New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
The leftists were ina tizzy because some aide sitting behind the nominee was making the 'white power" sign. Sure she is the granddaughter of holocaust survivors and was merely crossing her arms. what a pack of clowns.
Click to expand...
Wut? The left's new face of the white power movement is a Mexican/Jew. Not surprising considering the last one was a British-born practicing Catholic of Greek/Jewish heritage who is openly gay and married to a black man. Clowns indeed.


Cory Booker's in on it as well:
picture.php
 
The Big Dog said:
The leftists were ina tizzy because some aide sitting behind the nominee was making the 'white power" sign. Sure she is the granddaughter of holocaust survivors and was merely crossing her arms. what a pack of clowns.
Click to expand...


"Kavanaugh’s former law clerk Zina Bash is flashing a white power sign behind him during his Senate confirmation hearing. They literally want to bring white supremacy to the Supreme Court. What a national outrage and a disgrace to the rule of law."
-- Eugene Gu, MD (Sept 4, 2018)


Zina Bash is Mexican on her mother’s side. Jewish on her father’s side. And apparently, a white supremacist on the inside. Okay! Oops, better change that to whatever.
 
Rubio's argument is that because we all knew a SCOTUS judge was in the balance with the 2016 election, and because Trump put out his Federalist list of candidates, therefore the US public voted a mandate for Trump's nominees.

I'm sorry alt-whiters, that ain't how it works. There was Russian interference, decades of false attacks against Clinton, misogyny, the EC, Trump's convincing con, and Comey's interference. Just because McConnell pulled some unethical shenanigans and claimed the election was going to be about the open SCOTUS seat, does not mean that was the one critical factor all voters were focused on. It disgusts me to hear yet more lies.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"Kavanaugh’s former law clerk Zina Bash is flashing a white power sign behind him during his Senate confirmation hearing. They literally want to bring white supremacy to the Supreme Court. What a national outrage and a disgrace to the rule of law."
-- Eugene Gu, MD (Sept 4, 2018)
Click to expand...


Leftist wack job, Eugene Gu, "said he was let go from his five-year residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) on Friday (June 8, 2018) after only 2 1/2 years into the program.

"Gu, a well-known figure on social media claimed the overarching reason Nashville's largest hospital decided not to renew his contract was because of his criticism of Trump on Twitter.

“They don't want that out there in the media. It’s troublesome to them, and so they punished me for it, said Gu."

-- The Hill (June 11, 2018)
 
Ziggurat said:
The senate doesn't care about transparency except to the extent that they can get political advantage from it.
Click to expand...

You don't think any politician cares even slightly about the erosion of democracy? Okay, then. I can see that nothing fruitful can possibly come from talking to you.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You don't think any politician cares even slightly about the erosion of democracy?
Click to expand...

In the abstract, probably. But self interest usually comes before principles. There may be exceptions, but don’t ever depend on it. If you want transparency, you have to make their self interest align with transparency, you can’t count on getting it absent that.
 
Let's put it this way - 4% of the documents have been released in any timely fashion. I think it's reasonable to expect that at least 1 politician may care just a little about that, and not just in the abstract.
 
theprestige said:
Oh no! Not an asterisk! Won't that totally invalidate all his judgements?
Click to expand...

Sure, that's an adorable remark.

Or, of course, you could wonder whether or not the proceedings should be postponed so that the data dump could be read.

I don't think it matters, practically speaking, one way or the other. He'll be confirmed before the midterms. But it does matter, in terms of basic decency, whether or not those who vote on his confirmation have time to review relevant documents.

Still. Great that you don't give a ****.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Does anyone really believe the Democrats (or the Republicans) care what is in those documents?
Click to expand...

Er, yes? I believe some folks care. Decent folks on both sides of the aisle should care, surely.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Because for the most part their minds were mind up before he was even nominated.
Click to expand...

I reckon that Dems know rejecting this nominee is a long shot. It's not like, oh, say, Obama's nominee who never received a hearing at all for no good reason aside from McConnell's very effective gamesmanship.

This guy will be confirmed. But there's nothing wrong with insisting that the opposing party has time to review relevant documents (and access to the same).
 
eeyore1954 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you think that Trump voters are the ultimate arbiters of what counts as a violation of the emoluments clause? That a large minority voted him into office means, eh, he can't be doing wrong by the Constitution?
 
Ziggurat said:
No, I do not object to that either. His judicial record is extensive and public. He's a conservative judge. If you're a liberal politician, that suffices to oppose him. Nothing objectionable about that. I object to pretending that your mind isn't made up when it already is, but I don't object to having already made up your mind.



It's funny the rationalizations you make for setting up a straw man. And you're in no position to lecture me about intellectual integrity.
Click to expand...

Hey, suppose my mind is made up. Suppose that I'm a senator totally committed to reject the nominee.

So what? Having more access to data which might support my decision might well convince others to agree with me. Whether or not I am committed to rejecting him has nothing to do with whether or not more information is better than less. I am one vote, but I want to have the data that might persuade other votes.
 
applecorped said:
Too low
Click to expand...

As low as committing perjury during a confirmation hearing about your role in crafting torture policy, then ruling on that policy you helped craft? Or as low as nominating someone just because they actually think a sitting president should never have to deal with any personal legal challenges?

It's sad how many Trump supporters hide behind pretending they aren't making arguments so they don't have to defend what, deep down, they know is indefensible. Pretending to have a principled objection to the Dems in Congress actually trying to do their damn job in order to violate your own principles and precedent is beyond morally and intellectually bankrupt. You know it is, but you want to hurt 'libs' and 'progs' more than protect the country or your own ideals.

You're turning a generation progressive through moronically (because it hurts yourself) cruel behavior.

Hell, you don't even have to get on my level; get back to the level you thought you were before Trump.
 
Mumbles said:
This reminds me of the argument that, somehow, Harry Reid "allowed" McConnell to throw out the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices.

They don't care about your asterisks, or your traditions. This GOP is about power. If they have to toss out rule of law, okay. If they have to side with ethnonationalists, they already did.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Reid's move did seem to set the stage for McConnell's move. I understand why he did it, but he totally made McConnell's move more palatable, and the greater shame for the nation.

Obama couldn't seat judges because of the obstruction by Republicans. That's why Trump, who has all three branches, is able to seat judges. The Reid nuclear option simply made things worse in this situation.
 
phiwum said:
Hey, suppose my mind is made up. Suppose that I'm a senator totally committed to reject the nominee.

So what? Having more access to data which might support my decision might well convince others to agree with me. Whether or not I am committed to rejecting him has nothing to do with whether or not more information is better than less. I am one vote, but I want to have the data that might persuade other votes.
Click to expand...

They aren't looking for themselves; they're looking to convince some (two) Republicans. I don't think at this point they're foolish enough to try to shame any of them, but I do think they're trying to find something a somewhat moral Republican could use as political cover to oppose the nomination.

That hypothetical Republican could cite the Republican's own arguments about nominations already, and if it is found that he did commit perjury during his initial confirmation provably, then this hypothetical Republican could make the argument 'we have plenty of good potential nominees who don't lie'.

Maybe. After what the GOP has shown itself to be, I doubt any living Republican would take that risk now. That GOP supporters are throwing such hypocritical shade at Dems for trying to do the most basic due diligence does not bode well for reasoning or shame working on them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom