Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
Like always, the political landscape is rough. The world may not have ended in 2012, but it sure has gotten worse since then. Especially since Trump got elected. While people have been acting aggressive on stopping Trump from taking office because of Trump, I’ve always believed they are acting this aggressive because they fear that the social progresses made under Obama will be reversed. I understand that, but even the silent majority is getting sick of these social progresses, as they can be dangerous.
Just recently, Brett Kavanaugh is getting his senatorial hearings. While some senators are eager to hear from Kavanaugh, the blue-state Democrats, more specifically 10 to 12 of them, were interrupting, and on purpose. They’re even doing it to stop the hearings. It’s probably because they want to delay it till after the election, but I know their true intentions.
Now if I were to choose whether I support his confirmation or oppose, I would be within 45% and 55%, where the higher the percentage is, the more I would support the confirmation.
The Gorsuch case is a different story. The Republicans were right about filibustering Merrick Garland. If a justice dies or retires during a presidential election year, the president or senators must wait until after the election. Especially since this was a conservative justice that died. But Obama couldn’t respect that. To be honest, Obama was very radical. I understand that liberals want to implement their policies while the conservatives want to implement their policies, but Obama failed to respect states’ rights and the separation of powers, and this was to enforce his radical progressive policies. He considered replacing the conservative justice with a moderate or even a radical liberal, which will give us a liberal Supreme Court. With how dangerous liberalism has gotten since 2014, this is the last thing I want when it comes to the Judicial Branch. The court is supposed to review each issue fairly, not pick sides. So the Republicans were right on filibustering Garland.
On the Gorsuch episode, I couldn’t fully agree with the Republicans, mostly because of the “nuclear option”. It may be the right thing to do in a time we can’t compromise anymore, but this is a dangerous idea. By doing this, they made it easier for a radical justice to be picked, one way or the other (which depends on who the majority party is). But I support this. Scalia is a conservative justice, and to keep the court in balance, Scalia should be replaced with a conservative justice. The Democrats filibustered him because they don’t want a another conservative justice. The Republicans may be unfair that time by filibustering Garland and re-writing the filibuster rule to bypass Gorsuch’s filibuster, but they were right the whole time. This was a conservative justice being replaced, we can’t compromise anymore due to how divided we are, and Scalia died during a presidential election year.
Now onto the Kavanaugh story. By using the logic I used to support Gorsuch, I should also oppose Kavanaugh. But the pondering question is, do I want to keep the court in balance, or do I want to return the court back to what our founding fathers have intended the judicial branch to be? To be fair with the Democrats, a more moderate justice should be picked. But I respect our founding fathers more than our current government, so that would tip me in favor of Kavanaugh. I should rather stay neutral to the issue, but I would support Kavanaugh’s confirmation if it happens.
One of the big reasons why Democrats are acting all childish during his hearing is because of the 1973 case Roe v Wade. Of course Kennedy isn’t going to support overturning it. He may be a conservative tea leaf on the fiscal issues, but he’s more of a liberal on the social issues. But since he retired, that would risk the case. Opponents believe that overturning the case will make abortion illegal everywhere in the states for every reason. But here’s what it actually means if it happens: It will allow the states to put bans on abortions for any reason that isn’t an emergency reason (rape, incest, potential death by child birth). That means, they will be forced to take care of the child once the pregnancy begins, at least in the states that regulate it. Unless if it’s an extreme case, that is. Of course there will always be the states that would legalize abortions for other reasons if this case gets overturned. I would support overturning Roe v Wade because I believe it’s an issue that should be left up to the states, not the federal government. It’s also worth mentioning that a Supreme Court case is not settled in law. It’s an indicator to point out what was right or wrong about the issue at the time, not blacklist the law. Think Dred Scott for example. Yeah, the court would have overturned the Missouri Compromise, but states can still choose if slavery should be legal or not. But since it’s illegal nationwide, it wouldn’t matter anymore. And if a law gets overturned, they can still make a similar law that circumvents or supersedes the case.
The Democrats are also worried on how they rule on healthcare. Again, this is an issue that should be left up to the states, not the federal government. However, I am strong against universal healthcare, and I do not think any government should regulate healthcare to that extent. Anything that caps doctors’s salaries out, bans any medical proceedure that is vital, puts patients in long waiting times, and/or bans private healthcare is bad for society. In fact, all forms of socialism in government is bad.
Back to what I think about Brett Kavanaugh, I already said that they need to be fair with keeping the court in balance, but they should also recognize the original vision of the framers’. Now if I had to talk about how they vote on him, I believe they should vote based on if they are eligible enough to be in the court, not based on bias. They should also not consider respecting past cases as requirements to be confirmed. And more importantly, they must ask questions and listen respectfully, not act like children to keep them from speaking or hearing. If you think it’s right for people to act childish or get uncivil for any reason, even if it means to protect cases or laws, you have no moral compass. But if Kavanaugh had to get confirmed, there has to be some compromise. This includes, but not limited to:
Just recently, Brett Kavanaugh is getting his senatorial hearings. While some senators are eager to hear from Kavanaugh, the blue-state Democrats, more specifically 10 to 12 of them, were interrupting, and on purpose. They’re even doing it to stop the hearings. It’s probably because they want to delay it till after the election, but I know their true intentions.
