New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[quadraginta]

It wasn't an interview at that point. Furthermore, he wasn't playing to you. You weren't his target audience. Your opinion didn't matter. Among the people whose opinion he needed to sway, his performance worked. You may not like that, but objectively speaking, successfully playing to the audience that matters isn't disqualifying for any job.

What audience was he playing to, the ones who already wanted him on the court? How would that performance make anyone think he was more suitable than they already did?

It was a hearing to determine his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. In a matter of minutes he made it clear that he isn't.

This is true whether he was "playing to the audience" or not.

And that "playing to the audience" excuse sounds an awful lot like the, "He's not being serious." apologia that Trump cultists would drag out whenever he was opening his mouth just to change feet.

 

[Ziggurat]

What audience was he playing to, the ones who already wanted him on the court?

No. The few senators who were wavering and their swing voters.

It was a hearing to determine his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. In a matter of minutes he made it clear that he isn't.

Opinions on the matter obviously differ.

And that "playing to the audience" excuse sounds an awful lot like the, "He's not being serious." apologia that Trump cultists would drag out whenever he was opening his mouth just to change feet.

I never said anything about him not being serious.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm pretty sure that keeping a conservative justice off the Supreme Court represents a substantial gain for a lot of progressives.

I'm pretty sure that keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court wouldn't keep some other conservative off the Supreme Court. Even if the Dems manage to get the Senate in November.

Maybe, just maybe, they wanted to keep this conservative off the Supreme Court, as opposed to one whose loyalty was to the law, rather than to the Party.

 

[quadraginta]

Who said that he wasn't actually angry? Nobody. Honestly, this is one of your weakest attempts at a counter-argument.

Furthermore, so far nobody has even said that he shouldn't be angry if the charges are false. People have only complained that he showed that he was angry. Supposedly this demonstrates a lack of self-control, which is the basis for the argument that it's disqualifying, NOT the fact that he was angry.

<snip>

It isn't that he was angry, it's the way he demonstrated that anger, as well as the targets he chose while doing it.

Someone can demonstrate their anger without blubbering, acting like a spoiled child, and invoking conspiracy theories.

That sort of self-restraint is is a quality which should be expected of a SCOTUS candidate, not hand-waved away when its absence is apparent.

 

[quadraginta]

Does Jesus approve of barbecuing Dr Ford?

Everyone's Jesus is not the same.

 

[Mike!]

Everyone's Jesus is not the same.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No. The few senators who were wavering and their swing voters.

I think he actually made it harder for them. A more composed response would have made it an easier "he said/she said" toss up for those wavering.

But he endeared himself to Trump, so there's that.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I am totally confused by the Truck in that video. The grill looks like a jeep XJ product but the door shot is clearly a full sized truck like a Series 1 Dodge Ram (even has the door paint not matching the body paint, a classic sign of Dodge Quality). The Jeep full size pickups from that period had a completely different grill from the XJs. So confusing. Probably had something to do with all the beer Bart and I were drinking back then.

 

[Paul2]

WAY behind the curve (= late) on this reply, sorry if it duplicates another reply.

They can understand for every action they take, there is a reaction or consequence. Not everything is an entitlement in this world.

Favoring free contraception need not be supported on the basis that the users are entitled to it, or that it is an entitlement. The basis for supporting it, that others have mentioned, is that it is beneficial to *everyone* because everyone as a whole (society) does not need to deal with the harmful consequences of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

It's a matter of societal self-defense, not gifting something to someone else.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Favoring free contraception need not be supported on the basis that the users are entitled to it, or that it is an entitlement. The basis for supporting it, that others have mentioned, is that it is beneficial to *everyone* because everyone as a whole (society) does not need to deal with the harmful consequences of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

It's a matter of societal self-defense, not gifting something to someone else.

That this still has to be explained is sad.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think he actually made it harder for them. A more composed response would have made it an easier "he said/she said" toss up for those wavering.

I keep hearing this argument, but everyone who is advancing it opposed his nomination from the beginning. I don't see actual evidence that it's true, that he actually hurt his chances in any way.

 

[Mike!]

I am totally confused by the Truck in that video. The grill looks like a jeep XJ product but the door shot is clearly a full sized truck like a Series 1 Dodge Ram (even has the door paint not matching the body paint, a classic sign of Dodge Quality). The Jeep full size pickups from that period had a completely different grill from the XJs. So confusing. Probably had something to do with all the beer Bart and I were drinking back then.

Perhaps I can help with that. It's a third generation Dodge, D series (1972-80), with the grill blacked out in an odd fashion. The recessed door handle is a pretty distinctive feature.

