Kavanaugh Is A Liberal?
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
The very basics that idiots like Trump thinks he can dictate. Kavanugh knew that he would look partisan if he sided with the Republicans on this issue. No Supreme Court with some iota of common sense would support the Republicans in this respect.
The majority — including the Chief Justice — is simply following the law, as they always claim to do, whatever they are deciding. Kavanaugh was just one in that majority.
A refusal, is just that. The cases were already decided. But Justice Thomas's dissent is worth a read: He claims there is an issue worth adjudicating fully, he says it has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion. But he uses almost as many words to fulminate against both these irrelevant matters as he uses to assert the Court should have cleared up the what he calls "confusion" and terrible "burden" the States might face when citizens can take their States to court to get Medicaid from their choice of "qualified" providers as the statute provides, and the insurmountable difficulties the States might face defining such qualifications objectively. Nothing at all about what any of it might mean to any individual citizen, the poor creature the country and its courts and laws exist to serve, protect and benefit.
What explains his unhappiness with these two fundamental principles of the rule of law? "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.'"
To quote Justice Thomas, in his own dissent.
Last edited:
I would love to see the case that said the law prohibiting the Muslim practice of FGM is unconstitutional make its way to the SCOTUS.
If we had a similar case in Canada the learned justices of the SCOC will probably rule that it is a gross violation of a Muslim's Charter rights to disallow FMG, plus it is also racist (got to throw the "r" word in there for effect).
If we had a similar case in Canada the learned justices of the SCOC will probably rule that it is a gross violation of a Muslim's Charter rights to disallow FMG, plus it is also racist (got to throw the "r" word in there for effect).
Then why the outcry from the Democrats when he was nominated? they said he would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade. CNN's chief legal analyst Jeff Toobin said he would guarantee that he would overturn the abortion law. I hope he doesn't gamble. It was just scare tactics by the left. As much as the right uses scare tactics the left is just as guilty.
Clearly an opinion from a non-lawyer, who is not current with contemporary human-rights cases.
Google is your friend. You might note the Ontario HRC's paper on the legalities mentions the several opinions against FGM written by former Chief Justice Dickson, and that Ontario police services have been specifically instructed that the practice is a criminal matter.
Since this thread is about the U.S. Supreme Court, I was referring to a recent case in the U.S. that ruled a ban on FGM is unconstitutional and one of the reasons for judgment was "religious freedom".
It was plain what the case was about: First let’s talk about what Monday’s decision was about—and what it was not about. The decision was about who can sue to enforce Medicaid benefits. The decision was not about the merits of conservative efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. This difference matters and that was what Toobin is still standing by.
This is just the start. There is still a long way to go before the actual abortion laws come before the Supreme Court.
Aahh! Damn your auto-complete for adding:
It was that over-stretch without evidence that inspired my reference to Canada's less partisan, less prejudiced approach.Darts said:
It was a "technical" ruling. The District Court held that that it was an overstretch by Congress to believe that they had the power to legislate in this area under the "Necessary and Proper" and "Commerce" Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. That FGM is a “’local criminal activity’ which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and [the] federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress.”
Question: Has the "ban" on FGM ever been tested in a Canadian court of competent jurisdiction?
BTW: The Ontario HRC is an unelected tribunal that loves to stand on a soapbox and preach to the unwashed masses and not a real court of competent jurisdiction.
Not that the last has any relevance at all to their summary of the legal situation that exists here. You're the one fantasizing about what you imagine would happen here if someone was charged for FGM. Why don't you do your own Googling?
For that matter, why didn't you already?
Nothing of the sort has been confirmed. That 'test' is your fantasy, you show us an FGM ban would fail/has failed if you want to be taken seriously. Don't be afraid of Google.
Before repeating yourself a third time about the OHRC, with equal irrelevance, you should note that if your description was at all accurate, and if your sneer — "If we had a similar case in Canada the learned justices of the SCOC will probably rule that it is a gross violation of a Muslim's Charter rights to disallow FMG, plus it is also racist (got to throw the "r" word in there for effect)" — was in anyway factual, any such body would be filing a brief in favour of those Muslim rights, not publishing warnings that FGM is criminal.
