New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[luchog]

Do you think Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito will also protect Trump? I find it highly doubtful. Are you aware of opinions from them that suggest that they would reverse the unanimous previous decisions saying the President is not immune from subpoenas?

Now maybe I'm missing something and am wrong. It takes more than Kavanaugh to reverse those decisions.

I think Gorsuch and Thomas will definitely fall in line behind Kavanaugh if it comes to protecting Trump from criminal investigation, at least while he's in office. Gorsuch has expressed an opinion in favour of shielding the president from prosecution; and Thomas knows what side his bread is buttered on if he wants to keep that backdoor money flowing in.

Roberts is another arch-conservative who has come down heavily on the far-right/pro-big-business side of nearly all issues up before him, including civil rights, extreme gerrymandering, campaign donations, and workers rights, as well as upholding Trump's Muslim ban. He'll definitely go along with Kavanaugh on presidential untouchability.

The only potential outlier I can see is Alito, who has dissented from the rest of the arch-conservatives on a small number of issues. However, his dissents have generally been more toward the scope of such rulings, rather than their import, so I think there's a better-than-even chance that he'll join with the rest of the conservative justices on such a ruling as long as he doesn't consider it overly broad.

 

[theprestige]

Hey, some other peolpe do it too so it's ok!

I would say it's more of a special pleading thing. That thread ran for two months without exciting your disapproval. Why is the behavior suddenly worth objecting to now?

 

[phiwum]

I know it's as if there's isn't a good way to be a sexual predator.

Let's be fair. We don't know with any certainty that the man didhwhat's alleged by Ford, and especially we don't know if this is part of his usual character (so that he's a "predator").

I've certainly reached the point that he shouldn't be confirmed, but I've not reached the point that I'm willing to call him a sexual predator. Could be so, no doubt, but it's a significant claim requiring a substantial burden of proof.

 

[phiwum]

Maybe you should ask these guys.

Neither group is behaving well.

 

[The Big Dog]

Leland Keyser told investigators that Monica McLean pressured her to "clarify" her statement that was key evidence against Blasey Ford!

Un-*******-believable!

 

[phiwum]

On the one hand I think Kavanaugh is horrible and definitely should not become a Supreme Court Justice. But OTOH, while his replacement nomination might not be a liar and a pig, he surely would be similar in his decisions.

So, it very well may be this is a case where the loser is the winner and vice versa. That this will stir up the women's vote leading to a bl Iue tidal wave. We will see.

Sure. The next nominee will be conservative, and the Dems can't prevent it.

I think that there's a principle regarding Kavanaugh. It's not a long term solution (the Democrats won't likely take the Senate and the nominee will be confirmed before then anyway). It's about this nominee.

 

[smartcooky]

Let's be fair. We don't know with any certainty that the man didhwhat's alleged by Ford, and especially we don't know if this is part of his usual character (so that he's a "predator").

I've certainly reached the point that he shouldn't be confirmed, but I've not reached the point that I'm willing to call him a sexual predator. Could be so, no doubt, but it's a significant claim requiring a substantial burden of proof.

Leland Keyser told investigators that Monica McLean pressured her to "clarify" her statement that was key evidence against Blasey Ford!

Un-*******-believable!

If Dr Christine Blasey Ford had accused and named a couple of black men of doing what she accused Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge of doing, those black men would already be convicted and in prison based only on her testimony.

 

[The Big Dog]

If Dr Christine Blasey Ford had accused and named a couple of black men of doing what she accused Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge of doing, those black men would already be convicted and in prison based only on her testimony.

You mean if she actually said something in 1982 or whatever?

Cool total way to ignore what i wrote, tho.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Until I doublechecked who wrote the above, I had honestly assumed it was one of our liberal fellows. Instead, it's a gloating and unapologetic so-called conservative.

(I say so-called because Trump isn't a conservative, though Kavanaugh is probably so.)

Still, good for you, ThePrestige. It's all a game, right? And when the other side wins, no matter. Just a game.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Flake said before the report came out that he would vote to confirm if there was no new corroborative evidence. After the report came out he said that there was no new corroborative evidence. I don't expect him to vote no. I forget exactly what she said, but Collins seemed to indicate she'd be a yes, too.

I'm watching a rerun of her testimony today. It's all about how awful the process is. She only looked at his legal history. She's ignoring everything else. She's a firm yes.

 

[theprestige]

Neither group is behaving well.

Hundred percent agree. I was inquiring about the nature of Belz...'s selective outrage.

ETA: Though perhaps "outrage" is too strong a word. It's not big enough to clear Belz...'s neighborhood. Maybe "dwarf outrage"?

 

[smartcooky]

Summary of the judiciary investigation. Note that they went above and beyond the call, particularly with Avenatti's latest stunt:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pr...y-of-senate-judiciary-committee-investigation

The Committee’s investigation, like the FBI supplemental background investigation, has found that there is no corroboration of the allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh.

Its pretty easy to come up with "no corroboration" when you

a. deliberately don't look for corroboration, and

b. ignore dozens of people who say they have corroborating statements to make

The so-called FBI investigation was a sham. They were never going to come up with anything when they were handcuffed and blindfolded from the outset, and then pushed down a narrow tunnel

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

If Dr Christine Blasey Ford had accused and named a couple of black men of doing what she accused Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge of doing, those black men would already be convicted and in prison based only on her testimony.

LOL. Get serious.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I would say it's more of a special pleading thing. That thread ran for two months without exciting your disapproval. Why is the behavior suddenly worth objecting to now?

Because that sort of blatant, not even trying to hide it "Whataboutism" is beneath you and not how you normally act.

You don't either play or tolerate "But the other side did..." in non-political threads. It's odd to see you so casually and comfortably use it here.

 

[acbytesla]

I think Gorsuch and Thomas will definitely fall in line behind Kavanaugh if it comes to protecting Trump from criminal investigation, at least while he's in office. Gorsuch has expressed an opinion in favour of shielding the president from prosecution; and Thomas knows what side his bread is buttered on if he wants to keep that backdoor money flowing in.

Roberts is another arch-conservative who has come down heavily on the far-right/pro-big-business side of nearly all issues up before him, including civil rights, extreme gerrymandering, campaign donations, and workers rights, as well as upholding Trump's Muslim ban. He'll definitely go along with Kavanaugh on presidential untouchability.

The only potential outlier I can see is Alito, who has dissented from the rest of the arch-conservatives on a small number of issues. However, his dissents have generally been more toward the scope of such rulings, rather than their import, so I think there's a better-than-even chance that he'll join with the rest of the conservative justices on such a ruling as long as he doesn't consider it overly broad.

Interesting, as I don't believe Roberts or Alito would protect Trump. Roberts decided Obamacare was correct. He has shown some respect for stare decisis and I don't think they would want to make the President, any President immune.

In fact, I have little reason to believe any of them outside of maybe Kavanaugh would although I have absolutely no idea about Gorsuch and Thomas.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's be fair. We don't know with any certainty that the man didhwhat's alleged by Ford, and especially we don't know if this is part of his usual character (so that he's a "predator").

I've certainly reached the point that he shouldn't be confirmed, but I've not reached the point that I'm willing to call him a sexual predator. Could be so, no doubt, but it's a significant claim requiring a substantial burden of proof.

What about the second accusation by Deborah Ramirez?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Leland Keyser told investigators that Monica McLean pressured her to "clarify" her statement that was key evidence against Blasey Ford!

Un-*******-believable!

Totally, entirely, and altogether believable. Hey, these people are Dimms so it's just par for the course -- Christine Fraud and her posse of radical-alt-left activists.

 

[The Big Dog]

Its pretty easy to come up with "no corroboration" when you

a. deliberately don't look for corroboration, and

b. ignore dozens of people who say they have corroborating statements to make

The so-called FBI investigation was a sham. They were never going to come up with anything when they were handcuffed and blindfolded from the outset, and then pushed down a narrow tunnel

Didn't read the summary or understand the fact that Ford's advisors were trying to get one actual witness to change her statement, and the contemporaneous ones? Did not corroborate.

Read the summary

 

[phiwum]

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.

I am sorry to hear that about Flake, a man I like and respect. I know that politically, he and Kavanaugh are peas in a pod, but I think Kavanaugh's grossly partisan performance last Thursday should turn a decent guy's opinion. (And Flake is a totally decent guy.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting, as I don't believe Roberts or Alito would protect Trump. Roberts decided Obamacare was correct. He has shown some respect for stare decisis and I don't think they would want to make the President, any President immune.

In fact, I have little reason to believe any of them outside of maybe Kavanaugh would although I have absolutely no idea about Gorsuch and Thomas.

Seems to me only Kavanaugh is beholden to Trump.