Hey SPEED This is your missguided worship of your ever loving gumment.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Have you seen a Supreme Court ruling on this matter because I haven't. I think it is reasonable to assume that the SC would allow "some measures" in the name of a health emergency but what do you bet they wouldn't say that 100% of what the Gov. of Michigan did was Constitutional?

"States—and their cities and counties by extension—possess what has long been known as a “police power” to govern for the health, welfare and safety of their citizens. This broad authority, which can be traced to English common law and is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment, is far from radical; it justifies why states can regulate at all.

The police power of the states has been invoked on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court, often in contrast to the limited powers of the federal government—for example, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the 2012 Obamacare case. This power also has been recognized in the context of public health for decades. In a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations, the court observed that “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”


https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...navirus-135826

I agree with you that there is a thin grey line between what is appropriate and what is not. The right to impose restrictions is NOT absolute. There seem to be quite a few lawsuits in the pipeline so it will be interesting how courts rule on them.

Governor Whitmer of Michigan has probably been criticized the most of all governors. When, and if, the coronavirus threat ends for the most part, everyone can look back with 20-20 vision and see what actions were more right than wrong, and which were more wrong than right. At this point nothing is conclusive.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

"States—and their cities and counties by extension—possess what has long been known as a “police power” to govern for the health, welfare and safety of their citizens. This broad authority, which can be traced to English common law and is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment, is far from radical; it justifies why states can regulate at all.

The police power of the states has been invoked on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court, often in contrast to the limited powers of the federal government—for example, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the 2012 Obamacare case. This power also has been recognized in the context of public health for decades. In a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations, the court observed that “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”


https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...navirus-135826

I agree with you that there is a thin grey line between what is appropriate and what is not. The right to impose restrictions is NOT absolute. There seem to be quite a few lawsuits in the pipeline so it will be interesting how courts rule on them.

Governor Whitmer of Michigan has probably been criticized the most of all governors. When, and if, the coronavirus threat ends for the most part, everyone can look back with 20-20 vision and see what actions were more right than wrong, and which were more wrong than right. At this point nothing is conclusive.

Well said.Now can I get you to agree with me that the hypocrisy involved in trying to destroy a mans life because of his political affiliation is worse that the hypocrisy of wearing a mask and mail in voting?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

All I have said in the past is that states have the right to shut things down when they deem it is in the best interest of the people. A statement that is supported by law.

We are still not free to do anything we want in the state of Texas. Some restrictions have been lifted, some have not.

When you condemn me you are condemning Trump, Pence, medical experts, and the governors of something like 42 of the 50 states, all of whom have shut down their states to some extent.

But you know better than all of them.

States don't do anything in the best interest of the people. They do things in the best interests of the elites who own them. It's all about money nothing happens without money. They just use the people as a tool.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Well said.Now can I get you to agree with me that the hypocrisy involved in trying to destroy a mans life because of his political affiliation is worse that the hypocrisy of wearing a mask and mail in voting?

Whose life are you talking about? Kavanaugh? Trump?

If you are talking about Kavanaugh, he has no political affiliation.

But assuming you are in fact talking about Kavanaugh, even if he had stepped down it would not have ruined his life. And let's remember what the Repulican Senate did to Merrick Garland in not even allowing a vote on his nomination. And I'll remind you that there was very little objection to the nomination of Gorsuch. There was a great deal of negativity among people in this country towards Kavanaugh.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Whose life are you talking about? Kavanaugh? Trump?

If you are talking about Kavanaugh, he has no political affiliation.

But assuming you are in fact talking about Kavanaugh, even if he had stepped down it would not have ruined his life. And let's remember what the Repulican Senate did to Merrick Garland in not even allowing a vote on his nomination. And I'll remind you that there was very little objection to the nomination of Gorsuch. There was a great deal of negativity among people in this country towards Kavanaugh.

So out of all that, I don't get your point or your comparisons.

Garland simply got caught up in politics and was not bashed or unfairly attacked in any way. The Senate has the power to do what was done and it had basically been done in the past.

And Gorsuch was a good bi-partisan nominee that I'm guessing they just couldn't find something to attack him on.

