New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The Great Zaganza said:
Democrats in the Senate should have made it more clear that they have no faith in the rushed mini-Investigation regardless of the outcome at the beginning of the week.

Now, it is feels like a shifting of goalposts to demand another, broader investigation.
Click to expand...
Well, I have it on good authority* Democrats demanded a report. So all’s good.

*TBD. (Yeah, I know.)
 
Well, you know what they say: Confirmation hearings last a couple weeks. A seat on the Supreme Court lasts a lifetime.

"If you reach for that brass ring, I'll be your enemy forever," said the guy who had already promised to be my enemy forever no matter what I did. That thought still brings a smile to my face after all these years, every time I look at my shiny brass ring.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I keep seeing this claim, but no explanation for why a judge's temperament must be evaluated differently than anyone else in a position of authority.
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that a judge's temperament must be evaluated differently compared to others in authority (and that is not a claim that it can not be evaluated differently). The claim is that legal experts are more qualified than lay folk to evaluate judicial temperament. those are two very different claims.
Ziggurat said:
Moreover, to the extent that it is any different, law professors are not experts on judicial temperament. Law professors spend most of their time teaching and doing research. They spend much less time in front of a judge than trial lawyers do. So why is this petition just for law professors? That makes no sense, if actual experience with judges is what matters. But it isn't, because it's all an argument from authority fallacy.
Click to expand...
Law professors generally have experience in court. I recall that the letter states this. I am a professor, and I have professional experience in my field, too.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I don't think practicality is a consideration here. I'm just picturing Trump huddled over a cheeseburger, glowering at a potential nominee and saying he needs them in his court, or asking if they're on the same page, or some other plausibly-deniable-but-really-not overture, and from the ones which didn't immediately protest such a flagrantly illegal act, Kavanaugh is the best of a very bad lot.

That *probably* didn't happen, but it feels too truthy to discount altogether.
Click to expand...

No, I don't dismiss that Trump may view it that way. But I doubt that the GOP majority feels that way. What I think is they are concerned about maybe irrational so, that they could lose the Senate and not being able to get his replacement through and then the Democrats stonewalling any nominee as they did to Garland.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
If I gave you a quote of Trump saying the FBI had free rein, would it make a difference to you? What would it change about your worldview, finding that you were wrong on this question?
Click to expand...

What Trump said might not have anything nothing to do with the actual instructions the FBI were working from. I believe that the White House counsel transmitted the instructions to the FBI. It would make sense that the instructions would be in writing, too. So what anyone says may or may not match the written instructions.

Of course there would be a hypothetical motive for Trump to publicly say "free reign" while the actual instructions were not.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you want to make an argument for an alternative, then actually make it.
Click to expand...

That's easy: she was wrong.

Now, why should I believe that a lie is more likely?

So you're going with a semantic quibble about what counts as "direct", ignoring the fact that neither you nor they have ever actually interacted with Kavanaugh, and pretending as if actual interaction doesn't make any difference. Winner of an argument there, Belz.
Click to expand...

Do you spend any time reading and thinking about what you read before you reply? Because the above shows that at least in this instance you didn't. There's no semantic quibble. Whether I was in person to see Kavanaugh launch into an insane tirade, watching him live on TV or later on Youtube doesn't matter: it's the exact same data without filter. That's what "direct" means. You're the one trying to twist its meaning to support your interpretation.

First off, as I mentioned above, law professors have less experience with judges than trial lawyers, so if experience with judges is actually relevant then the petition wouldn't have been restricted to law profs. Second, people behave differently in different circumstances. To the extent that being a legal expert gives you unique insight into judicial behavior in court, it does not give you any unique insight into the behavior of judges outside of court. And this was absolutely outside of court.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...

Then stop using the ABA to support your claim.
 
Flake is a yes on confirmation.

The judge rejected Merkley's long shot.

Murkowski can be a token no, as Daines said he'll return by private jet from the wedding if his vote is needed. But if Manchin votes "yes" and no other Republicans switch he won't be needed, if my math is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom