A Man I Highly Respect

[Ponca Dan]

Says the Senate should confirm Kavanaugh and gives his reasons why. This should be of special interest to my_2cents. It discusses the concept of “judicial philosophy” in depth, and explains it much better than I did a couple of days ago.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/01/the-case-for-kavanaugh

 

[my_2cents]

Says the Senate should confirm Kavanaugh and gives his reasons why. This should be of special interest to my_2cents. It discusses the concept of “judicial philosophy” in depth, and explains it much better than I did a couple of days ago.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/01/the-case-for-kavanaugh

Typical article one would expect from one holding an originalist philosophy. It is completely lacking though in it's discussion of the philosophies of those who are not originalists.

It is also worth noting that it is very debatable whether Kavanaugh has two of the four qualifications for a judge that the author lists (honesty and temperament). His "no doubt" claim in regards to these is clearly reflective of one who has blinders on regarding Kavanaugh.

 

[Rdcldad]

cank spat it out yesterday

temperament is now the talking point
that will permeate libtard discussion

 

[Ponca Dan]

Typical article one would expect from one holding an originalist philosophy. It is wholly lacking though in it's discussion of the philosophies of those who are not originalists.

It is also worth noting that it is very debatable whether Kavanaugh has two of the four qualifications for a judge that the author lists (honesty and temperament). His "no doubt" claim in regards to these is clearly reflective of one who has blinders on regarding Kavanaugh.

It is not on Professor Barnett to discuss philosophies of those who are not originalists. Particularly not in this article. You apparently missed the whole point of the article. The point of the article is for those of you who hold differing judicial philosophies to express those philosophies and explain how they are superior. As he says not one Democrat did that. They only expressed concern that Kavanaugh might rule differently from the way they want him to rule on particular cases brought before the Supreme Court.

As for your contention in your second paragraph you are only continuing the smear campaign against the man, a campaign that is sorely lacking in evidence.

Barnett is suggesting you and your team should do better.

 

[my_2cents]

It is not on Professor Barnett to discuss philosophies of those who are not originalists. Particularly not in this article.

But he did attempt to discuss them, under the banner of progressivism. And his discussion was completely lacking in this area.

The article was just not that impressive. Sorry Ponca.

 

[CowboyJD]

Says the Senate should confirm Kavanaugh and gives his reasons why. This should be of special interest to my_2cents. It discusses the concept of “judicial philosophy” in depth, and explains it much better than I did a couple of days ago.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/01/the-case-for-kavanaugh

What the Democrats should have been telling the American people from the beginning.


https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/

*Insert face palm gif here*

Maybe just set forth your own opinion in a straightforward, explicit, clear manner than cutting and pasting contradictory opinions of others as bait to engage in your passive aggressive nonsense yet again.

 

[Pokeabear]

*Insert face palm gif here*

Maybe just set forth your own opinion in a straightforward, explicit, clear manner than cutting and pasting contradictory opinions of others as bait to engage in your passive aggressive nonsense yet again.

Come on down @Ponca Dan
From your Pen pal JD.




*Insert face palm gif here*

Maybe just set forth your own opinion in a straightforward, explicit, clear manner than cutting and pasting contradictory opinions of others as bait to engage in your passive aggressive nonsense yet again.

 

[CowboyJD]

Come on down Ponca Don.

He has me on ignore because he doesn’t like me and because I call him out on his BS.

 

[Pokeabear]

He has me on ignore because he doesn’t like me and because I call him out on his BS.

Oh I know, that’s why I quoted you, for his benefit.

 

[CowboyJD]

Oh I know, that’s why I quoted you, for his benefit.

I don’t think he sees the quote in your post if he has me on ignore.

Just your post.

If you want to engage in this level of troll, you have to cut and past my stuff outside of the quote terms as if it is your post.

 

[Pokeabear]

I don’t think he sees the quote in your post if he has me on ignore.

Just your post.

If you want to engage in this level of troll, you have to cut and past my stuff outside of the quote terms as if it is your post.

Can do.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

It is not on Professor Barnett to discuss philosophies of those who are not originalists. Particularly not in this article. You apparently missed the whole point of the article. The point of the article is for those of you who hold differing judicial philosophies to express those philosophies and explain how they are superior. As he says not one Democrat did that. They only expressed concern that Kavanaugh might rule differently from the way they want him to rule on particular cases brought before the Supreme Court.

As for your contention in your second paragraph you are only continuing the smear campaign against the man, a campaign that is sorely lacking in evidence.

Barnett is suggesting you and your team should do better.

Spot on.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Come on down @Ponca Dan
From your Pen pal JD.




*Insert face palm gif here*

Maybe just set forth your own opinion in a straightforward, explicit, clear manner than cutting and pasting contradictory opinions of others as bait to engage in your passive aggressive nonsense yet again.

Try as hard as I might I can't think of a single reason why I should care what JD has to say about anything. I put him on ignore quite awhile ago, a fact that seems to bother him no end. I see no need to engage the self-professed "arrogant asshole" in any sort of dialog. Nice try.

 

[Ponca Dan]

But he did attempt to discuss them, under the banner of progressivism. And his discussion was completely lacking in this area.

The article was just not that impressive. Sorry Ponca.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Barnett was tasked with writing a 1000 word essay in defense of Kavanaugh's confirmation. He wrote it under the concept of "judicial philosophy," a subject we had talked about a couple of days ago. I found his argument to be thoughtful, cogent and reasonable. I believe the point of the essay was to encourage those with a differing view to express their view in as thoughtful a manner as him. He was not responsible to present their argument for them. He was starting a dialog.

I did not expect you to agree with him. I did, however, think you would find it of interest. Obviously I was in error!

For the record I hold him in the highest regard, but that does not mean I agree with him as it pertains to Kavanaugh's confirmation. I think I've made it pretty clear that I am opposed to confirmation. That doesn't mean I can't listen to what he wrote with an open mind, find some parts I agree with and some that I don't. I thought it was possible you might do the same. Apparently I wasted your time.

 

[CowboyJD]

Try as hard as I might I can't think of a single reason why I should care what JD has to say about anything. I put him on ignore quite awhile ago, a fact that seems to bother him no end. I see no need to engage the self-professed "arrogant asshole" in any sort of dialog. Nice try.

AMUSES me....

Amuses.

The “silent treatment” is a CLASSIC passive aggressive technique, btw.

The main go to for folks like you.

 

[CowboyJD]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Barnett was tasked with writing a 1000 word essay in defense of Kavanaugh's confirmation. He wrote it under the concept of "judicial philosophy," a subject we had talked about a couple of days ago. I found his argument to be thoughtful, cogent and reasonable. I believe the point of the essay was to encourage those with a differing view to express their view in as thoughtful a manner as him. He was not responsible to present their argument for them. He was starting a dialog.

I did not expect you to agree with him. I did, however, think you would find it of interest. Obviously I was in error!

For the record I hold him in the highest regard, but that does not mean I agree with him as it pertains to Kavanaugh's confirmation. I think I've made it pretty clear that I am opposed to confirmation. That doesn't mean I can't listen to what he wrote with an open mind, find some parts I agree with and some that I don't. I thought it was possible you might do the same. Apparently I wasted your time.

PA to the max right here....overdrive.

 

[osu_orangestreak]

AMUSES me....

Amuses.

The “silent treatment” is a CLASSIC passive aggressive technique, btw.

The main go to for folks like you.

Is he funny? Ya know, like he's a clown?

 

[my_2cents]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Barnett was tasked with writing a 1000 word essay in defense of Kavanaugh's confirmation. He wrote it under the concept of "judicial philosophy," a subject we had talked about a couple of days ago. I found his argument to be thoughtful, cogent and reasonable. I believe the point of the essay was to encourage those with a differing view to express their view in as thoughtful a manner as him. He was not responsible to present their argument for them. He was starting a dialog.

I did not expect you to agree with him. I did, however, think you would find it of interest. Obviously I was in error!

For the record I hold him in the highest regard, but that does not mean I agree with him as it pertains to Kavanaugh's confirmation. I think I've made it pretty clear that I am opposed to confirmation. That doesn't mean I can't listen to what he wrote with an open mind, find some parts I agree with and some that I don't. I thought it was possible you might do the same. Apparently I wasted your time.

I read what he said with an open mind too and I gave you my thoughts.

In my opinion, if he is going to attempt to discuss how judicial philosophy plays into all of this, then he should at least try to give a fair and balanced explaination of the other judicial philosophies. Instead, he gave a very simplistic and even, arguably, a misleading characterization of those philosophies. I also thought it was exactly the type of article one would expect from an originalist. I just didn't read anything that was unique or enlightening.

But, thanks for sharing. I read it and gave you my opinion.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I read what he said with an open mind too and I gave you my thoughts.

In my opinion, if he is going to attempt to discuss how judicial philosophy plays into all of this, then he should at least try to give a fair and balanced explaination of the other judicial philosophies. Instead, he gave a very simplistic and even, arguably, a misleading characterization of those philosophies. I also thought it was exactly the type of article one would expect from an originalist. I just didn't read anything that was unique or enlightening.

But, thanks for sharing. I read it and gave you my opinion.

 

[my_2cents]

I got the point of the article. It wasn't a hard article to understand.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I got the point of the article. It wasn't a hard article to understand.

No, you didn’t. But, you’re correct that it wasn’t difficult.

 

[my_2cents]

No, you didn’t. But, you’re correct that it wasn’t difficult.

(You are right @Pokeabear, sometimes it is all that is needed haha)

 

[Pokeabear]

(You are right @Pokeabear, sometimes it is all that is needed haha)

When the fight is already won.