I expect he will do just that. I would find it difficult after what Dems put him through, but that’s why he qualifies for the Supreme Court.
No. Like when he went on an unhinged angry entitled and privileged white male partisan rant, showing he was truly unfit to sit on the highest court in the land.
Guess you had gone to the bathroom to boofer when that part of the hearing aired!
What was “white” about what he said?
Everything about him!
He was born a privileged white boy, grew to be a privileged white teen, and has lived his life as a privileged white male.
No no… You said he went on a privileged white male partisan rant. Don’t backpedal now that you have been called on it. What in his rant was “white”?
Or was that just a gratuitous liberal attempt at race baiting?
When can I expect my “delayed” and “removed” post to be checked and IF APPROVED restored to this thread?
Once more, he was born white, was he not? He was born to a white privilege family, was he not? He was born to a family of white power and elite connections that helped pave the way for his withe privilege life.
He was born with a white privilege silver spoon in his mouth, his grade school education was a white privilege education, his high schooling was the epitome of a white privilege education, his college education was as well.
He walked in white privilege circles all of his life.
He never really got called on anything until the Democrat men and women, some, OMG, being minorities, in the hearing for his confirmation dared question his white privilege entitled life.
As opposed to the all old white male Republican side of the Judiciary Committee; who neared going spastic heaping their praises upon their white privileged wunderkind.
A man, Kavanaugh, who had been appointed for the SC by another white privileged, mysogynistic, self admitted woman assaulter, bigoted, silver spooned, rich kid academy graduate; aka Donald Trump.
Don’t like the truth?
I most certainly remember that
How does old BK rate with regard to the 4th amendment?
White men. Spit!!!
Since opinions of the court are open to interpretation there is no way to gauge wither it meets legislative intent. Your opinion might be different then mine. But that does not resolve if yours or mine is correct.
Interpretation of the Constitution is as varied as the number of experts that will tell you what the Framers intent was.
Thank you for your opinion suggesting legislative intent cannot be established which is wrong.
Let us look at a specific example which establishes “legislative intent” with regard to the meaning of “general welfare” as our founder understood the phrase. My favorite example in this respect are the two cases upholding the socialist security act.
In Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. case the Court stated:
“Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”
What is significant is, the court cited the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and it will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court refused to follow a fundamental rule of constitutional construction and review the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates. Instead, it was very eager to use something Hamilton wrote years after the Constitution had been adopted concerning the phrase “general welfare” in order to uphold the socialist/progressive Social Security Act as being constitutional.
But, what is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It was made after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, and was made to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures.
In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136
“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”
But that is in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution during the framing and ratification debates. Hamilton, in Fed. No. 83, and in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.
This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates.
Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”
Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: “the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” [3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”
Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention
“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.
So, as we can see from the preponderance of the evidence, it is possible to determine legislative intent by referencing the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution.
The Democrat Party Leadership DECLARES it will only be civil if and when they “win back the House and or the Senate”…. Hillary Clinton, October 9, 2018
I first got drunk on beer (and got sick) when I was 13. I drank a lot of beer through high school and college (and got sick a few more times.) I am now pushing 72 and I like beer more now than I did back then (because the beer is much better) although I have not been drunk (or sick) in several decades.
Did you have a point?
“If” The biggest word in the English language.
Seriously, after serving on the bench for 12 years, what “dark side” do you anticipate that scares you so?
Yeah, you know, being mad that his good name an reputation built over the last 30+ years was being shredded by unsubstantiated accusations coming from someone he may or may not have known when he was in high school. His display of emotion and anger shows, that in spite of his stellar record as a Judge, but not due to false accusations.he is a powder keg with a short fuse who cannot be further trusted to rule from the bench.
So because of that he should sit there calmly while being accused of improper behavior when he was a kid and politely take it?
I pray that nothing similar ever happens to you. You couldn’t even control your emotions when people (correctly, as it turned out) accused you of being a liberal. Although there are some people here who would rather be accused of sexual assault than of being a liberal.
Are you saying he doesnt have to think. Just follow the Menu?
What on earth do you mean by that? Are you suggesting Supreme Court Justices are to ignore our written constitution and impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law?
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
Oh I was just quoting the Justice. I actually haven’t had a drop of alcohol in several years.
Let us be honest. The agenda of this Fifth Column anti-Kavanaugh protestor crowd is about one thing and one thing only! Its main objective is to remake our Supreme Court into a Supreme and super Legislative body unaccountable to the people, nor bound by the text and legislative intent of our Constitution.
Are we to forget this agenda began many generations ago under FDR when he attempted to pack the court under “The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937”? See Roosevelt announces “court-packing” plan
"On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.
During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government."
Is it not the same socialist/communist Fifth Column crowd today that attacks those who merely want our Constitution and its legislative intent to be followed?
John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…" ____ Witness today the suicidal path our democrat socialists have chosen to take, supported by a Fifth Colum media and Yellow Journalists.