New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Last edited:
Samson said:
I have a couple of bets, talking my book, but I read Trump as ready to discard him. He surprised Trump with the booze escapades, Trump will surprise back.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with what Trump thinks of him. There's simply no time left to confirm another nominee before midterm elections, and the fear is that democrats may possibly win a majority in the senate.

If that happens, it will be very difficult for Trump to install a justice like this to the SC.

Is this not the crux of the matter as regards the rush to confirm? Senators like Lindsey Graham were just annoyed that Kavanaugh was no longer the shoo-in that he was looking to be.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Banjamin Whittes - a man who has had a long working relationship with Kavanaugh, who says he has always liked him, and who has publicly supported him for nigh-on 20 years - explains why he believes Kavanaugh should not be confirmed
Click to expand...

A very well written article. I had to pause when i got to part which says "what we might term the “no asterisks” standard", the two words in focus being fittingly between quotation marks.
 
By claiming that the Democrats want to run out the clock on Kavanaugh and wait until 2020 for their candidate, Graham implicitly admitted that Trump would never nominate a candidate that would be palatable to the Democrats.
 
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047467505676115969

BREAKING: GOP Counsel for Senate Judiciary Committee Dismisses Out of Hand Two *Sworn Statements* Accusing Kavanaugh of Sexual Assault:

"We have already reviewed your client’s allegations. We focus on credible allegations. Please stop emailing me."

No such review was conducted.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047461241411854337

A week after Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for drugging women, the US Senate is going to vote Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court despite a sworn affidavit accusing him of drugging women with Quaaludes and then sexually assaulting them.

Horrified. Speechless.
Click to expand...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
By claiming that the Democrats want to run out the clock on Kavanaugh and wait until 2020 for their candidate, Graham implicitly admitted that Trump would never nominate a candidate that would be palatable to the Democrats.
Click to expand...

He is also admitting that it's all about getting a conservative judge on SCOTUS.

But realistically, would a majority-conservative court overturn abortion laws? Could that possibly work in the modern world? That's a whole lot of women and men who won't stand by this. Same with gay marriage, which has majority support.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
By claiming that the Democrats want to run out the clock on Kavanaugh and wait until 2020 for their candidate, Graham implicitly admitted that Trump would never nominate a candidate that would be palatable to the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the very fact that they are from the other tribe make them unpalatable to Democrats?
 
Belz... said:
He is also admitting that it's all about getting a conservative judge on SCOTUS.

But realistically, would a majority-conservative court overturn abortion laws? Could that possibly work in the modern world? That's a whole lot of women and men who won't stand by this. Same with gay marriage, which has majority support.
Click to expand...

Many commentators agree that Row v. Wade won't be overturned, but that efforts to make it impossible to run an abortion clinic in a State (as we have seen already happening) will receive the blessing of a Conservative SCOTUS.

The bigger deal is something called Chevron Deference, which both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are know to want to overturn.
This, in effect, would give the Judiciary a veto power of the decisions of government departments.
 
Belz... said:
He is also admitting that it's all about getting a conservative judge on SCOTUS.

But realistically, would a majority-conservative court overturn abortion laws? Could that possibly work in the modern world? That's a whole lot of women and men who won't stand by this. Same with gay marriage, which has majority support.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they would. The only question is what does the Constitution specify. To then consider public opinion is clearly someone not cut out for the job.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Do you understand understand the link between honesty and innocence now?
Click to expand...

I understand exactly how much partisanship plays into this, and some are so willing to accept completely baseless accusations on the side they despise. And I do mean despise. I'm starting to think we just need to get the next civil war over with in this country to sort things out.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Wouldn't the very fact that they are from the other tribe make them unpalatable to Democrats?
Click to expand...


not all all.

Dems and the GOP had a Gentlemen's Agreement that every SCOTUS vacancy is to be filled with someone ideologically similar to their predecessor.
Gorsuch is a valid replacement of Scalia. Someone with solid LGBTQ-credentials could be a replacement for Kennedy; maybe even Garland, who is a solid moderate.
 
River said:
I understand exactly how much partisanship plays into this, and some are so willing to accept completely baseless accusations on the side they despise. And I do mean despise. I'm starting to think we just need to get the next civil war over with in this country to sort things out.
Click to expand...

The reason partisanship was low in the early 20th century was that southern state politicians had a mutual interest in race based segregation to the point where local governments coordinated with terrorist groups. I think now is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom