TahoeHorn

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/ Get Woke. Go Broke.

I'm here for my first, and perhaps only, post of 2019. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because it's a topic I'm intensely interested in, and I'm willing to talk to a brick wall. I believe that the Senate, or perhaps the Senate Judiciary Committee, will face a huge decision roughly at the end of Summer. This decision is whether to escalate or de-escalate the confirmation process for District Judges. There is no hope for the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees or Circuit Court nominees, but there is for District nominees. There are three possibilities going forward: 1. Peace: Key players for both parties would go on record as supporting the use of Blue Slips by home state Senators to effectively veto any nominee (for the District Judge seats in their state). Everyone would agree that they will not get rid of the practice when they are in the majority. They would also agree that when they are in the minority they will act in good faith, and use the veto only for nominees who are poor, not for ones who don't share their judicial views. But both parties would agree that if the majority perceives the minority is not acting in good faith they still won't get rid of the practice. 2. Cold War: Key players for both parties go on record as supporting the use of Blue Slips by home state Senators to effectively veto any nominee. Everyone agrees that they will not get rid of the practice when they are in the majority. There is an expectation that the minority will abuse this practice, resulting in a situation where Senators effectively nominate the District Judges at the point where their party has the Presidency and the Senate, and the seats remain vacant for years if they don't have the Presidency and the Senate. We have a Lebanonization of District courts. 3. Hot War: No deal can be reached. The GOP gets rid of the courtesy, and District Court Judges get appointed like Supreme Court Justices and Circuit Court Judges. We currently have the Hot War with Supreme Court Justices. It began with Bork but got cooled down. It flared up with Thomas but cooled again. The GOP played nice with Ginsburg (96-3) and Breyer (87-9). They weren't ugly with Sotomayor (68-31) and Kagan (63-37), but they weren't nice The Dems played fairly nice with Roberts (78-22) but were ugly with Alito (58-42) and Gorsuch (54-45). They were really ugly with Kavanaugh (50-48) and a smear campaign. The GOP was ugly with Garland. The Hot War is here for the foreseeable future. The Hot War with Circuit Court Judges began in 2013 when Harry Reid changed the rules. The Cold War began on a small scale a few decades ago and turned into a big one under Obama. Unfortunately for the Dems they lost the Senate in 2014 and couldn't make use of their Presidential power, and we had a trench warfare gridlock. The Republicans have continued the Hot War with Circuit Court Judges, but have refrained from a hot war with District Judges. The Cold War continues, but the Dems have taken it to a whole new level. The Dems have been trying to veto everything and use every procedural tactic to slow things down. I won't belabor it (you can look it up if you care). I follow it carefully every day. It takes hundreds and hundreds of hours of Senate time for what, until recently, was done quickly without filibuster. In modern times I think there were only six judicial filibusters until Trump. Since, we've had about 70. EVERY hearing is "carried over". EVERY vote to report out is carried over. Blue Slips are rarely returned. The GOP has about 199 (and rising every month) District Judge spots to fill. They have filled 65 and have another 50 or so in the pipeline. They are filling seats in Red States and in states with a bipartisan commission which recommends nominees (and neither side is being a dick with that process). But the negotiations on how to fill seats in Purple States and Blue States has gone poorly. The Dems reject everything, even people they loved before. They want the GOP to spend time on even the ones they like. But Lindsey Graham has been honoring the Blue Slip courtesy for District Judges. So far. But when the seats are filled where there isn't a Blue Slip problem the GOP will have to decide what to do. The right thing is to do a Peace deal. I don't see the GOP leaving 70 seats vacant in places like California, New York, Florida, Michigan and Massachusetts if there isn't some deal. They might go for a Cold War, if the Dems promise not to make it hot when they get control, but they I don't think they honor the Blue Slip courtesy unless they have an "on the record" commitment by Dems that they will do so as well when they get power. There are some Dems who recognize that a Hot War is not good. I think they want to do a deal with Graham. But none have gone on the record as supporting his deal, and it's not clear that Graham can get the GOP to trust the Dems even if they do. So ... what will happen?

Maggie was my favorite political leader of my lifetime.

Close. Be sure you carefully distinguish among the following: - whether the meeting was important - whether the issue is important - whether the issue is important to Trump's home audience - whether the issue is important to the audience Trump is selling -whether the issue is important to me (and about ten others) I think that Trump was being Trump. It resonated with his base. It pissed off people who hate him, which resonated even more with his base. It's his act. It does not impact any international agreement on empowering women.

I'm not equating. I was trying to understand your thinking and you answered my question. I come to see how people think. My posts are to elicit thoughts not out of a belief that anybody is buying.

Oh, it's a dick move. When do you support dick moves and when do you not? What about on this board? When do you approve of insulting posters? When do you approve of negging posters? I don't support Trump's move, but like a lot of posters here that can't stand to hear a view they don't like, and have Trump-like ego problems, I understand what they are doing and am not a bit surprised.

Are you dense or being cute? The subject of the relevant sentence was MEETING.

Silly boy. You have a serious misunderstanding about how much impact I have. I'm one of 325MM people influencing the process. I'm not one of the Illuminati.

Correct.

I made two arguments, and I stand by both. You didn't get the first exactly correct. 1. The meeting on empowering women was not important for substance. It's all about show. It was not about empowering women. It was about home politics. 2. Trump insulted Macron by not showing for his speech. Both guys have a burr up their ass about trade and ego. I believe both 1 and 2. They don't conflict.

Trump is in a pissing match with the Euros. It's about trade. I don't agree with his position but I have no trouble understanding what is going on. I'm not sure why so many here don't get it. He was insulting Macron the same way the New England Patriots insulted him - don't show to their party.

You are wrong. I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it. But you still don't know what a filibuster is. If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.

No, the "I've got better things to do than listen to some French guy talk about empowering women" audience. Trust me, I know a bunch of folks who would sleep late instead of go to that breakfast. I'm sure the US sent somebody to hear the speech, and take notes.

Playing to the home audience. Much of the G7 is about home politics. I think you have to hunt high and low to find diplomacy.

The purpose of the investigation was not to investigate Trump. It was to investigate people like Manafort and Flynn, whom Trump was protecting. I'm not "heading off into obstruction territory" when I talk about investigating Flynn and Manafort. Mueller had evidence of crimes to investigate and any time you start doing that other stuff comes up, and you chase that too. I'm sure that's what he's doing.

The meeting is not diplomacy. Diplomacy on an issue like this is conducted four levels down, out of public view. This is show.

Is that good or bad? You know, you can find Senate subcommittee hearings on topics like that. Guess how many of, say, 21 Senators on the committee will be there? If they come at all they give a speech and leave. On or two are designated to do their turn in the barrel and conduct the meeting. You will not see 21 Senators in rapt attention. Anyone want to take bets on attendance this coming Wednesday on "Confronting Sexual Harassment and Other Workplace Misconduct in the Federal Judiciary"? https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/confronting-sexual-harassment-and-other-workplace-misconduct-in-the-federal-judiciary

That's my view too.

I disagree. I think that before Mueller was appointed the DOJ knew that Michael Flynn and others committed crimes and that the President didn't want them investigated. Mueller's job was to investigate those crimes and any others he ran across. And he's found a bunch of crimes. We do not know what info comes to Mueller and he shouldn't be telling us, so I don't know how you'd conclude he is chasing things that aren't crimes.

I don't keep track of poster positions. I'd have no idea how to figure out a sock. I usually read the post without reading the poster name. Some time a poster like Mr Phlegm is unique enough that I can guess who it is. But mostly it's just a new post and I have no interest in who the poster is and don't even look at the name unless it's very good or very bad. If a poster has enough posts that lay out positions I get a sense of how they think and learn them. But if a posters style is one liners then I don't inventory them unless there is an awful lot. Usually, one liners are things to forget anyway. The only interesting posters are one who present a coherent affirmative thought. If they are commenting on what another poster said I tend to just move on. "You said Chris Simms had fewer interceptions than Applewhite and ..." I'm fucking on to the next post. That's not a poster whose position on QBs I give a shit about. He's talking about how much some other poster knows about QB stats, which does not interest me. The only ones I remember are the ones who lay out a view of QBs that is comprehensive and makes me think.

He was controversial. I said so in #77. You've lost me.

Whether a material number of Senators (say more than a dozen or so) oppose him.

You are conflating several arguments. It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial. Marcus was controversial. Many others have been as well. Many more will be. I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done. I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US. Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players. I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice. I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it. I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury. I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer." I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more.

Which district? I don't see any district in Houston in play. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/house/2018_elections_house_map.html What's the Cook pvi? https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings https://www.cookpolitical.com/pvi-map-and-district-list

Yes I do. You didn't read. I started the thread after watching the obstruction of Kenneth L Marcus.