Just to be clear, I was not speaking about the larger issue of delving into the financial issues of an appointee. I was expressing my lack of concern over the particular issue raised about credit card purchases of baseball tickets. There would need to be something a lot more serious than that before I think a legitimate red flag could be raised. I would also like to see that any such issue was at least potentially illegal.
Grrrrr.
We have never prosecuted “political liars,” because that’s not a crime, and if it were, HRC might be doing a stretch but Trump would have back-to-back life sentences. So let’s not pretend, please, that there is any reasonable comparison there.
Clinton lied, to be sure, and perhaps even on a scale of political liars she’d be closer to the top of the list than the bottom. But Trump is his own list, and it’s a not a list so much as a really thick book.
Yes, it does, thank you. My confusion arose from the posters in that thread saying that it was something comparable to the protections of the presidency, which apparently is not the case…
I take it that there is no similar censure to a president who does this.
ETA, of course, since it requires 67 to vote him out, it’s not likely to happen.
Then this is a good test, because we should have people on the supreme court with better self control than that.
Congress can “censure” the president for anything they can get the votes to censure him for. It needn’t be illegal.
I agree with this - a Supreme Court justice should display a higher level of integrity and self-control than Corry Booker and the rest of the Democrats, but that’s not a very high bar to pass.
Regards,
Shodan
The Dems have done themselves no favors. Sure, they make their unhinged, kitty-cat hat wearing base happy, and Corey and Kamala get to audition for the hardcore lefties, but they have put party in front of country. Their job is to advise and consent; yet almost all of them said they’d vote against him before they figured out how to pronounce his name. I suspect they’re just mad because of how Garland was treated (as per the Biden Doctrine).
This is a bionic post constructed to have all of the mandatory body parts of a RW post, yet I sense no life in it. Are you guys just going to the mattresses and shooting wildly now?
Egads! We certainly wouldn’t want that idea taking off…
Personally, I’m over the Garland thing. He wasn’t going to get the seat anyway, as no Republican in the Senate would have the decency to confirm a guy they always said was perfect for the job.
But, this new guy should be stopped, not for party, but for country. Everything Trump does must be resisted. As I’ve said before, if he nominated ME for the Supreme Court I would oppose him (and I’d be a great Justice).
I think we are in terra nova post trump. We need to get harder. I am becoming a mean liberal lately.
First: You got to stop about HRC. Get over it. 1) She lost. 2) This and other issues were a big part of her job for decades, answering you people, every time you wanted to grill her. And I as a taxpayer had to pay for that nonsense. What else is there to do about it? Can you deal with being a winner? It is really embarassing and indecent to obsess over this woman. We need to go forward. Period. Are you a proud American? The obsession with hillary is a russian idea that you are puppeting.
I’m for enhanced sentencing for crimes while in office, especially financial crimes. I would be wanting to use the impeachment power much more often. I might be for term limits on Scotus. I would be for a life without parole punishment for some offenders. The we would really have some data on the issue of “deterrence” as relates to financial crimes and not just violent ones.
We all dropped the ball, including Obama, on prosecuting bankers into jail. This is a foundational mistake that we are paying for right now.
We do need to deal with lying in public by politicians. I don’t know how to do it yet. But it’s the end of us if we don’t. We may need to distinguish between benign or malignant lying, I don’t know yet if we can.
There is a very particular evil in trump, that has immense historic precedent in that he is denying reality, people are “going along” but it is a false story, objectively. If you can’t impeach a man who is doing that we do need to have an overhaul of our system.
The season tickets story expanded. You’re welcome.
Expanded to what? This:
Which is to say: if new information arises, then there will be new information. He’s doomed!
“Expanded” in the sense that blowing up a toy balloon is expanding it. Lots more hot air doesn’t mean lots more substance.
Regards,
Shodan
You are responding to a little “specific”, which is all you can do. The overarching point, and the one I and other liberals are concerned with, is that they are steamrolling this through to avoid any of these issues that he has, becoming known at all, so that we can’t tell what is a balloon and what’s not. Surely this is reasonable and responsible under these conditions to protest for more transparency. It has been a blackout on a significant percentage of the documents (all of which were provided to Rs during the Kagan hearings for instance.) And the race is on to seat someone who Putin approves of. What you say? How can he say that? Donald has never disappointed or spoken one tiny ambivalent word about his master.
I’m still not seeing it. Learn about his qualifications. Learn about any criminal history. Fine. But why does the investigation have to be so personal? Who cares if he spends his money on baseball tickets? What if he spent thousands at an adult book store? Should that be public knowledge? Should we know how large of a dildo he bought for his wife?
Again, there will be many quality people who say to hell with public service because we want to put people under such a microscope. Further, the Dems who are wanting more documents and frothing over these documents are ones who have already said that they are not going to vote for Kavanaugh anyways! Why do they want more documents? Are they going to vote no twice? This is a circus and and absolute shame.
What about Senators who put a giant poster up of a sick 8 year old and asks Kavanaugh how he (basically) would kill the kid if he keeps voting the way he does. That is outrageous and does not deserve a polite reply.
I agree that a nominee should answer questions, even very tough questions, but the use of props like this by a senator who has already said that he intends to vote against the nominee, is outrageous and should be given the same respect that was in the spirit in which it was asked.
He also has to sit there while over 200 coordinated and paid for attacks against him are violating the law by interrupting his responses and from the answer in the other thread are punished by the handsome sum of a $35 fine. Many senators have said that this is a wonderful example of freedom of speech!
What special “self control” is required by the constitution that a Supreme Court nominee should have to endure a circus?
The answer is that with all due respect to Ashley Kavanaugh, if her husband proffered a dildo purchase for her use amounting to over $10,000 as an explanation for his credit card debt, yes, I believe a question or two would be in order.
I believe the actual questions are equally appropriate, and that his answers have satisfactorily explained the issue.
Why does it matter how the man spends his money? I guess that is the part I am confused about. I’m sure that if we both exposed our finances to the board that there would be a lot of mundane things and several surprising things. Why is that the business of anyone who are supposed to be only judging our qualifications (or nowadays political beliefs)?
The senate gets to pick what they want to use for the basis of their judgment. Period. You ask why it matters…it matters if they say it matters.