New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The Great Zaganza said:
that Trump would never nominate a moderate?
Click to expand...

That anyone from "the other tribe" is by definition not a moderate.

Moderates can't exist in a world where everyone has to pick and side and immediately start purifying the cause.

Hell a member of one of the tribes wouldn't except a moderate member of their own tribe because the only true members of the tribes are ones fighting to be the one who hates the other side the most.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, but public support is what leads to laws and constitutional amendments. Regardless, the issue is the backlash, not the constitutionality.
 
Dems can accept a moderate, since President Warren is going to pack the Court with Transexual Muslim Immigrants anyway.
 
Belz... said:
True, but public support is what leads to laws and constitutional amendments. Regardless, the issue is the backlash, not the constitutionality.
Click to expand...

I thought it was between voting one way or the other based on the backlash. Do you think a good judge considers that?
 
(whispering for emphasis)

Although I'm inclined to side with women in he said/she saids because the data overwhelmingly support a tiny proportion of false accusations among alleged victims, it is true that we cannot know if Kavanaugh behaved as Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick describe without some bombshell like an admission of guilt.

The point, however, is that we have multiple lies, half-truths, and extraordinarily partisan statements from Kavanaugh himself last week. Those statements reveal a man wholly unsuitable to sit on the Supreme Court.


All three women could be lying. Each could have falsely accused Kavanaugh. (If so, investigate them and if warranted, punish them.) It doesn't matter. What matters is that he lied in his defense. That matters because *he* is the one nominated to the Supreme Court. His emotional trainwreck of a statement last week is the disqualifying part, not the way he might or might not have behaved when he was 18.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Thank you. I know that no one makes sense all the time, but the non-sense I see from some on the right is stunning, even given a difference in goals, values, etc.

Our emotions drive us, including our thinking, and it’s difficult to stop and think logically.
Click to expand...

I agree. After participating in these threads for a little while, and hearing the President last night, I'm going to drop out of the discussion. It's just not good for my spirit.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Had. It's 2018. The other tribe is no longer your political opponent, they are your sworn enemy.
Click to expand...
That is what happens when one side drops a gentleman's agreement, yeah. What exactly would you suggest the Democrats do about it?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this at all. There was just the political reality of majorities and who could pass through the gauntlet. I haven't actually seen a screaming liberal on the court since William Douglas. A sizable contingent of Democrats in the US Senate are just Republican Light so all we have been seeing are moderates and dinosaurs.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
That is what happens when one side drops a gentleman's agreement, yeah. What exactly would you suggest the Democrats do about it?
Click to expand...

*Confused* Whatever the want to do.

Just stop pretending "coming to a compromise" is even an option that's on the table.

Fight to the bitter, bitter end. That's all you can do if you accept the other side is beyond reason.

I'm not going to argue with anyone in this political climate as to whether "Side A" or "Side B" is too far gone, there's no percentage in that.

But don't waste the people's time pretending the sides might come to a compromise that everybody knows is never going to come and that both sides know they don't want to happen.

If you the other side has jumped the shark from political opponent to sworn enemy, fine that's not a decision I can make for you. But goddammit if that's what you think own it.

That's my issues. The tribes are in open warfare (or their members either think they are think they should be) at this point but still want to waste time pretending they are still doing the political dance.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Dems and the GOP had a Gentlemen's Agreement that every SCOTUS vacancy is to be filled with someone ideologically similar to their predecessor.
Click to expand...

What?

That's crazy. Where did you get from?

ETA:. Merrick Garland was an ideological replacement for Antonin Scalia?
 
Last edited:
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...

Mind telling us which ones you're referring to?
 
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...

The majority of people wouldn't like it. Just like the majority of us didn't vote for Trump. But what recourse would we have exactly? I'm sure I'll hear lots of "but we're a republic not a democracy, it doesn't matter what the majority wants". I do actually think Roe v Wade will be overturned, but abortion won't be made illegal nationwide, it will be state by state.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Confused* Whatever the want to do.

Just stop pretending "coming to a compromise" is even an option that's on the table.

Fight to the bitter, bitter end. That's all you can do if you accept the other side is beyond reason.

I'm not going to argue with anyone in this political climate as to whether "Side A" or "Side B" is too far gone, there's no percentage in that.

But don't waste the people's time pretending the sides might come to a compromise that everybody knows is never going to come and that both sides know they don't want to happen.

If you the other side has jumped the shark from political opponent to sworn enemy, fine that's not a decision I can make for you. But goddammit if that's what you think own it.

That's my issues. The tribes are in open warfare (or their members either think they are think they should be) at this point but still want to waste time pretending they are still doing the political dance.
Click to expand...
You aren't decrying tribalism, but celebrating it?
 
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...

This article said something that I had been waiting for someone without partisan motivation to say:

"Even assuming that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are entirely accurate, rejecting him on the current record could incentivize not merely other sexual-assault victims to come forward—which would be a salutary thing—but also other late-stage allegations of a non-falsifiable nature by people who are not acting in good faith."​

However, one important reason that we have gotten to the point where the above warning needs to be said is that Dr. Ford was entirely and utterly credible. Without that, everything would be different. And, in fact, we have seen exactly that in Ms. Swetnick. My wife and I are life-long Dems and immediately sensed in her first televised interview that something was wrong, and we doubted her credibility to some extent.

When the next late-stage-and-difficult-to-falsify-allegation comes along, all we can do is to judge its credibility. What else can we do? Ignore all late-stage-and difficult-to-verify allegations? Even the true ones, like (presumably) Dr. Ford's.

There's no way around doing the hard work and making the hard judgments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom