New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Actually, the main problem is that McConnell ****** up the nomination process by refusing to do his job with regards to Garland.
Click to expand...
While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades.

theprestige said:
I disagree. I think Kavanaugh would be getting exactly the same pushback if he'd been nominated by any Republican president.

If he'd been nominated by a Democrat? Not so much. Of course, a Democrat wouldn't have nominated him. Which is to say, Kavanaugh's main problem is that Hillary Clinton will never be president.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Actually, the main problem is that McConnell ****** up the nomination process by refusing to do his job with regards to Garland.
Click to expand...
You believe if Garland had received approval the same basic thing wouldn't be happening now? I don't.

I agree with statement from ahhell "While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades. "
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades.

I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
Click to expand...

Remember Robert Bork? The animus has always been at war with Eastasia.
 
theprestige said:
I disagree. I think Kavanaugh would be getting exactly the same pushback if he'd been nominated by any Republican president.

If he'd been nominated by a Democrat? Not so much. Of course, a Democrat wouldn't have nominated him. Which is to say, Kavanaugh's main problem is that Hillary Clinton will never be president.
Click to expand...


I don't think any other Republican president would have nominated him either.

The entire line of reasoning that 'the Dems only want it done the way it always was because of politics' and 'the Dems would oppose any nominee just as much' is being employed as red-herrings and well poisoning. Those kinds of accusation don't even matter if they are true or false; what matters is if the arguments the Dems are making are true and relevant or not.

Either you find the objections, evidence, and reasoning true and relevant on their own merits, or you don't. That the Democrats are the ones making them is only important if you (general you) place party over country, principle, and reasoning.

Which is exactly why everyone keeps dodge the question I've been asking. It isn't the only relevant question, but it's damn important. How about you theprestige? Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?
 
Dunno how many encountered the drama with his assistant Zina Bash flashing a "White Power" sign at the hearings.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/04/conspiracy-about-woman-at-kavanaugh-hearing-rages-online/

First time, was just an apparently random gesture. I figured it was just people overreacting to create outrage, especially considering the "white power" sign originated as a 4chan hoax, which was eventually back-adopted, that is, picked up and used for real by white nationalists (who were clearly not smart enough to realize they were being hoaxed).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavana...ign-confirmation-hearing-husband-defends-her/

Her response to that, do the same thing but make it far more unambiguous. I guess people weren't over-reacting at all. Either that, or she's just trolling at this point, which is the more plausible explanation.

https://www.sourcepolitics.com/repu...power-sign-so-she-did-it-again-one-day-later/
 
Yeah. I've heard republicans whining, "Why do democrats want the documents? They've already decided they are going to vote no."

So making up your mind ahead of time is bad? Ok, what if the documents show he perjured himself. Will republicans change their mind and vote no?

If yes, then that's a reason for the dems to want the documents. And if no, own your lack of standards.
 
luchog said:
Her response to that, do the same thing but make it far more unambiguous. I guess people weren't over-reacting at all. Either that, or she's just trolling at this point, which is the more plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

I’m sure it was trolling the second time. She isn’t a white power person.

And really, the OK hand gesture should revert to meaning just that. But it won’t revert to meaning only that if people freak out every time they see it. So maybe instead of thinking of it as trolling, it should be thought of as desensitization therapy.
 
ahhell said:
....
I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
Click to expand...
And that made the hypocritical rant by Graham even more disgusting when he opined on how all these nominees should be getting 90 votes while Graham never once mentioned Garland. He even repeated the excuse, waiting for the election was reasonable, ignoring the fact Obama was elected.

How to be incredibly tone deaf.:mad:
 
P.J. Denyer said:
The idea that someone would offer to pay money for legal fees for committing acts of political violence is absolutely disgusting. As I hope TBD would agree.

Click to expand...

COmes down to the same thing, really.
And as for TBD agreeing, I doubt it. If Dear Leader does it, it must be right since Dear Leader is incapable of doing wrong.
 
tyr_13 said:
Trump also promised that he would only nominate off of the list he was given when he was a candidate; he lied. Lied right to the GOP because Kavanaugh was NOT on that list.
Click to expand...
"We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society" is what he said. Kavanaugh was one of the judges from the second list by the Federalist Society.

