Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Reasons Why Confirming Kavanaugh Was A Grievous Mistake...

As the rightwing of the republican party solidifies its grip on power the majority of Americans will lose freedoms all are entitled to.

Commenting on the prospect of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court,  CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin explained:
I don’t think same-sex marriage is in jeopardy but think about the bakery case where a baker didn’t want to make a wedding cake [for a gay couple.] Wait until they start getting cases from hotel owners who say I don’t want to use my creativity for gay customers, and restaurant owners who don’t want to serve gay customers.”

I mean this is a dramatic change coming, and the conservatives are in charge. There is a reason why the Evangelicals and the base of the Republican Party have stood with Donald Trump all this time. It’s not because they admire Donald Trump’s personal life, but because he has delivered on what is most important to them. 

 Larry T. Decker, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America writes:

The confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to our nation’s highest court is a supreme injustice. By voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate has compromised the integrity of the Supreme Court and imperiled the civil rights of the most vulnerable among us. … Judge Kavanaugh has repeatedly issued rulings and opinions that convey a disturbing rejection of the constitutional principle of a separation between church and state. There is no reason to doubt that Justice Kavanaugh will bring this radical jurisprudence with him to the Supreme Court and issue rulings that erode the Establishment Clause, undermine civil rights, and further distort the principle of religious liberty.

 Rachel Laser, CEO and President of Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes:
Brett Kavanaugh has shown himself to be unworthy of a seat on the Supreme Court…

Kavanaugh’s views alone disqualified him from the Supreme Court, particularly his opposition to the separation of religion and government. His record as a judge of allowing people to use ‘religious freedom’ to discriminate is especially ominous in light of the Religious Right’s movement, empowered and emboldened by this administration, to misuse this core American principle to advance a regressive political agenda…

 Nick Fish, President of American Atheists opines
From the moment Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to this position, we knew that he presented a unique and existential threat to the constitutional principles of religious equality and the separation of religion from government.

During this confirmation process, our worst fears about Kavanaugh’s record, judicial philosophy, and temperament were confirmed. He has repeatedly shown himself to be a partisan ideologue who is more interested in protecting religious privilege for politically powerful sects than standing up for true religious freedom.

Kavanaugh’s views on religious issues are deeply outside the mainstream and threaten decades of precedent on issues ranging from taxpayer subsidy of religion and proselytizing in public schools, to civil rights protections for LGBTQ Americans and access to reproductive health care for women.

If this stuff doesn't bother you it sure as hell ought to! Because unless you fit the mold of the most extreme rightwing ideology you're most likely gonna hate what's probby coming down the pike.



Please take a moment and read the full article HERE.

16 comments:

  1. I'm interested in hearing why Toobin doesn't think gay marriage will revert to the states? Where will Kavanaugh, as a "Constitutionalist" find that right in the Constitution? That's the question the conservatives are asking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Equal Protection. The state cannot deny marriage between different races -- Virginia vs. Loving. It cannot deny marriage between same sex couples based on religious reasons. Non-believers have no problem with same-sex marriages, but certain religions do. Although my niece's Christian church does not turn away same sex couples who wish to marry. So not even all Christian sects are against it. Islam is definitely against same sex, so many Christians share that common bias with the Muslim faith. Reformed Jews marry same sex couples. I don't see how marriage equality can be overturned without bringing in some religious prohibition.

    Marriage equality does not destroy marriages. Divorce and infidelity do. Just ask the thrice married POTUS who cheated on all 3 wives, even his third wife after she gave birth to his 5th child. The Evangelicals who still support Trump need to explain their loyalty to their favorite serial adulterer and lying cheat while being against marriage equality. I'm sure they won't be able to, since there is no rational basis for their negative position on marriage equality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shaw... re same sex marriages. I just don't harbor Toobin's charitable view that Kav and the other conservatives on the bench will not move to end same sex marriage on a federal level. If you hold a view that only the specifically enumerated rights that are written in the Constitution are valid, how can you defend same sex marriage?