So we reach Kavanaugh, who yes, some had fears of his positions and viewed him negatively. Are you somehow saying that the ends justify the means and that the ginned up attacks on him were justified in order to prevent his nomination. Sure, attack him on his positions and judicial record to swing the vote, but the Dems couldn't do that, they brought out ridiculous charges, at the last minute no less to delay his nomination.

It's been a pattern with the Dems from Clarence Thomas, through Bork, to Kavanaugh. It's how it's played, but historically the Dems seem to go for the "dirt" when it comes to the SCOTUS since they can't generally knock the nominee on their actual judicial history/etc.

[oeb11]

el- take a look at Xinn, msnbc, NYT, and WacomPost - they use "ends justify the means" as their standard operating procedure.

Bottom Line - their "Means" have become their "ends" - the only thing that matters is "Get Trump - not accurate reporting of Facts or service to the people of America.


Unfortunately, SR - who debates respectfully - does not seem to be able to see that and the liberal media Hypocrisy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

So out of all that, I don't get your point or your comparisons.

Garland simply got caught up in politics and was not bashed or unfairly attacked in any way. The Senate has the power to do what was done and it had basically been done in the past.

And Gorsuch was a good bi-partisan nominee that I'm guessing they just couldn't find something to attack him on.

So we reach Kavanaugh, who yes, some had fears of his positions and viewed him negatively. Are you somehow saying that the ends justify the means and that the ginned up attacks on him were justified in order to prevent his nomination. Sure, attack him on his positions and judicial record to swing the vote, but the Dems couldn't do that, they brought out ridiculous charges, at the last minute no less to delay his nomination.

It's been a pattern with the Dems from Clarence Thomas, through Bork, to Kavanaugh. It's how it's played, but historically the Dems seem to go for the "dirt" when it comes to the SCOTUS since they can't generally knock the nominee on their actual judicial history/etc.

People are pointing out the hyprocrisy of Biden and other Democrats in the Kavanaugh proceedings. I am pointing out that hypocrisy exists all the time. In my opinion what was done to Garland was far worse than what was done to Kavanaugh.

What was done to Garland was not done in the past. The so-called "Biden Rule" has been taken out of context.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.

Biden was arguing for a delay in naming a Supreme Court justice if an opening ocurred months before the election. Once the election was over, the incumbent would have 3+ months to name a successor.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."


So you are saying the charges against Biden are "ridiculous"? They are similar to the ones brought against Kavanaugh.

What I will agree with you on is that Democrats have a much more sordid past in opposing Supreme Court nominees than Republicans.
Was Ford coming forth to allege sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh politically motivated any more than the charges made against Biden? Were the attacks against Kavanaugh any more "ginned up" than the attacks against Trump or Biden?

31 of 40 Republicans voted against Sotomayor. 37 of 42 Republicans votaed against Kagan. The vote for Supreme Court, just like any other vote, is more partisan than ever before. Unforttunately.

"In deciding to vote in large measure against Sotomayor, despite near-unanimous feeling that she has the résumé to serve, the GOP is perpetuating the argument that qualifications alone are no longer enough to judge fitness for the court. And that tactic — which Democrats also employed during the Bush years — has left some senators concerned that judicial battles for the foreseeable future will be purely partisan affairs — especially when the nominees may alter the balance of power on the Supreme Court."

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

People are pointing out the hyprocrisy of Biden and other Democrats in the Kavanaugh proceedings. I am pointing out that hypocrisy exists all the time. In my opinion what was done to Garland was far worse than what was done to Kavanaugh.

What was done to Garland was not done in the past. The so-called "Biden Rule" has been taken out of context.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.

Biden was arguing for a delay in naming a Supreme Court justice if an opening ocurred months before the election. Once the election was over, the incumbent would have 3+ months to name a successor.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."


So you are saying the charges against Biden are "ridiculous"? They are similar to the ones brought against Kavanaugh.

What I will agree with you on is that Democrats have a much more sordid past in opposing Supreme Court nominees than Republicans.
Was Ford coming forth to allege sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh politically motivated any more than the charges made against Biden? Were the attacks against Kavanaugh any more "ginned up" than the attacks against Trump or Biden?

