New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
johnny karate said:
"Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law."

Money to pay potential fines =/= compensation for protesting.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure clearly explaining the same facts makes any difference to certain alt-right worlders.
 
dudalb said:
According to the WAPO, the emails Booker leaked had been cleared for release, he just jumped the gun a little.
This will make expulsion almost impossible ( I never thought it was a realistic possibility anyway). On the other hand, it does make it look like Booker was indulging in a little bit of grandstanding.
Click to expand...

I saw that whole exchange. Made me wonder if Grassley wasn't just covering his ass because there was no good reason those emails should have been confidential. Yesterday they had a big exchange, first they complained to Booker asking Kavanaugh questions about emails Booker hadn't given him to review. But Booker was prepared and gave a very polite condemnation of the Republicans making emails confidential when there was no reason for it. They ended with an agreement to reassess the confidential assignment.

I take it something happened either delaying the "we can discuss it" or something that made Booker go ahead anyway. But truth be had, the GOP looked very sleazy trying to keep so much material secret. It would look especially bad given the nature of what Booker made public, nothing that should have ever been secret.
 
Last edited:
The morning news is repeating the I Am Spartacus moment of pure hilarity.

Cory: I am Spartacus, I stand ready to be punished!
The Forum: The Romans gave you your freedom yesterday, dope.
Cory: (running up to the nearest scroll writer) I AM SPPARRRRRRRRTACUUUUSS!!
 
The Big Dog said:
The morning news is repeating the I Am Spartacus moment of pure hilarity.

Cory: I am Spartacus, I stand ready to be punished!
The Forum: The Romans gave you your freedom yesterday, dope.
Cory: (running up to the nearest scroll writer) I AM SPPARRRRRRRRTACUUUUSS!!
Click to expand...

Sounds great! :thumbsup:
 
phiwum said:
Fair question. I think Murkowski is another moderate Republican. But two is not many and it's a long shot.

I think the conclusion is clear.
Click to expand...

Fudbucker said:
My feeling was, when the Democrats started talking about documents instead of issues, they lost the confirmation battle. I think the Dems aren't going to fight this one hard because the base doesn't really care, and the DNC really doesn't want to lose any red state Dems in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Tsukasa Buddha said:
I find this to be a very odd position. In the first place, the documents are being used to bring up the issues of race and abortion. Secondly, Kavanaugh isn't going to own up to his positions on issues. Thirdly, Democrats are in the minority, and its not like they are going to change the Republican Senators minds on issues.

There is no confirmation battle. Republicans have the votes, and a few vulnerable Dems will use that as cover. The only thing that could stop it would be some sort of non-issue scandal.



I don't see how they could be fighting harder. They are really just powerless in this situation. SCOTUS control is a huge issue for the bases of both parties. Did you miss the absolutely devastated grieving when Kennedy announced his retirement? It was a political bombshell.
Click to expand...

phiwum said:
Really? I got my Trump voting buddy to concede that they should have time to review the released documents.

It took some effort, and I had to put the unreleased documents aside, but he agreed in the end.

He's a decent guy, despite his vote.
Click to expand...


To continue on the above, the Dems are playing a low probability shot, but it's still the best shot they have. They aren't trying to convince other dems or the public; they are trying to convince two Republicans. Any two. Now, there are two who have claimed that Kavanaugh's saying that Roe is settled law, that protecting Roe, is a test for them. That Kavanaugh doesn't actually act as if he believes it is (and said so to others), and has ruled in a staggeringly stupid way the one time he had any input on an abortion case should be some leverage. Trump also promised that he would only nominate off of the list he was given when he was a candidate; he lied. Lied right to the GOP because Kavanaugh was NOT on that list. Kavanaugh's bizarre belief that presidents shouldn't even be investigated should be a disqualifier for much of the GOP as well. How do you impeach a president you can't investigate? It's a frankly contemptibly stupid reading of the Constitution (note that I am still unclear on his exact legal support for that opinion as what he offers in support is not based in law). Listening to some more of the hearings to try to substantiate theprestige's claim from last page, I also noted the Senator from Hawaii called out his outstandingly hostile view on programs for native peoples, and she specifically called on her colleague from Alaska to consider the implications for her state. That would be Lisa Murkowski, good call phiwum, and she is also one of the Republican Senators who strongly supports Roe.

The Dems are working hard to do the work, and are making some very smart moves (even if they aren't going to work). They are showing the Republicans that Kavanaugh is NOT a nominee they should accept based on the Republicans own stated criteria. And really, they are absolutely right. There are plenty of judges I'd still oppose because of their political views who don't have the other huge problems with Kavanaugh that should disqualify him in the eyes of the GOP. McConnell even told the administration he's the hardest choice to confirm.

Some posters here are calling out the Democrats for doing the job, investigating the nominee and showing if they are a good pick or not, because they have political incentive to do so. The Republicans are not doing due diligence because they have political incentive to not do so, but that's ok for some reason?

To put this another way; the GOP has the votes to confirm Kavanaugh, so what are they afraid of? Why not release more documents? Because they know it might lose them some Senators not on the committee. They are not afraid of losing Democrats because they're not a get. If there was no risk of losing a GOP vote, there would be no benefit to doing the process dirty as they are. Of course just because it would be stupid to do it that way for no real benefit doesn't mean that isn't what is happening.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Released emails seem to show that Kavanaugh has committed perjury
Click to expand...

Vox with the counterpoint

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury

The first instance, wherein Kavanaugh said he was “not involved in handling” Pryor’s nomination, isn’t even clearly “false.” The question that precedes it is a lengthy question from Senator Kennedy. One could argue that Kavanaugh thought Kennedy was asking whether Kavanaugh played a major role “in the vetting process” for Pryor, or discussed specific Constitutional doctrines with Pryor prior to Pryor’s nomination (Kennedy mentions Pryor’s reported views of the Supreme Court’s Miranda decision). Thus, Kavanaugh’s answer (“No. I was not involved in handling his nomination”) is truthful insofar as Kavanaugh understood “handling” to mean “in charge” of either vetting the person or shepherding that person’s nomination through the Senate. The fact that Kavanaugh apparently was invited to a meeting (and it is unclear from the email how many other people were invited) doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that Kavanaugh’s statement was untrue, much less that he intentionally lied or misled Senator Kennedy.

I don’t see any lie in [the second case]. Instead, he’s effectively saying, “Based on my own response, I don’t think I realized this was a stolen draft.”

That being said, senators are free to point out inconsistencies in testimony and question a judicial nominee about those perceived inconsistencies. And if the nominee does a poor job explaining such inconsistencies, senators can and should take that into account. But perjury is a serious crime, provable only by evidence that someone intentionally lied under oath. Based on what I have read so far, I cannot imagine any prosecutor pursuing either of these.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You also claimed that they were getting paid afterwards, whereas the claim was that they were getting paid beforehand. And that "the guy" had admitted to paying protesters for "performances", whereas she actually claimed to be giving cash out to pay fines for protesters.

Perhaps if you'd linked to (or even read) the source of the story yourself you'd have reported the story correctly?
Click to expand...

The idea that someone would offer to pay money for legal fees for committing acts of political violence is absolutely disgusting. As I hope TBD would agree.

 
zorro99 said:
Kavanaugh’s main problem is that Trump nominated him"
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Kavanaugh would be getting exactly the same pushback if he'd been nominated by any Republican president.

If he'd been nominated by a Democrat? Not so much. Of course, a Democrat wouldn't have nominated him. Which is to say, Kavanaugh's main problem is that Hillary Clinton will never be president.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom