I don't want to use the word cuck, but it seems like the most applicable.
Well you just did, and I saw a mod edited out whatever other garbage you called me. I'm not gonna go below the belt with you, as much as you feel the need to just because we disagree. You can grow up, not talk to me like an ignoramus, man up and be civil, first off.
Like lol, if you'll flip on whether the president is constrained by the laws of the land, then what won't you flip on? The president has been named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in an investigation into the defrauding of the US government by a hostile foreign power and Kavanaugh is out here being like 'presidential privilege overrides the restraints of any legal process' like some type of disingenuous poster in this thread or maybe a gf who can't see her bay is making moves on the side,
Ok, this is why we have something called the Impeachment Process so the Legislative Branch can check the Executive. That's a bit different from indicting the President. Anyways, at this point it is more than safe to say Trump has not conspired, there has been absolutely no evidence brought up by the Mueller investigation in the two years it's been going. They need to come up with some sort of report soon because of how much money has been put into the investigation, and as of right now, if you haven't noticed, they're struggling to find many scraps. If you think I'm wrong, tell me what they found that I might have missed. If you want to look at who may have actually conspired, look up Hillary Clinton's rig on the DNC; not illegal, but it's still pretty garbage. Her private email server, which is actually illegal (and hacked by the Chinese uncovered recently btw, not the Russians like most believe) brings a lot of light into that situation, and so do the uppers at the DNC who eventually admitted to it.
calling kavanaugh a 'moderate' is just semantic drivel, like calling scalia a moderate, that dude also loved to play the 'textual originalist interpretation' card, while maintaining an outstanding record of conservative judicial activism and disregard for the original intent of the constitution. The key thing with kavanaugh is he doesn't believe sitting presidents can be indicted regardless of circumstances, so it's not clear why anyone would say he respects precedent or the constitution, which literally provides a system of checks and balances that includes a path to removing sitting presidents.
Why has he played that 'card?' Because that's how he is as a judge if you look at the hundreds of thousands of pages declassified from his record, and honestly, that's how you should apply the constitution. The founding fathers intended a vast majority of the constitution, and these guys have done just that upholding it when needed. It's not the court's job to change law, thats the job of the legislative, but they do have the right to declare what is and isn't constitutional. I find it hilariously ironic that you say they disregard the constitution by being 'textualist' or 'originalist,' do you understand what either of those words mean?
judicial review is literally just saying what the law is, so every time the supreme court makes a ruling on anything theyre following that principle. judicial review in roe v wade can further be seen as an example of judicial review in the context of a federalist separation of powers (a federal court restraining state legislatures in the same way the federal legislature could). You're up on your textual originalism though, right?
It is true however, that there is nowhere in the constitution that mentions judicial review explicitly. I guess we should just do away with judicial review then, it's not in the constitution after all.
I never argued against judicial review. If you couldn't tell, that's why cases like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusson haven't stood, thankfully, and same for laws like the 3/5s Compromise (interesting story for another day). Ironically, it's also the same reason why they declared many of FDR's policies unconstitutional, even under threat. What I was arguing against was claiming cases as judicial review where the court was actually overstepping its bounds by making law. Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, is one of those cases, because it has extremely minimal backing in the constitution itself (only backed by the Due Process Clause under the 14th Amendment, which in itself was interpreted extremely broadly and really only under the guarantee of personal privacy). If you want to prove me wrong on that unlike how you've been countering so far, go right ahead. If you can stop it with the strawman arguments now, I'd really really appreciate it.