 

[Ziggurat]

Favoring free contraception need not be supported on the basis that the users are entitled to it, or that it is an entitlement. The basis for supporting it, that others have mentioned, is that it is beneficial to *everyone* because everyone as a whole (society) does not need to deal with the harmful consequences of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

It's a matter of societal self-defense, not gifting something to someone else.

It may surprise you to find out that in the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court did not actually rule on whether the government had a compelling interest in providing access to birth control. This is what they said:

We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-mental interest.”
...
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.​

In other words, the conservative wing of the court has already accepted government-provided birth control as constitutional. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the liberal wing wouldn't have a problem with that either. Birth control isn't about to be denied to people by this court.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I keep hearing this argument, but everyone who is advancing it opposed his nomination from the beginning. I don't see actual evidence that it's true, that he actually hurt his chances in any way.

His chances were ultimately not hurt because those who voted for him would have voted for him even if he had chugged a forty and pissed all over the desk before walking out of the hearing.

But that certainly wouldn't have made it easier for them to vote for him. Flake had to push for an investigation because the testimony was not enough to close the door on the issue. Graham had to interrupt the proceedings because Kav was doing such a poor job. He was amateurish, but he was their amateur and they had already invested too much to admit that he was an amateur.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Perhaps I can help with that. It's a third generation Dodge, D series (1972-80), with the grill blacked out in an odd fashion. The recessed door handle is a pretty distinctive feature.

I was going to mention that it could have just been a weird grill mod. I think you are right. That square grid grill was ugly enough that it needed some mods. And good catch on the handle, those dodges were so timeless, they hardly changed at all for more than 20 years, it seemed. Brett and I used to fill the bed with kegs. You could fit six if you were trying to keep them below the top of the bed.

 

[sylvan8798]

They can understand for every action they take, there is a reaction or consequence.

This is a law of physics, not a law or principle of society, or of human interaction, or of anything else for that matter.

 

[Paul2]

It may surprise you to find out that in the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court did not actually rule on whether the government had a compelling interest in providing access to birth control. This is what they said:

We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA, and we will proceed to consider the final prong of the RFRA test, i.e., whether HHS has shown that the contraceptive mandate is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-mental interest.”
...
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.​

In other words, the conservative wing of the court has already accepted government-provided birth control as constitutional. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the liberal wing wouldn't have a problem with that either. Birth control isn't about to be denied to people by this court.

My point didn't have anything to do with the court or the legality of providing birth control. My point was purely that the basis for favoring free birth control wasn't necessarily that those using birth control are entitled to it, which was the rationale that you [ETA: It was River, actually, I think] were critiquing. There is another rational basis for favoring free birth control (it is to the benefit of society as a whole, as means or pro-active minimizing the harm of not having widespread, accessible birth control).

 

[Meadmaker]

However character is a matter to consider in appointing a judge so in his case it is not a "personal attack" in the sense you were using it.

It is exactly a "personal attack" in the sense I was using it.

We could call it some other term if "personal attack" carries some sort of connotation people don't like. Maybe we could call it a "character attack", or something. It wouldn't change what it was.

The point I was making was still the same. By introducing those issues at the last minute, it guaranteed that those attacks would be what is remembered about this confirmation process, and I would also remind people that in the single successful challenge of a Supreme Court nominee in my lifetime, no personal attacks, by whatever name they are called, were needed. Robert Bork was rejected based on how he was likely to behave as a judge, not what he did in high school.


My suspicion is that Brett Kavanaugh will be the same sort of justice that Robert Bork would have been, i.e. a right wing judicial activist. Had the Democrats pushed that point, I think it is unlikely that the outcome would have been any different, but at least they would not have looked so awful on television.

 

[quadraginta]

I keep hearing this argument, but everyone who is advancing it opposed his nomination from the beginning. I don't see actual evidence that it's true, that he actually hurt his chances in any way.

It isn't about whether it did hurt his chances of being appointed. That was unlikely no matter what he did, in view of the adamantine support he had from the GOP.

It is that it should have, and such support simply exposed the raw party politics of his nomination. The Republicans never had any concern about whether or not he would be a good candidate, only that he would be one compliant to their power hungry agenda, no matter what the cost to rule of law.

 

[sylvan8798]

It isn't about whether it did hurt his chances of being appointed. That was unlikely no matter what he did, in view of the adamantine support he had from the GOP.

It is that it should have, and such support simply exposed the raw party politics of his nomination. The Republicans never had any concern about whether or not he would be a good candidate, only that he would be one compliant to their power hungry agenda, no matter what the cost to rule of law.

Personally, I have at least a nanogram more respect for those who basically said straight out that it didn't matter what he did in his past over those like Susan Collins who said they believed Dr. Ford but didn't believe that it was actually Brett Kavanaugh. At least they are having some honesty about it, however minute.