Kavanaugh Confirmation

#11,833
#11,833
lawgator1 said:
That was a long time ago. Everyone makes mistakes.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I remember this one time.....

Lawgator1 takes his ball and goes home and then brings it back: A Gator tradition

lawgator1 said:
Well, its been three years or so and 11,000 posts. I'm going to go ahead and call it a day here.

I've enjoyed it and even met a couple of you in person, all nice folks. I've learned a lot about UT tradition and gotten some good insights from Vols fans on football and other sports. Enjoyed the banter back and forth and discussion of things unrelated to athletics or even to our respective universities.

I've not been to UT. Been to Vandy and even to MTSU, but never to Knoxville. If I get the chance when up that way, I think I'll take a look around.

The Volnation is a great venue and the folks that run it should be proud. Thanks for letting me a part of it for so long.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol, TN-POSSUM, Orangeburst and 4 others
#11,838
#11,838
volinbham said:
All it indicates is that he is less popular after the allegations than before. What you are claiming cannot be captured in that data since it doesn't tell us opinions post allegation but prior to his comments and after. The counter argument to yours is that had he not made those comments his polling could have been even lower. In short, the polling you posted does not refute the post you replied to and the comparison you used to make your point completely ignores the introduction of the confounding element of the introduction of allegations.

As to the second point I suggest you do some research on the differences in judicial philosophy vs partisanship.
Click to expand...
Another joke right? Call it what you want. The odds of him crossing the other R. on the Court is almost nil. To even suggest that the justices will keep their political philosophies out of decisions is laughable. Why do think there is this battle and the battle before? Nobody thinks that. The Rs seem to think he is expected to rule according to R values and the Ds think he will also rule according to R values. Those values and beliefs are directly reflected in the way they vote and to suggest he is the same as the one he is replacing is also laughable. Kennedy was the only one that didn't cave to the party and had the utmost integrity of any justice on the court. You have gone full Redhat.
 
#11,847
#11,847
Mick said:
Another joke right? Call it what you want. The odds of him crossing the other R. on the Court is almost nil. To even suggest that the justices will keep their political philosophies out of decisions is laughable. Why do think there is this battle and the battle before? Nobody thinks that. The Rs seem to think he is expected to rule according to R values and the Ds think he will also rule according to R values. Those values and beliefs are directly reflected in the way they vote and to suggest he is the same as the one he is replacing is also laughable. Kennedy was the only one that didn't cave to the party and had the utmost integrity of any justice on the court. You have gone full Redhat.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple - the Justices have various judicial philosophies that guide their rulings. Parties are pretty fluid in what they support so it is entirely conceivable and history is replete with examples of Justices ruling in ways that the politicians of the day consider a "betrayal". Roberts is only the latest example (probably some more recent).

Partisanship is about winning power and we all know that both parties switch positions on issues to suit their power needs. Justices however tend to be more consistent over time on how they interpret law. Some times it is in line with what partisans want; sometimes it is completely frustrating to the partisans who thought this was their "guy" or "gal". Ask Republicans if they thought Souter ruled they way they thought he would (just one of many examples).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top