New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

River said:
Do you think this confirmation and hearing influences the election at all? Your answer should be telling.
Click to expand...
You didn't ask me, but I think it will have some impact. However, I don't have a freakin' clue which direction that will go.
 
Minoosh said:
It wouldn't back in the olden days - 2015 - before tribal lines in the sand were drawn by the GOP. Dems unanimously approved Scalia and Kennedy.
Click to expand...
Bork was the first one rejected on partisan grounds, or so the story goes. I am not a historian.
 
This may be true, or he could face some type of ethics complaints.

Alan Dershowitz:
‏

@MichaelAvenatti may now have an ethical obligation to withdraw Swetnick’s affidavit, since she contradicted material portions of it in a tv interview.
Click to expand...
 
phiwum said:
Bork was the first one rejected on partisan grounds, or so the story goes. I am not a historian.
Click to expand...

Not true. There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to other seats on the Court.[2] Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees either declined office or (in one instance) died before assuming office.
 
phiwum said:
Bork was the first one rejected on partisan grounds, or so the story goes. I am not a historian.
Click to expand...

It's worth looking up the last time a Democratic President had a justice confirmed by a Republican controlled senate to see how long running this dysfunction has been.
 
acbytesla said:
You are totally mis'characterizing my post. My point wasn't as much about racism as it was about power serving power and ignoring the powerless.
Click to expand...
Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas once stood up for "the little guy" by ruling opining that a person growing medicinal weed in their back yard was not a threat to interstate commerce. They lost, though.

I seriously believe that a president and/or a congressional coalition could get some serious bipartisan support by campaigning to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.

ETA: And don't let the FDA or Big Pharma get anywhere near it.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Not true. There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to other seats on the Court.[2] Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees either declined office or (in one instance) died before assuming office.
Click to expand...
wiki?
 
phiwum said:
Bork was the first one rejected on partisan grounds, or so the story goes. I am not a historian.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that Bork:
- Was opposed by the ACLU (one of only 4 nominees to have that honor)
- Was involved in Nixon's "Saturday night massacre"

It should also be pointed out that 6 Republican senators also voted no.

Ideally, the Senate is not supposed to be a 'rubber stamp' on whomever the president pics. They should reject candidates that are particularly bad. Bork probably shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.
 
Segnosaur said:
Keep in mind that Bork:
- Was opposed by the ACLU (one of only 4 nominees to have that honor)
- Was involved in Nixon's "Saturday night massacre"

It should also be pointed out that 6 Republican senators also voted no.

Ideally, the Senate is not supposed to be a 'rubber stamp' on whomever the president pics. They should reject candidates that are particularly bad. Bork probably shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.
Click to expand...

And the follow-up candidate, nominated by the same President, was approved by the same Senate 97-0.

Sometimes it really is about the candidate, and not only about the politics. This is one of those cases.

Drop Kavanaugh, pick someone better vetted, it will get through. Easily.
 
Interesting letter from the Democrats on the committee regarding tweeted claims from the GOP Judiciary members about previous background checks.

The tweet:

Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which the committee has reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there ever a whiff of ANY issue – at all – related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse. 2/2
Click to expand...

Part of the response:

While we are limited in what we can say about this background investigation in a public setting, we are compelled to state for the record that there is information in the second post that is not accurate.
Click to expand...

Linky.

I'm guessing this is setting us up for counter selective leaking.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
And you both got beat. The Internet is not synonymous with www, it predates it by many years.
Click to expand...
Ok there is a difference. But I am not sure that the US really invented safe planes, what did they call the Starfighter? The original claim was a bit OTT.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The line of questioning would not have demonstrated the problem...

...if there was no problem.

Getting someone to reveal if they have a character flaw that is quite central to the task you're asking of them is some kind of moral hazard, apparently?
Click to expand...

The moral hazard is that this reasoning could be used to justify any and every question about any aspect of the candidate's life, going all the way back to adolescence.


(If my son ever tries to get confirmed for anything important, he's going to have some explaining to do about that incident at his bar mitzvah.)
 
Cabbage said:
A person is suspected of murder and is questioned by the police. The suspect was black out drunk on the night in question. Do you think the fact that he was black out drunk is of no interest to the police and their investigation???
Click to expand...

See hilite. (added) That would be of interest. They would not be interested in answering the question of whether he had ever been black out drunk ever in his life.

Of course, the senators weren't interested in that question, either, except as a perjury trap a way of determining his honesty.


ETA: And if they tried to make a case out of "We don't know when the murder happened, but we know that he was blackout drunk at least once in his life, so he might have been blackout drunk on the night of the murder...."
 
Last edited:
Looks like the report is coming out Thursday, though Republicans seemed to think it would already be complete. How it is being released is rather silly:

Republicans are putting strict limits on the viewing.

Only one copy is being made available to senators, and each party will take turns viewing it in one-hour increments, Durbin said.

“Get this — one copy! For the United States Senate,” he said. “That’s what we were told. And we were also that we would be given one hour for the Dems, one hour for the Republicans. Alternating.

“We tried to reserve some time to read it. That is ridiculous,” he said. “One copy?!”

“Bizarre, it doesn’t make any sense,” he added.

If all 100 senators decide to review the document and it takes each senator 30 minutes to peruse the document, it could take 50 hours for the entire chamber to examine it.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom