(09-30-2018, 12:46 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(09-30-2018, 12:22 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: That statement shows shows you have leanings though. I despise both parties equally. The two party system does not work. It just divides the country into hard liners on the right and the left. I truly don't care for either political party. I have no dog in this fight and I can't say one way or the other if a sexual assault occurred. All I know is Kavanaugh yelled a lot, drank a bunch of water and accused the Clintons, people who oppose Trump and other left wingers of trying to smear his reputation. That tells a lot about which way he leans and Supreme Court Judges aren't supposed to have any political leanings. That should eliminate him from consideration right there.

I'm sorry you feel this way.  I remember the first time I was told there was no santa clause.  It was a painful experience.  

You have to have context.  before the modern progressive era, The Supreme Court confirmation process was a lot different.  The congress actually performed its function to amend the constitution as a means of dramatic change in the country and it was the role of the court to interpret the laws and rule accordingly.  With the advent of the modern progressive movement and the call for an ACTIVE STATE (no longer functioning within constitutional bounds.) you had a problem.  That problem emerged when you had the whims of administrations and congresses at odds with the founding document and little or no political will to actually go through the ratification process to make the change.  Woodrow Wilson and the like started viewing the court as an arm of radical change instead of tempered ruling and thus dramatically changed its basic function.  Then with the advent of the new deal you had a sitting president of the unites states directly threaten sitting members of the court that had ruled against many of his fascist new deal proposals that if they didn't soften on his domestic agenda he would just pack the court with more and more liberal justices to simply override the majority on the court that opposed his state intrusion.  Fast forward to 1973 and the only means of entry for the radical secular progressives into the mainstream of American Politics became the courts.  Why?  Because you couldn't get nationwide abortion at the ballot box.  Just like today you couldn't get Gay Marriage through the ballot box.  

So over the last 100 years the higher legislative role of congress has migrated to the courts.  As such the leanings of the justices have become more and more a topic during confirmation.  there was a time when confirmation was a simple voice vote with no hearings as long as the nominee was deemed qualified.  

More to your point, Kavanaugh has never expressed himself to be a conservative activist.  What do I mean by that?  He has never advocated disregarding the statute or law in front of him to reach a conclusion based on ideology.  He has vowed that his decisions will be based on the original intent of the legislators and that he will work to apply those concepts to modern circumstances (originalism and textualism.)  Conversely, it is the expressed judicial philosophy of the left on the court to invent legal concepts or rights out of wholecloth in opposition to hundreds or even thousands of years of jurisprudence to fit whatever secular progressive dogma arises during the current day (Living document theory.)  So just because Kavanaugh has the temerity to point out the obvious political headwinds against him doesn't disqualify him from being an impartial jurist and calling balls and strikes.

Your history lesson is pretty close to accurate.  You misattributed Woodrow Wilson as being the big change agent but it was actually FDR.
That said, none of this real history about loosley interpreting the Constitution really speaks to O-line's real concern that Kavanaugh is too partisan.  Partisanship is not an interpretative framework.  Parties don't line up 1:1 with the interpretative frameworks.

---