31 of 40 Republicans voted against Sotomayor. 37 of 42 Republicans votaed against Kagan. The vote for Supreme Court, just like any other vote, is more partisan than ever before. Unforttunately.

"In deciding to vote in large measure against Sotomayor, despite near-unanimous feeling that she has the résumé to serve, the GOP is perpetuating the argument that qualifications alone are no longer enough to judge fitness for the court. And that tactic — which Democrats also employed during the Bush years — has left some senators concerned that judicial battles for the foreseeable future will be purely partisan affairs — especially when the nominees may alter the balance of power on the Supreme Court."

You are doing it simply to try and equalize, what I consider unequal comparisons. But at least you did state that the Dems have the more sordid when going after SCOTUS nominees. On the nature of the "level" of hypocrisy we seem to somewhat agree, yet you still try to defend the Dems.

And no, what happened to Garland is not the first time a SCOTUS nominee was not acted upon by the Senate near the end of the POTUS term.

And again I'm perfectly fine with Partisan votes on a SOCTUS nominee, but do it based largely on their positions, ideals, and previous jurisprudence, not like what was done to Kavanaugh.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

You are doing it simply to try and equalize, what I consider unequal comparisons. But at least you did state that the Dems have the more sordid when going after SCOTUS nominees. On the nature of the "level" of hypocrisy we seem to somewhat agree, yet you still try to defend the Dems.

And no, what happened to Garland is not the first time a SCOTUS nominee was not acted upon by the Senate near the end of the POTUS term.

And again I'm perfectly fine with Partisan votes on a SOCTUS nominee, but do it based largely on their positions, idKavanaugh.

WHen was the last time that the Senate failed to act on the nominee near the end of the term of a POTUS?

Let's reverse the Kavanaugh situation. Suppose Obama, in the middle of his 2nd term, had the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court and that person had allegations of sexual impropriety leveled against him, similar to those made against Kavanaugh. Do you think Republicans would not have attacked the nominee with the same intensity Democrats attacked Kavanaugh? I would bet the ranch that Republicans would have done the same.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In my opinion what was done to Garland was far worse than what was done to Kavanaugh.

That's just stunning. Failing to be confirmed for a Supreme Court seat is worse than being accused of being a serial rapist having to defend yourself on national television? Can you really be that............... Out of respect for you, I'll let the readers fill in the blank.


I and many others believe that Kavanaugh's "political affiliation" was at the heart of the matter. Whether he was a registered Republican or not, the fear from the radical left was that he held the commonly assumed Republican position of being for over turning Roe V Wade. That is why they went after him so hard, for having a "Republican" position on abortion.


While it may be a common practice to say you oppose a nominee for holding a position on such a matter, it is another thing entirely to ruin, yes ruin a man's life by calling him a serial rapist. Garland's life wasn't ruined in any way shape or form and to suggest it was is mind boggling.


Being accused on national television no less, of being called a serial rapist, doesn't ruin a man's life? I hardly know what to make of such a statement.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

WHen was the last time that the Senate failed to act on the nominee near the end of the term of a POTUS?

I'm not going to research it again as I did quite a while back when Garland was discussed, but if I remember correctly it was around a half dozen or slightly more SCOTUS nominees who lapsed at the end of a session/POTUS term. Garland was not the first.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Let's reverse the Kavanaugh situation. Suppose Obama, in the middle of his 2nd term, had the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court and that person had allegations of sexual impropriety leveled against him, similar to those made against Kavanaugh. Do you think Republicans would not have attacked the nominee with the same intensity Democrats attacked Kavanaugh? I would bet the ranch that Republicans would have done the same.

Supposition at best at this point. Obama had two SCOTUS nominees confirmed that were controversial in their political bent and no underhanded bullshit like what was perpetrated on Kavanaugh was attempted by the Republicans. Even you admitted the Dems have the much more sordid history in SCOTUS nominee attacks.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That's just stunning. Failing to be confirmed for a Supreme Court seat is worse than being accused of being a serial rapist having to defend yourself on national television? Can you really be that............... Out of respect for you, I'll let the readers fill in the blank.