Kavanaugh's bizarre belief that presidents shouldn't even be investigated should be a disqualifier for much of the GOP as well. How do you impeach a president you can't investigate? It's a frankly contemptibly stupid reading of the Constitution (note that I am still unclear on his exact legal support for that opinion as what he offers in support is not based in law).
Click to expand...
This is a lie started by Chuck Schumer, picked up and repeated by many news outlets and is now considered gospel by those who want to believe Kavanaugh was nominated to keep Trump from potentially being prosecuted for crimes in the future.

He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate.


"In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." – Brett Kavanaugh
 
Last edited:
Bogative said:
....
He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate.
....
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it means. So he thinks a president should be exempt from all civil and criminal investigations, let alone prosecutions, no matter what he may have done in office or before he took office.

Why? Why should that be the case? Where does the Constitution exempt this one person -- alone among all Americans -- from the ordinary processes of law? Impeachment is the mechanism by which he can be removed from office for misconduct in office. It doesn't have anything to do with investigation and prosecution for crimes, including crimes that may have put him in office in the first place.
 
ahhell said:
I don't think it would be exactly the same. The Garland BS really kicked up the animus over the supreme court to eleven.
Click to expand...
Repubs were claiming it was normal not to consider a Supreme Court pick in a election year. Except that Dems & Repubs UNANIMOUSLY confirmed Reagan's Kennedy choice in 1988, during a presidential election year.

Maybe Reagan's picks weren't such political hacks? Though he did nominate Bork (who my father testified for!). After another unsuccessful pick (Douglas Ginsburg, no relation to Ruth) he nominated ... Anthony Kennedy. At no time did Democrats categorically vow to block Reagan's picks and I think by all accounts Kennedy was a solid pick.

It's one reason I don't overly lionize McCain; not to take away from the man but he was part of that obstructionist BS that categorically refused to consider *any* Obama pick in 2016.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
You believe if Garland had received approval the same basic thing wouldn't be happening now? I don't.
Click to expand...
Well for one thing, it would have filled the spot later given to Neil Gorsuch, meaning Trump would have had only one pick. Which now gives us Kavanaugh and higher stakes for a court (quite possibly) overpacked by partisans.

Here's a clue from the politic site Bustle, about what Grouch said about Garland in 2002:

Neil Gorsuch Speaks Out About Merrick Garland For The First Time

Gorsuch wrote a column praising Garland as an "impressive" judge who was "grossly mistreated" by the Senate for having the courage to rule on "hot-button" issues. So, where does he stand now that he's the beneficiary of that kind of mistreatment? He isn't as straightforward about his views now — at least when it comes to partisan political matters — as he was back then.
Click to expand...

There is a cumulative effect to various obstructionist tacks.

eeyore1954 said:
I agree with statement from ahhell "While this probably feeds the oppositions some, this sort of thing has been ratcheting up for decades. "
Click to expand...

But that is the whole point. As it got ratcheted up it became more and more skewed to a process that may be overly political. On the other hand, Obama got to pick Kagan (2010) and Sotomayor (2009) while Bill Clinton gave us Ginsburg (1993). So perhaps the process isn't totally ... borked. And after all Roberts (Bush 2005) turned out to be at least somewhat moderate on social issues (if not campaign finance issues).

I could easily have gotten a few details wrong here; I hope not, but my point is that arguably the process has deteriorated in a way to potentially distort the court's makeup for decades to come. (Though I'm not sure I completely agree; justices often show a feisty, independent streak once they're enrobed).

While you may agree with ahhell about the "ratcheting up," I believe he was talking about Republicans doing the ratcheting to the detriment of a more civil, or at least bipartisan, approach in earlier decades. Though I agree that it has been politicized for decades, not some nice collegial gathering of senators modesty providing advice and consent, and that Dems have certainly contributed to this (Thomas, George HW Bush, 1990).
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
And that made the hypocritical rant by Graham even more disgusting when he opined on how all these nominees should be getting 90 votes while Graham never once mentioned Garland. He even repeated the excuse, waiting for the election was reasonable, ignoring the fact Obama was elected.

How to be incredibly tone deaf.:mad:
Click to expand...
I don't know what's up with Graham. Maybe he is shoring up home state support. Maybe he is sucking up to Trump with the idea that he can somehow influence him, contain him. He has not hesitated to speak his mind in the past (dissing both Trump and Cruz), and I'm positive he was absolutely gutted by John McCain's death, and he joined McCain in criticizing the "skinny repeal" gutting of Obamacare. He does have an independent streak. But ultimately he is on the Trump train now, and is very much on board with most if not all of the current Republican agenda.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom