Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

I could see a few dem's & Repub's running as a third party & Kasich could be one.

 

Not until they solve old style plurality voting. Clinton won the presidency with 42% of the vote. That means 58% of voters voted against him.
Rick Perry won Texas with 39%. 61% against.

That's just terrible. Only this will bring about a viable 3rd party:

 

I agree with this. We definitely need a viable 3rd party.

 

I not sure who is included in the "y'all" but the plain simple truth is, he could not win in the primary which was probably participated in
but most conservatives and libertarians, probably quite a few democrats too. At least where local voting rules allow.
So Trump rather badly whipped, what? 17 other primary candidates including Kasich.

 

IRV voting basically renders the parties meaningless.

Neither party wants it. That's how you know it's a good idea.

 

I have to agree that neither party want that, just like neither party wanted Trump

 

Y'all = Republicans

And there's no disputing Trump's win. Y'all just chose the wrong guy.

Kasich is a stand up man. Trump tells 16+ lies a day.

 

If neither party wanted trump why didn't y'all vote him out?

The average Republican wanted Trump.

 

Ahh that is the reason he is in office, A lot of people are fed up with the "Party". He is viewed as a chance to shake it up a bit.

 

Only that he hasn't. He's been the most corrupt president ever.

 

We should all take lie detectors whether we actually believe Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.

I'm guessing that they will pretty much show no one truly thinks it happened.

 

Where does the idea that SCJ should be unbiased politically? This is non sense!
This is the main issue of this point in time! What is the role of the Constitution and how it will be interpreted.
Weather we have a stable rule of law under the Constitution that will stand for what it says, and only modified by a super Majority, or
we pretty much ignore the Constitution and let a few appointed for their wisdom but un-elected, tell us what it means, with no concern whether a strong majority is in support.

Weather we have a Constitution constructed of text we can all read and understand in the places we live. Or will we rely on appointed people to tell us what the Constitutions means regardless of what we do read, or cannot find when we read. Weather we will have a Constitution that we can support with honor when we take the oath, or one that can change without a super majority with the next
grand idea and the piper of the day.

Probably most SCJ agree with Justice RBG, in that they agree far more often than they separate into the well know position of 5 to 4.
But the 5 to 4 is what it is all about, and that is damn near always political with respect to role of the Constitution and the influence it has on the question before the Court.

The major issue in the Last Presidential election was not the list of 10 various issues, it was, Who will nominate the Next 2 or 3 Justices
and the resulting make up of the court for the next 30 years.

Those that want Kavanaugh believe in the Constitution. Probably many of them have taken an oath to uphold and defend it, sometime in their life. They Probably voted Republican, perhaps libertarian.

Those that do not want Kavanaugh, do not want the Constitution to be tightly followed and would prefer justices that are not committed to the actual text today. Getting Justices that know what is right is easier that changing the minds of the majority.

So unbiased is not correct. We examine them excruciatingly to insure they are indeed, correctly biased.

 

Now that's a bunch of horseshit. Nice try.

 

hypocrisy
hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

 

...which tells you how fucked up and bombastic the GOP has become.

 

The left has lost their fucking mind.

 

...I think it's wrong to assume that certain SC judges will vote a certain way on certain issues.

 

The average Republican wanted Trump.[/QUOTE]

But, this is only the case in about the last 40 years and then the exception during FDR's Presidency.

Before that SCJ where not questioned so closely, most were assumed to be worthy of the trust of the people.

So I would place the blame on FDR of beginning stacking the court to not strongly support the Constitution. But FDR did not actually succeed, it took time for the worm to grow. We quit putting forth Amendments to the Constitution, too hard was I think the view.
So here we are, stack the court with the correct philosophy.