Maybe so, but which one of them is being considered for a supreme court nomination?
It’s not all that odd that the one interviewing for a position is given less leeway than the one doing the interviewing.
Evaluating a questioner is quite a bit different than evaluating a questionee. All I’m saying is my impression of his answer. What was your impression?
That’s not accurate. Here is a description of the incident I think you are referencing, with actual quotes:
Personally I think Vox is a crappy source, but here they at least quote items and give a brief description. To clarify - he didn’t claim he didn’t have any insider knowledge. That would be a silly claim because he was the staff secretary (I think that’s the right title) and as a result would have seen virtually every paper that when across Bush 43’s desk at the time. That doesn’t mean he handled the nomination.
Seemed fine to me. She was obviously trying to bait him so he didn’t take the bait. She’s not going to vote for him, no reason to humor her or assist her in getting soundbites. If she’s not going to ask specific questions, there’s nothing wrong with not assisting her to frame her question for her. This isn’t a classroom where he’s a teacher, this is adversarial.
He received one or more emails with provocative subject lines. I kind of get those every day. The content of the email doesn’t seem like anything to me, what do you think it shows?
My impression of the whole thing is that she was trying to trip him up and he wasn’t sure exactly what her angle was. I saw two lawyers going at it in their lawyerly way. But, as I said earlier, I don’t think he comported himself very well. A trained lawyer should be able to do better, but he could have just been tired-- I honestly don’t know. I wish she had told us what she was getting at instead of, apparently, trying to lay a trap.
If she was waiting for some better time for the big reveal, it’s hard to imagine when that better time will be. I’ve heard others say she will use it later to try and get him to recuse himself. But had she used it now, she could still use it again later.
What’s the evidence of this?
Missed the edit window… If I had guess, gun to my head, I would say that Harris had some pieces of a potentially damning puzzle, but was missing some key pieces and was trying to get Kavanaugh to provide them by pretending that she had the whole puzzle. Whether there actually are some hidden pieces that Kavanaugh knows about but was unwilling to hand to her, it’s hard to say. I suspect we will never know.
Giving a weaselly answer is not the end of the world; I’ve probably given weaselly answers to questions at some point in my life. But his answer to Harris’s question was very definitely weaselly, IMO, especially the mouthing “Kaso…” which was so bad an effort to deceive it made me laugh.
At work, I have plenty of tasks where I’ve made sure that they’re moving along, inquired about the status, and done some behind-the-scenes work to ensure that things are pushing forward. At the same time, it would be completely honest of me to say that I really have no idea of what the actual discussions are that are going on with that task, have little insight into the problems and difficulties, nor any of the minutiae - I couldn’t tell you a substantive thing on the matter other than that it existed, and that X was the one doing all of the work on it. But, you would be able to find emails similar to those quoted.
Based on what evidence is presented, it sounds like he was managing but not leading the thing with Pryor. Minus further evidence, I’d call him clean.
I’d stick to the discussion of hacking and spying.
Septimus was quite correct in saying that Kavanaugh was NOT on Trump’s original list.
Septimus was only “wrong” in the implication that there were 25 names on the original list (when there were 11). But in fact Kavanaugh wasn’t added to the original list until November 2017—more than a year after the first list was released:
What distinguishes Kavanaugh from all the names on the original list is that Kavanaugh has, essentially, pledged to make sure that Donald Trump can’t be held accountable for any crimes he may have committed, while he occupies the White House.
Some people think that’s worth noting.
Well, this was certainly reassuring. For a while there, it seemed like only those crazy-ass moonbat liberals at the Federalist Society were advising!
I don’t know about everyone else here, but I would have a hard time voting against someone whom the ABA Standing Committee gave, unanimously, their highest rating. I couldn’t rule out voting against such a nominee, but there would have to be some extraordinary reason, an example of which I’m hard pressed to think of. That is, something that the ABA members who evaluated him would NOT be aware of.
IMO, if someone accepts a nomination from Trump, that shows that they don’t have the very high personal character I’d demand from such an important legal official. There’s tons more from what I’ve read to make Kavanaugh unsuitable from a legal sense (though of course IANAL), but personal character is the first disqualifier, IMO.
Can you link to this “pledge”, please? And, if you don’t mind, a literal quote from him would be best. Not someone else’s paraphrase of what he “pledged”.
If Trump nominated Garland, you wouldn’t confirm him? Would you vote to confirm him if Elizabeth Warren is the next president and nominates him?
Is he a shining light in the legal sky? His opinions quoted with admiration and approval across the political spectrum? That would be reassuring, otherwise, one might bear the worry that he was mostly being rewarded for his ideological loyalties, that he defends firmly if not brilliantly.
He worked for the nomination of Pryor, who’s harshly “pro-life” views he does not share. Or does not currently share. At least, he is at some pains to reassure Ms McCaskill, she reports, that she needn’t worry. If he sincerely agreed with Mr Pryor, but changed his mind, I’d like to know that. Of if he never agreed but only acted as a political mechanism, like to know that as well.
His exceptionally generous interpretations of the Presidency: have these been met with unanimous approval and hearty endorsement by these “legal scholars” he speaks of? (I have no idea, never been closer to a law school than delivering a pizza…)
When Obama had a choice, he chose a centrist. Goddamit and bless his heart, he genuinely believes in compromise and parity. He should have remembered that no good deed goes unpunished, especially among men with far more power than character.
It’s possible that every member of the ABA who responded to the outreach was a conservative toady aching to lavish him with praise. That some of the members wanted to give him less than their highest rating, but chose to remain silent for… reasons. Certainly possible. It’s also possible that I will win the Nobel Prize for literature next year. Can I count on your vote?
Don’t know (and that sounds only slightly more likely than Trump nominating a Martian). I’d have to hear from Garland why he’d accept Trump’s nomination (presumably I’d be able to have a meeting with him and ask him). If the answer didn’t change my mind, then I probably wouldn’t. So I suppose I’ll give that same benefit of the doubt to Kavanaugh – if he could convince me that there was a non-dishonorable reason to accept such a dishonorable and dangerous President’s tainted nomination, then perhaps I’d move past that criticism. But I can’t imagine what that reason could possibly be.
If Garland’s reason was “this is effectively Obama’s stolen nomination, and I think it’s appropriate to accept it under that reasoning”, then that might be enough to sway me.
Do you think he would have a different reason for accepting Trump’s nomination than he had for accepting Obama’s? I mean, if the person would be a good justice, what difference does it make who nominates him? I can see protesting Trump by refusing to accept a job offer in his administration, but the courts are a completely separate branch of government.
Let me put it this way… supposing you had chosen a law career, and found yourself on the nominating end of a SCOTUS opening by Trump. Would you decline in protest? Who do you think would be nominated in your place, and would that be better for the country?
Yes, I would decline. I couldn’t live with myself accepting any “honor” from Trump. If I did something amazing and he invited me to the WH for some award or something like that, I absolutely would not accept.
EDIT: Thinking further, perhaps (just perhaps!) I’d sacrifice my personal honor, accept the nomination, and resign as soon as a Democratic President and/or Senate was in charge. If that was Kavanaugh’s reasoning, then I’d definitely consider it.