New SCOTUS Judge

[Ziggurat]

That doesn't follow.

You are right that it doesn't follow, but it doesn't need to. It has been independently demonstrated by those Democratic senators who have already explicitly announced their uncategorical opposition to Kavanaugh.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Correction: they are concerned about Democratic overreach. When the overreach benefits them, it's ok. It's like Democratic itself, they're fine with it so long as it helps them. Otherwise, they have no problem bending it until it breaks, so long as they end up with most of the pieces.

ftfy

Moving on: The accusation of Judicial overreach has been a staple of Republican rhetoric anytime the Court ruled for or against a political position they didn't want.


Another note, watching the Senate hearing right now, Grassley is clearly angry.

One Republican went off on a "if the legislature did its job" rant not mentioning the legislature isn't doing its job because Ryan and McConnell are blocking votes on said legislation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does anyone really believe the Democrats (or the Republicans) care what is in those documents?

Yes. What is Trump hiding if it doesn't affect him directly?

 

[Distracted1]

You are right that it doesn't follow, but it doesn't need to. It has been independently demonstrated by those Democratic senators who have already explicitly announced their uncategorical opposition to Kavanaugh.

What is the point of our adversarial system if the struggle does not serve to drag uncomfortable truths into the light?

The desire of the Republicans to keep them hidden is in and of itself the best argument for their release and consideration.

 

[alfaniner]

Jesus Christ. I ******* hate Republican politicians.
(I will ETA to say "most".)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Big plot hole in Kennedy'S BS (the Republican one) that the SCOTUS isn't supposed to address legislation, that's Congress' job. Kennedy (the Republican one) apparently doesn't understand the check the SCOTUS is supposed to have over unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Zig: If there were information in those withheld documents that expressed the view the President can't break the law, the President is the law, do you consider that dirt?

Because my definition of political dirt is different than that.

How about if in those documents Kavanaugh expressed the opinion that Trump getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign leaders staying at his hotels was peachy? (There is an emoluments case in the court right now).

That's getting closer to dirt, IMO, but relevant dirt to the situation.

 

[eeyore1954]

Zig: If there were information in those withheld documents that expressed the view the President can't break the law, the President is the law, do you consider that dirt?

Because my definition of political dirt is different than that.

How about if in those documents Kavanaugh expressed the opinion that Trump getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign leaders staying at his hotels was peachy? (There is an emoluments case in the court right now).

That's getting closer to dirt, IMO, but relevant dirt to the situation.

Why would any of those documents contain anything like that?
Why wouldn't it be peachy?
He was elected knowing he owned a fancy hotel close to the White House and the Capital Building.

 

[Belz...]

They care to the extent that they're hoping to find dirt.

I'd be concerned if the people presenting or supporting a new Justice hopeful withheld years worth of information from me. We can be cynical and say they're being political, but since they'd oppose the move regardless, does it matter?

 

[Belz...]

ftfy

I don't understand your correction. I was talking about how people tend to respect democratic processes; more when it benefits them, and less when it doesn't. Far-right conservatives are a shrinking breed, and as they continue to reduce in numbers they're increasingly likely to seek anti-democratic ways to acquire or keep power.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why would any of those documents contain anything like that?
Why wouldn't it be peachy?
He was elected knowing he owned a fancy hotel close to the White House and the Capital Building.

well considering he has been on the Bench since 2006 I am going to go ahead and confidently predict there are zero such documents in his papers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would any of those documents contain anything like that?
Why wouldn't it be peachy?

I was merely pointing out that one man's dirt can be another man's politically important information.

Framing the issue as looking for dirt on Kavanaugh precludes the fact there might be important information to know.

Can you think of anything that would motivate Trump to take the unusual step of declaring 'executive privilege' over materials from Bush's administration? (BTW GW said he had no objection to release of the documents.)

WTF is he hiding? That's how I frame it. Framing it as looking for dirt suggests there is dirt.

He was elected knowing he owned a fancy hotel close to the White House and the Capital Building.

Yes, and Trump made promises how he would avoid profiting from his position which he did not keep.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't understand your correction. I was talking about how people tend to respect democratic processes; more when it benefits them, and less when it doesn't. Far-right conservatives are a shrinking breed, and as they continue to reduce in numbers they're increasingly likely to seek anti-democratic ways to acquire or keep power.

Democrat with a capital D is a noun. The adjective form of the noun is Democratic.

On the second word, I can't figure out any proper version of it that fits. "Democrat itself" makes no grammatical sense. 'Democrats themselves' would work.

 

[The Big Dog]

Executive Privilege is based on the separation of powers and Bush himself asserted it on behalf of Clinton/Janet Reno.

 

[tyr_13]

They care to the extent that they're hoping to find dirt. But they've already made the decision to oppose him regardless of what's in those documents. They aren't waiting for information from those documents in order to make their decision.

This objection is meaningless.

They're correct to oppose him based on what we currently know anyway, so your objection to them not requesting these documents 'in good faith' has two points making it meaningless.

well considering he has been on the Bench since 2006 I am going to go ahead and confidently predict there are zero such documents in his papers.

As one of the MAJOR issues with him is that it looks like he committed perjury to Congress when he was being confirmed in 2006 in direct relationship to his activities during the Bush admin (a judge should NOT be ruling on policy they helped create), your confidence based on those data points is moronic.

The better bet is there is nothing in there on that because they refused to release anything that might hurt the nomination.

 

[alfaniner]

What is really shameful is that these beginning hours (of many to come) are taken up with discussion of procedure because precedent has not been followed, and information is being withheld.

The time should be spent discussing his qualifications, not the request for info about his qualifications.

 

[The Big Dog]

This objection is meaningless.

They're correct to oppose him based on what we currently know anyway, so your objection to them not requesting these documents 'in good faith' has two points making it meaningless.



As one of the MAJOR issues with him is that it looks like he committed perjury to Congress when he was being confirmed in 2006 in direct relationship to his activities during the Bush admin (a judge should NOT be ruling on policy they helped create), your confidence based on those data points is moronic.

The better bet is there is nothing in there on that because they refused to release anything that might hurt the nomination.

GOLLY GEE!!! You think there was some opinions about the president leasing out a hotel from when he worked for BUSH!

That is totes amazing and as always I learn ever so much from the posters here.

How did you hear about the Dear W, Buy W Hotels memo, Love Brett with two TT's memo.

Golly so much information.

 

[d4m10n]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4738581/592006-schumer-do-roe-v-wade-abomination

That answer is totally irrelevant as to how he'd behave on the Supreme Court.

 

[alfaniner]

Geez, even here they're playing the Hillary card.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is really shameful is that these beginning hours (of many to come) are taken up with discussion of procedure because precedent has not been followed, and information is being withheld.

The time should be spent discussing his qualifications, not the request for info about his qualifications.

Because they have so little time?