I and many others believe that Kavanaugh's "political affiliation" was at the heart of the matter. Whether he was a registered Republican or not, the fear from the radical left was that he held the commonly assumed Republican position of being for over turning Roe V Wade. That is why they went after him so hard, for having a "Republican" position on abortion.

While it may be a common practice to say you oppose a nominee for holding a position on such a matter, it is another thing entirely to ruin, yes ruin a man's life by calling him a serial rapist. Garland's life wasn't ruined in any way shape or form and to suggest it was is mind boggling.

Being accused on national television no less, of being called a serial rapist, doesn't ruin a man's life? I hardly know what to make of such a statement.

How can you say Kavanaugh's life was ruined when he is sitting on the highest court in the land? For life!

And you are totally missing my point which is the level of hypocrisy displayed in the 2 incidents, not the impact on either man's life. At no time did I compare that. Certainly the charges leveled against Kavanaugh by Ford, Ranirez, and Swetnik had much more of a negative impact on Kavanaugh's life than did the Senate not moving forward on Garland's nomination. Again, I never said otherwise and it is not the point I was making.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

How can you say Kavanaugh's life was ruined when he is sitting on the highest court in the land? For life!

And you are totally missing my point which is the level of hypocrisy displayed in the 2 incidents, not the impact on either man's life. At no time did I compare that. Certainly the charges leveled against Kavanaugh by Ford, Ranirez, and Swetnik had much more of a negative impact on Kavanaugh's life than did the Senate not moving forward on Garland's nomination. Again, I never said otherwise and it is not the point I was making.

And again, the point you appear to be making to many is to try and somehow equivocate the two incidents.

And no. Kavanaugh's life was not ruined thank god, but the goal of the fake attacks had they been successful would have been ruination of his career, any possible legacy, etc.

Garland simply was not confirmed. No attempt at ruination there.

They are in no way equivalent.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I'm not going to research it again as I did quite a while back when Garland was discussed, but if I remember correctly it was around a half dozen or slightly more SCOTUS nominees who lapsed at the end of a session/POTUS term. Garland was not the first.

Supposition at best at this point. Obama had two SCOTUS nominees confirmed that were controversial in their political bent and no underhanded bullshit like what was perpetrated on Kavanaugh was attempted by the Republicans. Even you admitted the Dems have the much more sordid history in SCOTUS nominee attacks.

I could find little to support your claim that there were other instances in which the Senate simply refused to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days until the end of the 114th Congrss.

According to Wikipedia, the last inaction taken by Congress on a SCOTUS nominee occurred in 1853 when the nomination of William Micou was not acted upon due to being late in the Congessional session and Franklin Pierce had already been elected to replace Fillmore as POTUS. Hardly surprising.

Edward Bradford was also nominated in 1852 and the same reason was given for not moving ahead with the nomination.

Finally, in 1845 John Read was nominated for the Supreme Court by John Tyler but his name was withdrawn due to his support of slavery.

Maybe you have other instances that I could not find but from what I found nothing comes close, or recent, to the inaction taken against Garland.

Yes, my comment was supposition but that should not keep one from rendering an opinion. I did. You can, even if it one of disagreement with mine.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And again, the point you appear to be making to many is to try and somehow equivocate the two incidents.

And no. Kavanaugh's life was not ruined thank god, but the goal of the fake attacks had they been successful would have been ruination of his career, any possible legacy, etc.

Garland simply was not confirmed. No attempt at ruination there.

They are in no way equivalent.

Again, you are TOTALLY missing my point, which is the level of hypocrisy shown in the 2 cases. My original point was aimed at Ellen, who in my opinion held Trump and Kavanaugh innocent and Biden guilty of similar charges. And I would say she is hardly the only one on this forum having that opinion.

And in my opinion, the level of hypocrisy shown by the Senate in not upholding their duty to act quickly on SCOTUS nominees was much greater than the level of hypocrisy shown by people like Feinstein and others who did not support Kavanaugh but support Biden for alleged sexual misconduct.

If you want to continue to discuss an irrelevant point as to which event was more detrimental to whose life, fine. That is not what I was referring to at any time.