Bravo, your most direct criticism up to this point. I’m delighted we can agree, at least on this point. Earlier you said this:
Which category do you think this one most likely falls into?
Not interesting in discussing this with someone whose posts show so little concern about sexual assault.
So saying in essence tha claim as presented does not seem to be credible, is showing “little concern about sexual assault”?
Right.
No, my opinion is based on a long history.
Did that matter two years ago? Why not?
Yes, we understand the desperation to get a vote on the Court against allowing investigations of a sitting President. Is that the most important consideration for your faction?
Feel free to link to posts of yours here in August and September 2016 that indicated similar concern that the Scalia vacancy might not be filled by the first Monday in October of that year.
That’s probably not even in the top 10 most important considerations for me. I strongly suspect I’m not alone in that respect.
Don’t think it matters, many scholars think a sitting President cannot be indicted, including many liberals and most crucially, Robert Mueller.
I think the good Senator was more worried that this was some sort of trap to be honest, but her staff leaked this not having her acumen.
Why not? Because there wasn’t a Republican president 2 years ago. Two years ago, there wasn’t going to be a judge nominated that the senate would accept to rule correctly (as they saw it), so it was important not to appoint one. Now, that situation has changed, so it is important to.
What about that do you find hard to understand?
It’s never been tested so we don’t know. The definitive ruling would come from … well, guess what, the Court that Kavanaugh has been nominated to! The *Nixon *precedent was in the opposite direction, btw, and Mueller is referring to DOJ tradition only rather than a legal position.
Well, sure, we do know “Suck It, Libtards, We Have The Majority Right Now, To Hell With Half The Country” is a bit higher up the list. I suspect your views on presidential immunity have … *evolved *since the 90’s, as have Kavanaugh’s, amirite?
US v Nixon 418 US 683 was on service of process. The latest case is Clinton v Jones 520 US 681. In that case the Court found a lack of immunity from private Federal Civil claims made prior to ascendancy to office, but seemed to suggest that it would be the opposite for criminal cases and state claims. It was a 9-0 decision and three of them-Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer are still on the bench. Breyers concurrence especially; is helpful to Trump. Plus the case is generally considered to have been wrongly decided on the merits.
Emphasis added. Current policy, not “tradition”.
Ah, yes, the “unindicted co-conspirator”. Proof of the old saying, that which slithers around, comes around…
So, he can’t be indicted? Still want the truth, all of it. Laid out with the glossy photos with the arrows. Still want to see which of our elected Republicans will stand there naked and swear otherwise. Devil doesn’t take your soul all in one chunk, usually in happens on the installment plan.
Suppress voters with voter id plans? Kinda stinky, sure, there goes a chunk. But at least they can pretend to believe that voter id is so gosh-darn wonderful, the Dems ought to be willing to make such a sacrifice! Proud to take a bullet for the Party! Ruthless gerrymandering is a bit worse, make that one a couple of chunks to the Dark Lord Credit Co.
How many will surrender whatever they have left when the truth is stark, clear and undeniable? Not that I’d really* like* to know, I’m a mite squeamish. But I should.
Nothing at all. Just wasn’t expecting you to acknowledge that for you guys, the Supreme Court is just like any other political office: you want an officeholder who’ll vote for your team rather than the other team.
But your honesty is appreciated.
I assume by the logic you are displaying here, that if someone has declared their support for Kavanaugh, then they are disqualified from defending him, or supporting his confirmation in public, because doing such is just political theater? Or is it somehow different for Republicans who have made up their minds?
As to this, I entirely disagree. Well, ti is political theater, but you completely miss the point about who the audience is. The audience isn’t other senators, the audience isn’t the constituents of the senators asking the tough questions. The audience is the constituency of the senators who are leaning towards voting to confirm.
And it is working. I live in deep red trump territory, and I avoid bringing up politics with all but a few close friends, but I am hearing quite a bit of push back against this nomination among people who have been life long Republicans. Not trump supporters, to be sure, those people are all big fans of this nomination, but every person that I have spoken to about this, who voted for every republican prior to trump, is pulling back on this. Some have even put out calls to their senators, asking them to vote no.
Will it work? I dunno. That is part of the reason for the rush, IMHO, to limit how much feedback these senators will receive from the people who elected them into office before they are forced to vote to confirm this person to a lifelong appointment.
Do they feel that it is worth their jobs to give trump the nominee he wants to protect him from the legal consequences of his actions? They may, they may not, but it is something that is going to be in the minds of the senators when they get called to make this decision.
Great, at least when they keep saying that they want to take the country back, we know what era they want to take it back to.
Did Obama make the decision for the entirety of the senate?
Did you notice that, when Alito was filibustered, the nomination was actually brought to the floor and voted on?
Can you see any difference between that, and a nomination that was not brought to the floor to be voted on? Any at all? In order to make that charge of hypocrisy, you would have to show that the circumstances were at least similar enough to make some sort of connection. In this case, you fail.
Including the Republicans that voted against his confirmation?
Right, and the president can appoint a SCOTUS that will find congress’s declaration making him King for Life to be constitutional. That is how the system is set up. Would you still be defending it if those were the outcomes?
Unprecedented in the last century. Unprecedented since the civil war. Unprecedented since the franchise was extended to blacks and other minorities. Unprotected since the franchise was extended to women. unprecedented since civil rights and voting rights.
140 years of tradition isn’t the entirely of history, to be sure, but it is a bit of a long stretch to just throw out arbitrarily, as if it never happened.
But, sure, whatever it takes to get your activist judges on the bench. You accuse democrats of sacrificing the constitutional principles when they push for judicial nominees and outcomes that further social equality, but refuse to recognize when your party pushes for nominees who want to reverse the progress towards social equality.
Maybe you will get one, unfortunately, what you are getting is a far right wing ideologue. He may very well judge cases in a way that you find favorable, but don’t pretend that you are supporting him because of his commitment to preserving the constitution or anything like that, at least admit that you are supporting him because he will find in favor of causes that you support.
No, we are apparently supposed to enshrine selfish ideologues who are loyal to their party’s platform to the bench. Good on!
Like they did with Heller, with Trinity, with the Colorado bakers, right? Are you claiming that it is only democrats who turn to the courts when they feel as the the legislature is not responsive to the rights that they are entitled to?
Are you trying to claim that trump nominated a type 2 judge?
This either goes to his integrity or his incompetence. He was receiving and distributing information that was stolen. The excuse here is that he wasn’t quite bright enough to see that it was intended solely for internal distribution in the party. He also wasn’t bright enough o see when the subject said “spying”. He even apparently thinks that a mole is an animal, and not a person who is planted in an opposing organization to acquire information.
So, “there is not way he could not have known” is not true. He could have not known if he was a fucking idiot.
Which do you really think this is?
It’s not hypocrisy if one side is against something, and the other is not, for the one side that is against it to be held to a higher standard. Ginsberg was not voted down by democrats, it was his own party that came to him, and told him that the revelations about his “stoner ways” wasn’t going to fly.
I don’t care what Obama did, and while I’d rather have him not toking it up in the oval office, I actually don’t care, so long as he isn’t making any important decisions while under the influence.
OTOH, the Republicans are the party of Jess Sessions, who wants to increase the drug war. If you nominate a very strong anti-drug person the attorney general, then your party takes such things more seriously, and as such, you can be judged on it.
To be fair, I think that at this point, every republican has been instructed to compile a list of 65 women that they haven’t raped, just in case.
That wasn’t of any sort of importance when your party didn’t want to fill the vacant seat.
No, of course not. They also want an activist judge who will ensure that gun laws are banned and fetuses are people from the moment of ejaculation.
I’m talking about your post, where you specifically referred to “the committee”, not “the Senate”.
It was an analogy. Claiming that there is no good reason to reject an investigation here is the same as claiming there is no good reason for a statute of limitations. Because the “reasons” are exactly the same.
If this has been happening for years, when was the last time a confirmation committee spent time investigating a 2nd hand anonymous claim of 35-years-in-the-past sexual assault by a High School student?
Why should such a claim be treated seriously? It’s hard to imagine a claim with less substance to it, unless the parties were deceased. I don’t know exactly what Feinstein did, but if she did anything more than send a letter back saying: “Thanks for your interest in the confirmation process (blah, blah, blah). Please be advised that I am unable to bring this claim into the process due to the lack of any substance. I encourage you to work with the accuser and present a substantive claim that we can work with” (or something to that effect that might sound more user friendly) then I think she would have over-reacted.
And let’s not forget that the issue was eventually referred to the FBI. They declined to investigate. Why do you suppose that is? “Reasons”? I believe they have some level of expertise in doing those types of investigations, no?
I’m not one of those guys, I’m not American for starters. It’s rather telling that you think that someone accurately observing what has happened, what has changed, must be your enemy.
No. Because those outcomes are inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution, so we are protected from such outcomes by selecting judges that believe only the text, and not their ideas of wise social policy, should drive decisions.
Wrong. My nominees want to limit the judicial reach to the text of the Constitution, and accept “progress towards social equality” when it comes from the legislature and is not violative of the Constitution. YOUR preferred judges are willing to enshrine their view of wise “progress towards social equality” into their decisions even if the text of the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing.
Not true in the slightest. I support the process, not a desire for particular results.
Text of the law. That’s all they asked for
Which do you really think this is?
It’s not hypocrisy if one side is against something, and the other is not, for the one side that is against it to be held to a higher standard. Ginsberg was not voted down by democrats, it was his own party that came to him, and told him that the revelations about his “stoner ways” wasn’t going to fly.
I don’t care what Obama did, and while I’d rather have him not toking it up in the oval office, I actually don’t care, so long as he isn’t making any important decisions while under the influence.
OTOH, the Republicans are the party of Jess Sessions, who wants to increase the drug war. If you nominate a very strong anti-drug person the attorney general, then your party takes such things more seriously, and as such, you can be judged on it.
To be fair, I think that at this point, every republican has been instructed to compile a list of 65 women that they haven’t raped, just in case.
That wasn’t of any sort of importance when your party didn’t want to fill the vacant seat.
No, of course not. They also want an activist judge who will ensure that gun laws are banned and fetuses are people from the moment of ejaculation.
[/QUOTE]