Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Right now, the middle is kinda screwed.

Yeah. And it's frustrating as hell. So many issues need addressing (healthcare, immigration, etc) but all we have are poo flinging monkeys.

[Foosters 17883]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

The fuck it wasn't.

Hey, if you're a racist, own it.  Not my fault.  The leftist attitudes in our media and schools are FAR superior to whatever shit it is that FOX and DeVos are peddling, so again, own your unAmerican values.  You're the ones dragging it all down.

 

What are you babbling about?  This is a prime example of my point.  If the left has any stones they'll do whatever they can to fuck with this nomination.  Will they succeed?  Hell no.  Fuck with it anyway. 

 

Any time, my "friend".  Let me know when you're in town.

Lol at trying to engage Slorch in a real discussion. Have you lost your mind? 

[B00M 6458]

Ok so I watched an MSNBC round table discussing Schumer's lack of outrage and I was amazed by how closely it mirrored many opinions expressed in this forum. 

Essentially, they didn't want any discussion of civility until there was no longer caging or separation of families at the border (& accessible health care for all & NO poverty.. but she was rolling), and anything possible must be done to make the right (white nationalists) uncomfortable in order to stop the "current slide into authoritarianism". They did mention that all the right wants is "lib tears", which seemed fair.

It appears the crux of this really is what's happening at the border. There was no solution or details discussed. Just outrage. No talk of how you process so many people in a timely manner (20 days was the acceptable limit under Obama before they had to be released), or keep them safe while doing so, which i believe is the entire point of the cages. Trump ended his indefensible policy of separating, by default, real families that had committed no other crime... So if i'm understanding this correctly, the left is fine with the 20 day detention limit, but extending it beyond that, so it's feasible to process/deport/grant asylum to so many people, represents a slide into authoritarianism that requires the harassment of all repubs. 

Have i over simplified? There should be a limit, there should be a mechanism in place to expedite, but .. why was 20 dats agreeable? If 20 days isn't feasible, what's an agreeable limit beyond 20 days? Does this debate really represent the end of the republic Jimmy?

 

 

[Dahobbs 17655]

28 minutes ago, B00M said:

Ok so I watched an MSNBC round table discussing Schumer's lack of outrage and I was amazed by how closely it mirrored many opinions expressed in this forum. 

Essentially, they didn't want any discussion of civility until there was no longer caging or separation of families at the border (& accessible health care for all & NO poverty.. but she was rolling), and anything possible must be done to make the right (white nationalists) uncomfortable in order to stop the "current slide into authoritarianism". They did mention that all the right wants is "lib tears", which seemed fair.

It appears the crux of this really is what's happening at the border. There was no solution or details discussed. Just outrage. No talk of how you process so many people in a timely manner (20 days was the acceptable limit under Obama before they had to be released), or keep them safe while doing so, which i believe is the entire point of the cages. Trump ended his indefensible policy of separating, by default, real families that had committed no other crime... So if i'm understanding this correctly, the left is fine with the 20 day detention limit, but extending it beyond that, so it's feasible to process/deport/grant asylum to so many people, represents a slide into authoritarianism that requires the harassment of all repubs. 

Have i over simplified? There should be a limit, there should be a mechanism in place to expedite, but .. why was 20 dats agreeable? If 20 days isn't feasible, what's an agreeable limit beyond 20 days? Does this debate really represent the end of the republic Jimmy?

 

 

You have confused things. 

(1) you can hold adults more than 20 days under the law;

(2) courts have interpreted the existing agreements and laws as requiring that children cannot be detained in a "secure" facility with adults (i.e. jail) more than 20 days;

(3) there is in fact no requirement that anyone be detained at all. Like many crimes, especially other misdemeanors, detention prior to trial should only be done if there is no other reasonable way to ensure attendance at the hearing;

(4) A previous trial program of ankle monitors resulted in a 90+% attendance rate. 

(5) The humanitarian crisis was created by an administration that (a) had no plan for ever reuniting families as required by law; (b) in fact appeared to try and actively make reunification impossible; (c) made is impossible for migrants to claim asylum through proper channels; (d) required every migrant be detained in jail regardless of whether they had a potentially valid asylum claim and regardless of whether jailing was at all necessary to secure attendance; (e) held children in absolutely horrible conditions and intentionally moved them as far from their parents as possible. 

In short, you know nothing and got nothing right.

[AnonymousInternetPoster 163]

HRC in a speech today accused DT and the Republicans of wanting to turn the clock back in the USA to the 1850s with the Kavanaugh appointment.

 

Someone's off of her meds.

[B00M 6458]

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You have confused things. 

(1) you can hold adults more than 20 days under the law;

(2) courts have interpreted the existing agreements and laws as requiring that children cannot be detained in a "secure" facility with adults (i.e. jail) more than 20 days;

(3) there is in fact no requirement that anyone be detained at all. Like many crimes, especially other misdemeanors, detention prior to trial should only be done if there is no other reasonable way to ensure attendance at the hearing;

(4) A previous trial program of ankle monitors resulted in a 90+% attendance rate. 