Now if I were to choose whether I support his confirmation or oppose, I would be within 45% and 55%, where the higher the percentage is, the more I would support the confirmation.
The Gorsuch case is a different story. The Republicans were right about filibustering Merrick Garland. If a justice dies or retires during a presidential election year, the president or senators must wait until after the election. Especially since this was a conservative justice that died. But Obama couldn’t respect that. To be honest, Obama was very radical. I understand that liberals want to implement their policies while the conservatives want to implement their policies, but Obama failed to respect states’ rights and the separation of powers, and this was to enforce his radical progressive policies. He considered replacing the conservative justice with a moderate or even a radical liberal, which will give us a liberal Supreme Court. With how dangerous liberalism has gotten since 2014, this is the last thing I want when it comes to the Judicial Branch. The court is supposed to review each issue fairly, not pick sides. So the Republicans were right on filibustering Garland.
On the Gorsuch episode, I couldn’t fully agree with the Republicans, mostly because of the “nuclear option”. It may be the right thing to do in a time we can’t compromise anymore, but this is a dangerous idea. By doing this, they made it easier for a radical justice to be picked, one way or the other (which depends on who the majority party is). But I support this. Scalia is a conservative justice, and to keep the court in balance, Scalia should be replaced with a conservative justice. The Democrats filibustered him because they don’t want a another conservative justice. The Republicans may be unfair that time by filibustering Garland and re-writing the filibuster rule to bypass Gorsuch’s filibuster, but they were right the whole time. This was a conservative justice being replaced, we can’t compromise anymore due to how divided we are, and Scalia died during a presidential election year.
Now onto the Kavanaugh story. By using the logic I used to support Gorsuch, I should also oppose Kavanaugh. But the pondering question is, do I want to keep the court in balance, or do I want to return the court back to what our founding fathers have intended the judicial branch to be? To be fair with the Democrats, a more moderate justice should be picked. But I respect our founding fathers more than our current government, so that would tip me in favor of Kavanaugh. I should rather stay neutral to the issue, but I would support Kavanaugh’s confirmation if it happens.
One of the big reasons why Democrats are acting all childish during his hearing is because of the 1973 case Roe v Wade. Of course Kennedy isn’t going to support overturning it. He may be a conservative tea leaf on the fiscal issues, but he’s more of a liberal on the social issues. But since he retired, that would risk the case. Opponents believe that overturning the case will make abortion illegal everywhere in the states for every reason. But here’s what it actually means if it happens: It will allow the states to put bans on abortions for any reason that isn’t an emergency reason (rape, incest, potential death by child birth). That means, they will be forced to take care of the child once the pregnancy begins, at least in the states that regulate it. Unless if it’s an extreme case, that is. Of course there will always be the states that would legalize abortions for other reasons if this case gets overturned. I would support overturning Roe v Wade because I believe it’s an issue that should be left up to the states, not the federal government. It’s also worth mentioning that a Supreme Court case is not settled in law. It’s an indicator to point out what was right or wrong about the issue at the time, not blacklist the law. Think Dred Scott for example. Yeah, the court would have overturned the Missouri Compromise, but states can still choose if slavery should be legal or not. But since it’s illegal nationwide, it wouldn’t matter anymore. And if a law gets overturned, they can still make a similar law that circumvents or supersedes the case.
The Democrats are also worried on how they rule on healthcare. Again, this is an issue that should be left up to the states, not the federal government. However, I am strong against universal healthcare, and I do not think any government should regulate healthcare to that extent. Anything that caps doctors’s salaries out, bans any medical proceedure that is vital, puts patients in long waiting times, and/or bans private healthcare is bad for society. In fact, all forms of socialism in government is bad.
Back to what I think about Brett Kavanaugh, I already said that they need to be fair with keeping the court in balance, but they should also recognize the original vision of the framers’. Now if I had to talk about how they vote on him, I believe they should vote based on if they are eligible enough to be in the court, not based on bias. They should also not consider respecting past cases as requirements to be confirmed. And more importantly, they must ask questions and listen respectfully, not act like children to keep them from speaking or hearing. If you think it’s right for people to act childish or get uncivil for any reason, even if it means to protect cases or laws, you have no moral compass. But if Kavanaugh had to get confirmed, there has to be some compromise. This includes, but not limited to:
- If Roe v Wade were overturned, they should at least make abortion legal nationwide for extreme cases.
- There should be at least two full liberal justices, two full conservative justices, two fiscal liberal/social conservative justices, two social liberal/fiscal conservative justices, and the chief justice to be neutral.
- Foreign policy issues, civil rights issues, and serious environment issues must be left to the federal government, while social issues, economic issues, and moderate environment issues must be left to the states.
