New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[theprestige]

What you said is:


The Senate was never even allowed to "decide," that is, to vote, on Garland. Different rules for Dems and Repubs, eh?

Begging the question that "deciding" narrowly means "voting". In fact, by the Senate's own rules - agreed upon by the Senate itself in full exercise of their constitutional authority - the decision process includes several steps. Voting is one of those steps, and is not required if the Senate concludes the deciding process at an earlier step in accordance with its own rules on the subject.

---

And with respect to Zig, I don't actually have a problem with either party cockblocking SC confirmations this way, in general.

 

[theprestige]

I mean, the Senate could certainly agree on a rule that said that judicial nominees automatically pass through committee to a straight confirmation vote, if they thought that was a better way to handle the confirmation process.

 

[Cabbage]

Wow, that's some weak sauce. The first one, regarding drinking, there is no contradiction. They don't cite anyone saying Kavanaugh passed out or blacked out from drinking.

The second one, seriously? That's what you care about? How Kavanaugh defined "boofing"? Do you have even the slightest clue how ridiculous this makes the entire anti-Kavanaugh movement sound to normal people? And you think this is the path to electoral success?

I stand by my point. It not only hurts his credibility, it also indicates that he feels he needs to hide things from his youth for some reason.

But I wouldn't expect an apologist boy like you to think through all that.

Regarding there being no contradiction in the first one:

"I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth," Chad Ludington said in a statement to CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/yale-kavanaugh-drinking/index.html

 

[Cabbage]

Wow, that's some weak sauce. The first one, regarding drinking, there is no contradiction. They don't cite anyone saying Kavanaugh passed out or blacked out from drinking.

The second one, seriously? That's what you care about? How Kavanaugh defined "boofing"? Do you have even the slightest clue how ridiculous this makes the entire anti-Kavanaugh movement sound to normal people? And you think this is the path to electoral success?

And LOL! I learned today that you're actually OK with certain forms of perjury.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Ziggurat]

Regarding there being no contradiction in the first one:

That's not contained in your first link. And it's a he said/he said scenario, layered on top of subjective evaluations. That's not even remotely close to getting you to perjury.

And LOL! I learned today that you're actually OK with certain forms of perjury.

First off, my personal opinion doesn't really matter much compared to how the electorate in general will respond, and if you think voters are going to care about how Kavanaugh defined "boof", I think you're in for a rude awakening. Whether they are right or wrong to be indifferent won't change whether or not they are indifferent.

And second, you haven't established that it is perjury. You've only established that you're so desperate to prove perjury that you're obsessing about the meaning of the work "boof", which is just ridiculous. And you still don't have a case, since there are in fact documented independent uses of the word to mean flatulence.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Oh noes, Cabbage said mean things about me. Whatever shall I do. Really, Cabbage, this is even sadder than your pretense that you're constantly laughing like a deranged lunatic.

 

[Cabbage]

That's not contained in your first link.

LOL! So? You didn't say Simon Sez, either.

And it's a he said/he said scenario, layered on top of subjective evaluations. That's not even remotely close to getting you to perjury.

You should probably get over your astonishment and the offense you've obviously taken and.....simply read the rest of my post.

First off, my personal opinion doesn't really matter much compared to how the electorate in general will respond, and if you think voters are going to care about how Kavanaugh defined "boof", I think you're in for a rude awakening. Whether they are right or wrong to be indifferent won't change whether or not they are indifferent.

You're taking it out of context, you disingenuously (surprise surprise! ) ignore why the investigation was being held in the first place. Lots of people did indeed care about that.

And your personal opinion matters quite a bit to me: I'm amused by how clearly it demonstrates your disingenuity and complete inability to honestly engage in a debate. It would be a complete waste of time for me to engage with me were it not for the fact that it amuses me so.

And second, you haven't established that it is perjury. You've only established that you're so desperate to prove perjury that you're obsessing about the meaning of the work "boof", which is just ridiculous. And you still don't have a case, since there are in fact documented independent uses of the word to mean flatulence.