    Let's remember that conservatives opposed the Loving decision as a federal overreach. Isn't that the closest thing we have to conservative dogma? I'm not s sure Loving would have been decided the same with todays crop of judges and a White House backing them up. What happens if RGB dies while Trump is Pres? Then the court goes 6-3. You think same sex marriage survives then?

    Kavanaugh would not eve affirm precedent for Brown v Topeka. There are GOP Senators who believe a business should have the right to discriminate on the basis of race and sex. let the market decide. Many conservatives don't in fact believe Brown was a valid decision because the Feds have no right impinging on the rights of states.

    They've just never had the votes before.

    At worst, today it's a push with probably Roberts the "swing" vote.

    In the future? The GOP has never supported the idea of equal protection for people with whom they've disagreed. You'll never see them defending the religious rights of Muslims. In fact, many have decided that Islam is a political, not religious system. Just so they could discriminate.

    It's breathtaking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you hold a view that only the specifically enumerated rights that are written in the Constitution are valid, how can you defend same sex marriage?

    As the Constitution is silent on this issue a strict constitutionalist conservative Justice would say it belong to the individual states to decide. Since each state has a state constitution (I think) the state can amend their constitution, OR, simply place the question on the state ballot and let the "will of the majority" decide. In other words the politicians can argue, the people then decide.

    It's the States Rights position again. An poaition (argument) that made perfect sense 250 years ago to facilitate the formation of the Union. 250years later perhaps not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What about the Equal Protection?

    Equal protection and marriage equality
    Obergefell v. Hodges

    "Of course, the Supreme Court’s role in determining whether or not government conduct is Constitutional goes well beyond the realm of crime and punishment. The most noteworthy example from this term is Obergefell v. Hodges, where the Court ruled by a 5 – 4 majority that states could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Read our Preview here.] True to his reputation as the “swing vote” on issues that divide the Court along ideological lines, Justice Kennedy authored the opinion, in which he was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. He concluded the opinion by writing, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.” He continued, “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting.

    Now we'll have Roberts, Thomas, Alito joined by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

    My math puts it at 5-4 to send it back to the states. That means once again, a hodgepodge of where married gay people can live and be seen as legally married.

    Unless you have the votes, there is no equal protection.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can anyone tell me why, if SCOTUS strikes down the Obergfell decision on gay marriage, someone like me, in a previously illegal marriage in many states, should not be worried?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know the circumstances of which you speak Dave, but, In my opinion you should.

      Delete
  8. I Agree with the majority opinion.

    However, for the strict constructionist conservative the Supreme Court again overreached in its ruling. For the strict constructionist the Supremes job is to apply the law as written in determining constitutionality, not to interpret. I had this discussion with a fiscal and social conservative today. We respectfully agreed to disagree on this one. Yet we each acknowledged the validity of some of each other's points of argument.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Les, Dave is married to an African-American woman, and his marriage would have been illegal in certain states in this country before Virginia vs. Loving.

    Dave, I don't believe that will be struck down. Why? Because it affects their own. Mitch McConnell is married to a Chinese-American. So don't worry. Also, just because there are more conservatives than liberals on the court, that doesn't necessarily mean every progressive law will be struck down. For example, the Virginia vs. Loving is safe.

    I hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Minus FJ... "Goodbye Roe. Goodbye Lawrence". These would be the cases that affirmed a women's right to privacy (re their health decisions and bodily autonomy) and marriage equality. (Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas). Minus hates women (a high percentage of them are "lying whores") and gay people (because STDs are spread via sodomy). The more the rights of women and gay people can be restricted the better (I'm guessing).

      Delete
    2. Correction: trumpers like Minus don't want to just overturn Obergefell v. Hodges but Lawrence v. Texas. So, not only is marriage equality gone, but we're going to start locking people up for being gay and not chaste.

      Delete
  10. We hope... but that reality just continues to show how unworkable their originalism is in 21st century America.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That "Minus" guy appears to be way too angry about gays and women. A talented psychologist would have a field day analyzing his extreme hatred of women and inordinate interest in all things gay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that, Shaw is the hole truth. And nothing butt the hole truth.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.