Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Tapate50
Well-known member
My uncle solved this case.
57Brave
Well-known member
Isn't this what you complain about ?
Sen Gillibrand uses even the same verbs you use when talking about oh say Steve Bannon being disinvited from a forum sponsored by The New Yorker
Except The New Yorker event was a meet and greet gabfest and this is a rape accusation (sans investigation) with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in the balance
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
If they think about this carefully, the GOP senators would realize they are risking a lot by rushing this through without asking the FBI to investigate. They have time to fill this Supreme Court vacancy before the new Congress is sworn in. I believe the other finalists have already had their background checks done, which should help save time on the process.
sturg33
I
Yes, not allowing someone to speak is silencing them.
Publicly inviting someone to speak, either privately or in public, is not silencing in a rational person's mind
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That’s cool.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I agree that there has been back-and-forth escalation around the federal judiciary, but my point was that opposing a candidate with massive disqualifying red flags (Bork, Thomas) does not fall into that category.
And, yes, I’m comfortable saying that the Scalia-Thomas-Alito axis and their successors are further to the right than Soto-Kagan-RGB-Breyer. It’s not global, but Sotomayor and RGB have solidly liberal records, Breyer and Kagan center-left, Roberts center-right, Alito solidly right, Scalia (and his successor) significantly further to the right, and Thomas further still. Kavanaugh would slot in somewhere between Alito and Thomas/Gorsuch, based on his record. Multiple analyses have been done on this, Google them as you will.
As for the bolded section, I’m talking about, in most of these cases, concrete actions that have been taken to undermine the democratic process. You’re talking about political tactics that you don’t like. Like, to crib from my man sturg, I’m talking data and you’re talking emotion. Nebulous cries of “identity politics” mean what, exactky, compared to federal court cases identifying states who tried to make it harder for people to vote, on the basis of race? Let’s just stipulate that you’re right on one point, and say that “open borders” policies are a means to “import” voters. Now, first we have to acknowledge that were using politically charged language which in and of itself assume certain conclusions. Next, it’s worth pointing out that some of the biggest proponents of so-called “open borders” are the Chamber of Commerce Republican types. Finally, my question is that if people achieve citizenship, why should they not be allowed and encouraged to vote? I want everybody who is eligible to vote to do so. Don’t you? Do you think that reflects the current culture of the Republican party?
Basically, I’m giving you concrete examples about how one party (the one that’s lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections) is trying to consolidate minority rule, and you’re responding with stuff you don’t like about political discourse.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Maybe you should be more specific. Ford’s lawyers, who held a fundraising event for Tammy Baldwin in her last campaign, were holding another event this year, which was scheduled before they represented Ford. Shocking.
As for the rest, is it similarly shocking that lawyers are (gasp) trying to negotiate favorable circumstances for their client? In other words, being lawyers?
Deep State.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
What makes this more wow is that Whelan isn’t just some schmoe, but has been heavily involved with the Federalist Society’s effort to support Kavanaugh. So this appears to be a coordinated part of that effort.
John Harwood
Verified account
@JohnJHarwood
Follow Follow @JohnJHarwood
More
Hugh Hewitt 2/16 on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland: “Republicans are under no obligation to hold a hearing much less a vote”
Hewitt 9/18 decrying allegations against Kavanaugh: “Seriously, due process is a real concept, deeply embedded in Anglo-American law and politics”
pointing out the blatant hypocrisy is old and tired but goddamn it never ends.
Verified account
@JohnJHarwood
Follow Follow @JohnJHarwood
More
Hugh Hewitt 2/16 on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland: “Republicans are under no obligation to hold a hearing much less a vote”
Hewitt 9/18 decrying allegations against Kavanaugh: “Seriously, due process is a real concept, deeply embedded in Anglo-American law and politics”
pointing out the blatant hypocrisy is old and tired but goddamn it never ends.
if kavanaugh had anything to do with crafting it, it's automatically disqualifying. that is some horrible, perverse judgement.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The three main tenets of the Democrat's immigration policy are oppose additional border security, sanctuary cities, and amnesty with a path to citizenship. Now it looks like they are going to follow Ocasio-Cortez down the rabbit hole of pushing for the abolishment of ICE. Neither of us is naive enough to think that is only because of the goodness in their hearts. Sanctuary city laws exist, meeting your bar of "concrete actions." As a party, the Democrats have taken the "concrete action" of opposing and sinking any immigration reform legislation that either includes additional physical barriers or does not include amnesty. Again, this is an action taken to achieve a desired result of changing the electorate, which will, in your words, "undermine the democratic process."