And you still missed my entire point. I never said it established perjury. I quote from my very own post:

Can I prove he committed perjury? No.

I'm curious: Are you this dishonest with everyone or am I just special that way?

Oh noes, Cabbage said mean things about me. Whatever shall I do. Really, Cabbage, this is even sadder than your pretense that you're constantly laughing like a deranged lunatic.

I tell you these things not to mock you. It really is the absolute truth. You're disingenuous and dishonest "debater". It comes through rather clearly. I feel confident that many here would back me up on that, in fact.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you still missed my entire point. I never said it established perjury.

No, but you did claim he committed perjury, provably or not. But you don't really have anything solid to support even that suspicion.

I tell you these things not to mock you. It really is the absolute truth. You're disingenuous and dishonest "debater". It comes through rather clearly. I feel confident that many here would back me up on that, in fact.

Argument ad populum? I wonder which fallacy you'll go to next.

But it's more than a little ironic to see you calling me dishonest after you got so excited by an accusation where the alleged victim doesn't remember anything of the sort happening.

 

[applecorped]

Oh noes, Cabbage said mean things about me. Whatever shall I do. Really, Cabbage, this is even sadder than your pretense that you're constantly laughing like a deranged lunatic.

 

[Cabbage]

No, but you did claim he committed perjury, provably or not. But you don't really have anything solid to support even that suspicion.

Evidence enough (along with all the other issues) to disqualify him from the Supreme Court, yes.

Argument ad populum? I wonder which fallacy you'll go to next.

Actually, it wasn't intended as an argument, just a passing comment. Do you want to "debate" on whether or not you are a dishonest, disingenuous "debater". Because I'm prepared to go down that path if you need me to.

But it's more than a little ironic to see you calling me dishonest after you got so excited by an accusation where the alleged victim doesn't remember anything of the sort happening.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Bob001]

No, but you did claim he committed perjury, provably or not. But you don't really have anything solid to support even that suspicion.
....

Proof? Probably not. But plenty of grounds for suspicion.

On Thursday, after listening to testimony from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, several Republican senators said they would vote to confirm the nominee because it’s impossible to determine which witness—Ford or Kavanaugh—is telling the truth. Actually, it’s easy. We don’t know for certain whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford. But we do know that Kavanaugh lied repeatedly in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are some of his lies.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-lied-senate-judiciary-committee.html

Plus:
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...rs-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...vswc2X8s6aULLYa2H6781KXwWx9u8ufbLcPcO0Cc-r0HR
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

If the Trumpers want to claim that Kavanaugh's lies don't matter as long as he votes their way, fine. But it's a lie itself to claim he's never told anything but the unadorned truth.

 

[xjx388]

Bork (and Clarence Thomas) were uniquely controversial. Most nominees in the modern era -- including Rehnquist and Scalia -- were confirmed by substantial, bipartisan majorities. And some presidents had the sense to withdraw unfit nominees like Harold Carswell and Harriet Miers before the Senate considered them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States



And the United States Senate is not -- or at least isn't supposed to be -- a rubber stamp. That's something else that has changed under Trump.

I’m not sure how you get to your conclusion. A unanimous or large majority vote for a nominee is more of a rubber stamp than what happened with Kavanaugh. So it sounds like the Senate has pretty much rubber stamped nominees in the recent past except for Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh.

 

[quadraginta]

I’m not sure how you get to your conclusion. A unanimous or large majority vote for a nominee is more of a rubber stamp than what happened with Kavanaugh. So it sounds like the Senate has pretty much rubber stamped nominees in the recent past except for Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh.

Not at all. A large majority only demonstrates that Senators, irrespective of party loyalty or ideology, find the nominee to be acceptable.

It is when one party votes in favor based primarily on their party loyalty or ideology instead of their actual belief in the fitness of the nominee that you have a rubber-stamp.

