New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[plague311]

- Impeaching a SCOTUS Judge is even more new territory then Impeaching a President, having only happened on (1804, Samuel Chase, charges of allowing partisanship to influence decisions, acquitted by the Senate and remain in office).

- I'm not sure if another impeachment is the best image for the Dems right now, but whatever.

I'm running out of ideas on what the Dems can do because it constantly seems like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario. A large portion of the Dem base want them to take action, to hold the president accountable because he repeatedly seems to get away with breaking the law. We also have a portion of the base saying not to impeach, and not to investigate because it's childish.

So what the **** can they actually do? Up to this point all I hear is, "wait to vote him out". Well, what the hell? So we just allow someone to do whatever the hell they want because in today's random ass atmosphere punishing a president for blatant law violations is not the best image? However, being a massive bitch that just lets this **** happen in plain sight is somehow encouraging for voters?

I'm so ******* lost in today's political atmosphere it's just mind boggling.

 

[Upchurch]

Would you describe the authors of the NYT story as "some random third-hand yahoos"? Because Mollie Hemingway is no more of a random third-hand yahoo than they are. Yet you find them worth paying attention to, and want to ignore her.

I did what now? Are you confusing me for someone else?

 

[Segnosaur]

- Impeaching a SCOTUS Judge is even more new territory then Impeaching a President, having only happened on (1804, Samuel Chase, charges of allowing partisanship to influence decisions, acquitted by the Senate and remain in office).

- I'm not sure if another impeachment is the best image for the Dems right now, but whatever.

There's no good answer for that.

Its possible that launching impeachment proceedings against Kavenaugh will lead to some fatigue among the electorate, and/or the suggestion that the democrats are just 'wasting time' (especially since its unlikely for the Republicans in the senate to go along with impeachment)

Or its possible that the publicity surrounding a potential Kavenaugh impeachment will help bolster the Democrat's chances in 2020 (especially in places like Maine, where Susan Collins may have lost a significant amount of support over her confirmation vote for Drunky McRapeface.) Reminding people that "If you vote Republican you can get more drunken frat-boys as judges who commit perjury" may swing a few votes their way.

 

[plague311]

Its possible that launching impeachment proceedings against Kavenaugh will lead to some fatigue among the electorate, and/or the suggestion that the democrats are just 'wasting time' (especially since its unlikely for the Republicans in the senate to go along with impeachment)

This is one of the things that's boggled me the most. Isn't this literally the House's job? Don't they do oversight? So how is this wasting their time unless these investigations have stopped them from passing bills, but as Pelosi said earlier. They've passed bills and the Senate is doing nothing to bring them to the table. If either of the stages of congress are wasting time it's the senate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

All I'm saying is if it doesn't matter if we impeach Kavenaugh now. If we do but don't make gains in 2020 they'll just nominate someone equally as bad and nothing the Democrats can do will stop it because they have no functional power to do anything right now.

The Republicans are holding all the cards right now. I can't make that not true. I'll never understand why I'm treating like the enemy or traitor for just pointing out we have to get back into some level of power and then do something.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//ETA: Hey is this thread getting slow and laggy for anyone else?//

 

[Segnosaur]

Its possible that launching impeachment proceedings against Kavenaugh will lead to some fatigue among the electorate, and/or the suggestion that the democrats are just 'wasting time' (especially since its unlikely for the Republicans in the senate to go along with impeachment)

This is one of the things that's boggled me the most. Isn't this literally the House's job? Don't they do oversight? So how is this wasting their time unless these investigations have stopped them from passing bills, but as Pelosi said earlier. They've passed bills and the Senate is doing nothing to bring them to the table. If either of the stages of congress are wasting time it's the senate.

Yes, they're supposed to. And in an ideal world, Kavanaugh would already be impeached for Perjury (or better yet, would never have been nominated for the court.)

But, its not an ideal world, and it all depends on the perceptions of the voters, who may not be familiar with all the ins and outs of congressional responsibility.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did what now? Are you confusing me for someone else?

Most definitely not. You referred to someone as a "random third-hand yahoo on twitter". I concluded (I think reasonably even if not correctly) that you were referring to Mollie Hemingway:

Twitter isn't the source, Mollie Hemingway is. And I've since seen screenshots of the page from the book in question, a book by the same authors as the NYT piece. So really, they're the actual source. Feel free to dismiss them, though. They have given us every reason to.

Then provide those. Some random third-hand yahoo on twitter is not a source.

Perhaps you were referring to someone else, but it really doesn't matter anymore. My original claim, that the NYT piece left out a crucial bit of information which casts serious doubt on the story, is now well established by the NYT's own correction.

 

[Cabbage]

All I'm saying is if it doesn't matter if we impeach Kavenaugh now. If we do but don't make gains in 2020 they'll just nominate someone equally as bad and nothing the Democrats can do will stop it because they have no functional power to do anything right now.

The Republicans are holding all the cards right now. I can't make that not true. I'll never understand why I'm treating like the enemy or traitor for just pointing out we have to get back into some level of power and then do something.

We shouldn't discard possible strategies because this or that may happen. You can't claim impeaching Kavanaugh doesn't matter because if Trump wins in 2020 it will make no difference: If we DON'T impeach Kavanaugh now it won't make a difference whether Trump wins or not, but there is a potential positive for D's if they impeach Kavanaugh.

By the way, I'm not actually arguing for or against impeachment, I'm just arguing against "learned helplessness" type pessimism. There are outcomes other than Trump winning again.

 

[Upchurch]

Most definitely not. You referred to someone as a "random third-hand yahoo on twitter". I concluded (I think reasonably even if not correctly) that you were referring to Mollie Hemingway:



Perhaps you were referring to someone else, but it really doesn't matter anymore. My original claim, that the NYT piece left out a crucial bit of information which casts serious doubt on the story, is now well established by the NYT's own correction.

Who is Mollie Hemingway?

 

[applecorped]

lol

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who is Mollie Hemingway?

One of those bog-standard mostly online talking heads who swear up and down they totally don't support Trump but is by some amazing coincidence loudly on his side in every possible discussion.

 

[plague311]

All I'm saying is if it doesn't matter if we impeach Kavenaugh now. If we do but don't make gains in 2020 they'll just nominate someone equally as bad and nothing the Democrats can do will stop it because they have no functional power to do anything right now.

My point is, how is ignoring or not taking any action with regards to the blatant law\rules\norms violations going to help them get back into a position of power? I'm not your average voter I suppose, in that I'm not going to condone the party I most closely align with sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing simply because it's politically beneficial (or at least that's the claim, I find it hard to believe I'm the only one).

The Republicans are holding all the cards right now.

Other than that one house of Congress that does the investigating\oversight.

I can't make that not true. I'll never understand why I'm treating like the enemy or traitor for just pointing out we have to get back into some level of power and then do something.

No one is treating you like the bad guy, I have a different opinion than you do. I haven't insulted or demeaned you, or anything even close. I disagree that sitting on their hands until, maybe, they get a position of power isn't logical. We don't even know IF the Dems will get more power in the next election. So what if they sit on their hands, and then nothing changes, and we're back in the same position? What if they move ahead with impeachment and it encourages the voters in America that at least one political party is after justice? I don't care about Kavanaugh at this point. He's a piece of ****, but that was known already. This is just one of many times now it's said the Dems should shut up, put their head down, and wait until the next election. If people lose faith in a do-nothing party and don't vote, then why even bother showing up to vote just to put more spineless do-nothings in office?

 

[Upchurch]

One of those bog-standard mostly online talking heads who swear up and down they totally don't support Trump but is by some amazing coincidence loudly on his side in every possible discussion.

In other words, some random yahoo providing a third-hand opinion on twitter with no editorial review and no particular authoritative perspective or knowledge.

 

[Ziggurat]

Who is Mollie Hemingway?

Who are Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly?

 

[JoeMorgue]

My point is, how is ignoring or not taking any action with regards to the blatant law\rules\norms violations going to help them get back into a position of power? I'm not your average voter I suppose, in that I'm not going to condone the party I most closely align with sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing simply because it's politically beneficial (or at least that's the claim, I find it hard to believe I'm the only one).

(respectful snip)

No one is treating you like the bad guy, I have a different opinion than you do. I haven't insulted or demeaned you, or anything even close. I disagree that sitting on their hands until, maybe, they get a position of power isn't logical. We don't even know IF the Dems will get more power in the next election. So what if they sit on their hands, and then nothing changes, and we're back in the same position? What if they move ahead with impeachment and it encourages the voters in America that at least one political party is after justice? I don't care about Kavanaugh at this point. He's a piece of ****, but that was known already. This is just one of many times now it's said the Dems should shut up, put their head down, and wait until the next election. If people lose faith in a do-nothing party and don't vote, then why even bother showing up to vote just to put more spineless do-nothings in office?

Long story short, I disagree in very strong terms that "just doing something" is risk free or even risk unlikely.

Other than that one house of Congress that does the investigating\oversight.

Right now the House is functionally useless. It's a cop that can instigate but never prosecute.

 

[Upchurch]

Who are Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly?

I have no idea. Did you cite them, too?

 

[Ziggurat]

In other words, some random yahoo providing a third-hand opinion on twitter with no editorial review and no particular authoritative perspective or knowledge.

First, editorial review? What editorial review? Haven't you heard about the correction the NYT had to issue on this story?

Second, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. The contents of the book are as Hemingway described. She had an actual copy of the book, so it's not third hand either.

Lastly, as for authoritative perspective, what makes you think Pogrebin and Kelly are authoritative? Because they wrote a book? That makes them authors, but is that your standard for authoritative?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no idea.

Exactly my point.

Did you cite them, too?

Yes, I suppose I did. But I'm not the first to do so.

 

[plague311]

Long story short, I disagree in very strong terms that "just doing something" is risk free or even risk unlikely.

And your opinion on the flip side of that? Doing absolutely nothing and just watching with baited breath in hopes that enough people are encouraged by a do-nothing party to vote even more of them into power?

Right now the House is functionally useless. It's a cop that can instigate but never prosecute.

Like I said, there is absolutely nothing that will work then. It's just a wash, why even bother doing anything unless you control every branch of Congress? Is there even a point?