one of these illegal foreign nationals back to where they came from

    your faux outrage is pathetic


    Planned Parenthood kills 1000 unborn children in the US EVERYDAY. And you are going batshit crazy over less than 2000 kids temporarily separated from whomever brought them here
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  8. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 Premium Member

    6,300
    219
    383
    Apr 3, 2007
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  9. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,643
    9,016
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    If you're going by is decision on the Obama care case, I think you're reading too much into it. It's a tax...
     
  10. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,711
    752
    563
    Apr 9, 2007
    He never actually reached the question of whether it was a tax for purposes of the taxing power. He opined that, because the act directed shared responsibility payments to be “assessed and collected in the same manner as” a tax, it was a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

    AIA says that you can’t sue to enjoin the collection of a tax, but instead have to pay it first and then sue for a refund.

    SCOTUS rejected the AIA jurisdictional argument when they heard the case, so the idea that he somehow gave Roberts a roadmap, by writing on a topic Roberts expressly rejected and never even reaching the argument Roberts ultimately relied on, is kind of absurd.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  11. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    98,976
    12,668
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl
    Good info Ben- thanks
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. JerseyGator01

    JerseyGator01 GC Hall of Fame

    15,379
    293
    558
    Apr 10, 2007
  13. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 Premium Member

    13,064
    520
    698
    Apr 3, 2007
    The patent underlying absurdity is that something can simultaneously be a tax and not a tax, which necessarily follows from Roberts' ruling, but that wasn't Kavanaugh's fault.
     
  14. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    5,718
    973
    418
    Oct 30, 2017
    It's really not absurd. The point is that something can be a tax for constitutional purposes but not fall under the umbrella of the Anti-Injunction Act. Why? Because the Anti-Injunction Act is statutory. Thus, Congress has the power to exempt whatever it wants from the Act.
     
  15. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 Premium Member

    13,064
    520
    698
    Apr 3, 2007
    As the great Lenny Briscoe said, this is why people hate lawyers. Because given a choice between the Law of Noncontradiction and the appellate arguments of the Supreme Court, most reasonable people will choose the former.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. GrandPrixGator

    GrandPrixGator Premium Member

    382
    92
    273
    Apr 3, 2007
    I'm curious to hear more about his stance on sitting presidents not facing prosecution or impeachment and delaying legal consequences until after their term is over. On one hand I agree if we're talking about matters that don't bring peril upon the country, but I can't see how you could let treasonous actions or illegal activity to get re-elected slide. I wonder if Kavanaugh has a line in the sand or no line at all when it comes to his stance on the idea?
     
  17. bfitzy

    bfitzy Untrusted Outsider Premium Member

    441
    193
    293
    Dec 16, 2017
    This is easy. Either the law/constitution is above all or it isn’t. If a president is above the law he isn’t a president anymore. He’s a dictator.
     
  18. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    6,209
    833
    458
    Jun 14, 2007
    What's particularly interesting, is that he wrote that in the wake of the Clinton investigation, (IIRC), not in context of Trump.

    Perhaps his position on that has changed, or he's crystallized it a bit. But it's certainly fair game for inquiry in the vetting process.

    I guess we'll see how he fields those questions.
     
  19. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    5,718
    973
    418
    Oct 30, 2017
    The President has to face impeachment. The idea is that's the only remedy against him until his term ends.
     
  20. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,354
    873
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    Even if they could get a defection or two on the GOP side, it's not a given their own party would fall in line.

    Dems in terrible bind on Kavanaugh nomination
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1