Which do you believe the vote for Drunky McRapeface, or Bork, or Thomas was more indicative of?

 

[Lurch]

I’m not sure how you get to your conclusion. A unanimous or large majority vote for a nominee is more of a rubber stamp than what happened with Kavanaugh. So it sounds like the Senate has pretty much rubber stamped nominees in the recent past except for Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh.

When *opposing* parties not operating under unusual external stressors largely agree on an issue, that's pretty much the antithesis of a rubber stamp. Such an external stressor would be, say, a military attack on the nation. Then we might see the normally 'peacenik' crowd join with the 'hawks' in voting to militarily hit back. That *could* be called a rubber stamp decision. Maybe.

A better example would arise when the voting body, in whole or in part, has fear of acting against that which is expected of them. Such as occurs routinely in despotic nations maintaining a risible veneer of suffrage.

Trump's vassals are in this same sort of pickle, the fear being of raising the Orange One's ire and thence facing a primary challenge (thankfully not a concentration camp--yet.) This naturally leads to the probability of voting against conscience, and hence acting as a rubber stamp. Those who do not want to carry on in this deplorable manner tend to just throw in the towel. Demonstrating moral cowardice and/or the degrading Party-over-Country infection of the soul.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Trump's vassals are in this same sort of pickle, the fear being of raising the Orange One's ire and thence facing a primary challenge (thankfully not a concentration camp--yet.) This naturally leads to the probability of voting against conscience, and hence acting as a rubber stamp. Those who do not want to carry on in this deplorable manner tend to just throw in the towel. Demonstrating moral cowardice and/or the degrading Party-over-Country infection of the soul.

Trump has been rather visibly honing his concentration camp skills, so I can understand a certain apprehension on their part regarding that.

 

[Ziggurat]

A better example would arise when the voting body, in whole or in part, has fear of acting against that which is expected of them. Such as occurs routinely in despotic nations maintaining a risible veneer of suffrage.

Trump's vassals are in this same sort of pickle, the fear being of raising the Orange One's ire and thence facing a primary challenge (thankfully not a concentration camp--yet.) This naturally leads to the probability of voting against conscience, and hence acting as a rubber stamp.

Yeah, like when a state Republican caucus censures their senator for not always voting the party line.

Oh, wait, that was Arizona Democrats.

Trump has been rather visibly honing his concentration camp skills, so I can understand a certain apprehension on their part regarding that.

The people who say things like this never actually believe it. Their own behavior betrays that they have no fear of being put in a concentration camp because of politically opposing Trump. Nor should they, it’s a ridiculous claim.

 

[Belz...]

So Merrick Garland should have been confirmed, right?

He said the president should pick. He didn't say the senate should confirm.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, like when a state Republican caucus censures their senator for not always voting the party line.

Oh, wait, that was Arizona Democrats.

You're not great at this.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're not great at this.

And you haven't been paying attention.
https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d8/6d/c1b0d54d4d89977acc4ca432cd7e/edited-sinema-censure.pdf

Now which one of those happened during Trump's presidency?

 

[johnny karate]

And you haven't been paying attention.
https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d8/6d/c1b0d54d4d89977acc4ca432cd7e/edited-sinema-censure.pdf

Now which one of those happened during Trump's presidency?

I am paying attention.

Liked when you sarcastically implied that state Republican caucuses don't censure their members for not always voting the party line:

Yeah, like when a state Republican caucus censures their senator for not always voting the party line.

Oh, wait, that was Arizona Democrats.

When in fact, they do. In that same state.

 

[Cabbage]

And you haven't been paying attention.
https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d8/6d/c1b0d54d4d89977acc4ca432cd7e/edited-sinema-censure.pdf

Now which one of those happened during Trump's presidency?

Ah, the old cherry picking strategy of "Ima focus on Democrat issues and forbid you to bring up Republican issues. It's the only way I can make a point!!".

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.