Legal/scotus thread

One thing the left probably needs to consider is what happens if Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed. The Republicans aren't idiots. They know the potential the Senate changes hands in January. They know the timelines. They wont let this Kavanaugh drama play out much longer. Either Kavanaugh gets confirmed or he doesn't and that will happen soon.

If he doesn't get confirmed, the Republicans will get a new choice in place quickly. And if you think the new person will be more moderate than Kavanaugh, you're delusional. They'd reanimate Scalia's corpse if they could. I wouldn't put it past Trump to nominate someone that makes Thomas look like Ginsburg. There's going to be an element of "this will show you for doing that to my first pick".

And anyone who thinks any senator in that room today cared one bit about what Ford or Kavanaugh has been through is also delusional. The senators in that room are playing a political game today and Kavanaugh and Ford are pieces on the board.
 
Kavanaugh’s not fit to judge a parking dispute at CostCo, much less sit on the Supreme Court (as flawed an institution as it is).

He’s also, apropos of something, petulant fratboy scum.
 
striker42 said:
One thing the left probably needs to consider is what happens if Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed. The Republicans aren't idiots. They know the potential the Senate changes hands in January. They know the timelines. They wont let this Kavanaugh drama play out much longer. Either Kavanaugh gets confirmed or he doesn't and that will happen soon.

If he doesn't get confirmed, the Republicans will get a new choice in place quickly. And if you think the new person will be more moderate than Kavanaugh, you're delusional. They'd reanimate Scalia's corpse if they could. I wouldn't put it past Trump to nominate someone that makes Thomas look like Ginsburg. There's going to be an element of "this will show you for doing that to my first pick".

And anyone who thinks any senator in that room today cared one bit about what Ford or Kavanaugh has been through is also delusional. The senators in that room are playing a political game today and Kavanaugh and Ford are pieces on the board.
Click to expand...

Then let them put Scalia's corpse up there. There are some things more important.
 
jpx7 said:
Kavanaugh’s not fit to judge a parking dispute at CostCo, much less sit on the Supreme Court (as flawed an institution as it is).

He’s also, apropos of something, petulant fratboy scum.
Click to expand...

Who’s clearly never, ever, been acquainted with accountability of any kind.
 
Haven't caught a lot of it (work, you know).

striker, the Supreme Court has had a number of "political" folks on the bench and it hasn't always been a clean process. I think during the era of American consensus that ran from the end of WWII to the 1970s, there seemed to be a lot more comity around the appointments process, but a couple of Nixon's choices were de-railed and that's probably the closest comparison I see now in that Congress hated Nixon and the level of admiration from the White House was comparable.

Cornyn was comparing this to the McCarthy hearings and admittedly there are some similarities. I don't know if Kavanaugh is guilty or not, but there were some folks caught up in the Red Scare who were actually guilty. Again, who one views the adage "I'd rather let 1,000 criminals go free than have 1 man unfairly convicted" is in play here.

I did have to laugh (in an odd way) when Kavanaugh was reading the list of women who support him. Again, I don't know if he's guilty or not, but that struck me as a robber listing a bunch of houses he didn't rob as evidence of his innocence.

My guess is he'll still get confirmed.
 
Whatever is going on, it appears Graham's honeymoon of taking McCain's mantle as sort of a peacemaker came to a complete stop today. Amazing how much Graham has evolved the last 6 months and basically turned into Trump's cheerleader. And as mentioned earlier it does look like he's auditioning for Attorney General.
 
striker42 said:
Deciding not to confirm him based on Ford's statement is taking a negative action against an accused based on the uncorroborated story of Ford. It's placing the requirement to clear their name on the accused. I don't care if you're deciding whether to give someone the death penalty or whether you should give your kid an ice cream cone, the same principles apply.

I don't think Ford is lying. I also don't think Kavanaugh is lying. I don't know if Ford's recollection isn't correct or if Kavanaugh was black out drunk and doesn't remember or if any other of a dozen different things happened. The point is that I don't know what happened and without something I don't believe that it's right to hold it against Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

Really? This isn't the only cloud hanging over his credibility.

There are plenty of other possible candidates for this position. The notion seems to be it's him or nothing.
 
Runnin said:
Really? This isn't the only cloud hanging over his credibility.

There are plenty of other possible candidates for this position. The notion seems to be it's him or nothing.
Click to expand...

It’s egomania, at this point. Trump could withdraw the nomination, and then submit a barrister just as ideologically odious, but not an utter trainwreck of temperament and credibility. But he won’t, because he—like Kavanaugh—is petulant fratboy scum.
 
jpx7 said:
He’s guilty. But, guilty or not, his temperament is utterly disqualifying.
Click to expand...

Can I find the qualifying temperament for a judge right below to the qualifying temperament for a president in the code of subjectively meaningless portraiture?
 
50PoundHead said:
It sounded like he was pulling a Clarence Thomas to some extent, but I was listening to the radio feed so I was working with an incomplete picture.
Click to expand...

It sounded like he was trying to, but it lacked the “high-tech lynching” hook. I have my own opinions of how it sounded, but they’re hardly unbiased. After that, though, the pissiness and petulance was really on display...in his exchanges with Feinstein, Klobuchar, Blumenthal and others. It was...weird. I mean, it was aimed at a narrow audience, and I guess it was ok for that. Any R who would pay a price not voting for him has cover to vote yes. But he sure didn’t give the fence-sitters anything to hold onto.
 
Hawk said:
Can I find the qualifying temperament for a judge right below to the qualifying temperament for a president in the code of subjectively meaningless portraiture?
Click to expand...

I think making a shouty argument for a revanchist partisan conspiracy is a bad look for a supposedly neutral caller of balls and strikes.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think making a shouty argument for a revanchist partisan conspiracy is a bad look for a supposedly neutral caller of balls and strikes.
Click to expand...

So is it the temperament - or the argument - or the accusation(s)?

I'm not a fan of the argument myself, but I think the temperament is amply justified.
 
jpx7 said:
Sure, here you go.
Click to expand...

I don't get it.

Is being an ass the qualifying temperament? Or kissing a puckered ass? So many ways to go with that.

Also, not an ass(hole) man.

I have long since taken your notions of acceptable behavior as suspect, but this is a whole other dimension of wack.
 
Are these women supposed to be his supporters?

42646711_2316086318611569_7752003862872981504_o.png
 
Hawk said:
So is it the temperament - or the argument - or the accusation(s)?

I'm not a fan of the argument myself, but I think the temperament is amply justified.
Click to expand...

I think the argument is for ****. You’re entitled to your opinion about the justification of his anger. If you genuinely believe he’s being falsely accused, it follows that you’d feel that way.

To me, today was a further indictment of his character. That he was willing to be so cavalierly dishonest about his school days speaks very poorly of his character today. Drinking to excess, slut-shaming a contemporary—those things don’t speak well of unformed Baby Brett, but his telling the truth would have been a better testament to the man he is today. Instead, he got pissy when asked about drinking, and told gaslight-quality whoppers about the yearbooks, Renate Dolphin, and his poor sensitive stomach. Like, I get that telling the truth might have opened some doors that he needed to keep tightly shut, but, if we are to discount temperament and character, surely we aren’t supposed just toss out basic honesty as a requirement for SCOTUS, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top