(5) The humanitarian crisis was created by an administration that (a) had no plan for ever reuniting families as required by law; (b) in fact appeared to try and actively make reunification impossible; (c) made is impossible for migrants to claim asylum through proper channels; (d) required every migrant be detained in jail regardless of whether they had a potentially valid asylum claim and regardless of whether jailing was at all necessary to secure attendance; (e) held children in absolutely horrible conditions and intentionally moved them as far from their parents as possible. 

In short, you know nothing and got nothing right.

Thanks for chiming in, sincerely. Do you think the best solution is one where families are interviewed and if they're legit, they get ankle monitors and are released? What specifically needs to change today to end the 'slide into authoritarianism' and create a nominally sustainable border situation? 

[AnonymousInternetPoster 163]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

You have confused things. 

(1) you can hold adults more than 20 days under the law;

(2) courts have interpreted the existing agreements and laws as requiring that children cannot be detained in a "secure" facility with adults (i.e. jail) more than 20 days;

(3) there is in fact no requirement that anyone be detained at all. Like many crimes, especially other misdemeanors, detention prior to trial should only be done if there is no other reasonable way to ensure attendance at the hearing;

(4) A previous trial program of ankle monitors resulted in a 90+% attendance rate. 

(5) The humanitarian crisis was created by an administration that (a) had no plan for ever reuniting families as required by law; (b) in fact appeared to try and actively make reunification impossible; (c) made is impossible for migrants to claim asylum through proper channels; (d) required every migrant be detained in jail regardless of whether they had a potentially valid asylum claim and regardless of whether jailing was at all necessary to secure attendance; (e) held children in absolutely horrible conditions and intentionally moved them as far from their parents as possible. 

In short, you know nothing and got nothing right.

Excellent summary. 

[EMAWesome 101]

5 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

fear·mon·ger·ing

ˈfirˌməNGəriNG/

noun

noun: fear-mongering

1. the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

2.  The Democratic Party's campaign strategy since at least 1980.

 

If the Republicans had actually managed to kill off one percent of all the people Democrats have claimed the Republicans were going to kill since the 1980s there wouldn't be anyone left to vote in elections.

[EMAWesome 101]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The left has been philosophically and politically ineffective for several decades.  The right serves up Karl Rove, the left PeeWee Herman.  I know you think otherwise, but as is often the case, you are flat fucking wrong.

It maybe happen again since the powers that be in the DNC, from national to local, are loathe to cede any control, but the consensus of "fight as dirty as they do" is rapidly building.

I'm actually thinking about joining the Democratic Party.  That's a paradigm shift -- never thought I'd join either party, but the stakes are too great.

 

You might as well.  You meet the delusional qualifications for them.   You are right about one thing though.  The powers that be in the DNC are loathe to cede any control.  Which is why I will never help any of them get elected to anything, particularly anything based in Washington D.C.  If the DNC was capable of accepting defeat this country wouldn't have to be dealing with the mess it's had to deal with for the last two years.  You are way too much inside the forest to see the trees but the Democratic Party is far closer to being a fascist party than anything Trump could ever dream of.  The DNC does not give one shit about what is good for America.  The absolute only thing the DNC cares about is what is good for the DNC.

Edited July 14, 2018 by EMAWesome

[Dahobbs 17655]

42 minutes ago, B00M said:

Thanks for chiming in, sincerely. Do you think the best solution is one where families are interviewed and if they're legit, they get ankle monitors and are released? What specifically needs to change today to end the 'slide into authoritarianism' and create a nominally sustainable border situation? 

That is my preference. That and rather than throwing money to build detention centers, increase judicial resources so that asylum claims can be processed quickly, i.e. 20 days or less. We can still detain those where stronger arguments exist for detainment (e.g. criminal history or something like that). The exact same process is handled by our legal system on a routine basis for domestic crimes. 

[jimmyjazz 46099]

2 hours ago, B00M said:

Ok so I watched an MSNBC round table discussing Schumer's lack of outrage and I was amazed by how closely it mirrored many opinions expressed in this forum. 

. . .

Does this debate really represent the end of the republic Jimmy?

 

 

That had nothing to do with what I referred to. I was talking about Schumer's scolding of the Congress over Maxine Waters' "push back" order.  He, in typical pussified leftish fashion played the "go high" card, when in reality it is perfectly reasonable (and frankly expected) for the public to engage their elected and appointed government officials in public over issues they feel compelled to talk about.  Don't want no shit?  Don't work for the government.  

200 years ago they'd be tarred and feathered, but for some reason we now have to be "civil" even though the right act like fucking pigs.  Nope.

[jimmyjazz 46099]

11 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

You might as well.  You meet the delusional qualifications for them.   You are right about one thing though.  The powers that be in the DNC are loathe to cede any control.  Which is why I will never help any of them get elected to anything, particularly anything based in Washington D.C.  If the DNC was capable of accepting defeat this country wouldn't have to be dealing with the mess it's had to deal with for the last two years.  You are way too much inside the forest to see the trees but the Democratic Party is far closer to being a fascist party than anything Trump could ever dream of.  The DNC does not give one shit about what is good for America.  The absolute only thing the DNC cares about is what is good for the DNC.

Got damn you're stupid.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

5 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Even taking into account that 1 or 2 years at Kirkland 20 years ago was his only real private sector job, it’s still pretty shocking that his assets are so low in his 50s.  Circuit Court Judges and adjunct professors don’t make big law money, but it’s not peanuts, either.  And the flip side of the “He doesn’t have to save because of his generous pension” argument is (1) he also likely gets lots of benefits so he’s probably not spending it on medical bills or something, and (2) if an upper middle class house in DC is the only real asset, what is he spending it on?  That’s a lot of vacations and baseball.

It’s a total non-story as far as confirmation and shows they don’t have any real ammo against him at the moment, but it is interesting.  Definitely makes me appreciate private sector stooge status.

Also, Democrats would be wise to distance themselves from Hillary, who is basically a glorified shock jock and paid speech hound at this point.  She’s in the same business as Ann Coulter now.  All the Dems have to do is not sound radical so they can look like the reasonable alternative to Trumpkin craziness, but instead they’re going with claiming the guy that is seemingly designed in a lab to be normal and milquetoast actually wants to bring back slavery.  

Well, Metro DC is a very expensive place to live.  Some of that its mitigated by the house in Chevy Chase, but I imagine the kids are in tony, probably $30k/year schools and so on and so forth.

[Gil Bang 25999]

 

 

Former U.S. Senator Al Franken

17 mins · 

When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

He’ll say no, of course.

2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention—but not nearly enough.

4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

8. So, today, you are telling the American people—under oath—that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

9. And that determination—it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

Of course he doesn’t.

15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts—isn’t that right?

16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection—whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that—and I’ll quote it again—“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

Then I’d try to sum it up.

22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar—but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence—and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing—even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.

[Guest]

That's your guy....

 

Al Franken???

 

The voice of reason???   I mean, I bet in all the fervor, he seemed quite reasonable to speak about character and objectivity.

[jimmyjazz 46099]

5 minutes ago, slorch said:

That's your guy....

 

Al Franken???

 

The voice of reason???   I mean, I bet in all the fervor, he seemed quite reasonable to speak about character and objectivity.

Well, I'm pretty sure you didn't read that, but let's pretend you did.  Where do you disagree?  I can spot some obvious divergences, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the point sailed right over your precious little West Texas head.

[TornACL 7722]

It was too many words by old Al, but the nominee's first words upon receiving the nomination, where he made a ridiculous claim that could have been written by Trump himself, is enough for me to vote no. 

The Supreme Court is not beholden to the President. I feel like I am taking crazy pills. 

[Gil Bang 25999]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

That's your guy....

 

Al Franken???

 

The voice of reason???   I mean, I bet in all the fervor, he seemed quite reasonable to speak about character and objectivity.

Al Franken is indeed, my guy.  He was the smartest motherfucker in the Senate for the entire time he was there. 

[Guest]

IQ =/= good judgment.

 

He proved it time and again.

[RayDog 682]

Am I the only one that thinks that if you saw Kavanaugh in Texas you would guess he is an aggy and if he was in a defendants chair in court you would guess he was up on child porn charges?

[Anastasis 23481]

15 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Am I the only one that thinks that if you saw Kavanaugh in Texas you would guess he is an aggy and if he was in a defendants chair in court you would guess he was up on child porn charges?

I'd go with technological, and DWI.  But don't let that stop your projecting. 

[B00M 6458]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

That had nothing to do with what I referred to. I was talking about Schumer's scolding of the Congress over Maxine Waters' "push back" order.  He, in typical pussified leftish fashion played the "go high" card, when in reality it is perfectly reasonable (and frankly expected) for the public to engage their elected and appointed government officials in public over issues they feel compelled to talk about.  Don't want no shit?  Don't work for the government.  

200 years ago they'd be tarred and feathered, but for some reason we now have to be "civil" even though the right act like fucking pigs.  Nope.

I thought waters wanted push back over trump's immigration policies? 

I think Schumers call for civility is extremely respectable. I wish you'd be more specific and less emotional like you used to be.

 

 

[EMAWesome 101]

9 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Al Franken is indeed, my guy.  He was the smartest motherfucker in the Senate for the entire time he was there. 

Even if this were actually true it would say a hell of a lot more about the rest of the Senate then it would about Al Franken.

[jimmyjazz 46099]

5 minutes ago, B00M said:

I thought waters wanted push back over trump's immigration policies? 

I think Schumers call for civility is extremely respectable. I wish you'd be more specific and less emotional like you used to be.

 

 

I'm not sure how I can be more clear.  Maxine Waters called on citizens to let administration officials know what they think of our immigration policies.  Schumer scolded her for her remarks in front of the Senate.  

He should not have done that.  It's a weak, conciliatory approach when times call for just the opposite.

Is that too emotional for you?

[Texas73 421]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

IQ =/= good judgment.

 

He proved it time and again.

Trump has neither a high IQ or good judgement.

[EMAWesome 101]

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure how I can be more clear.  Maxine Waters called on citizens to let administration officials know what they think of our immigration policies.  Schumer scolded her for her remarks in front of the Senate.  

He should not have done that.  It's a weak, conciliatory approach when times call for just the opposite.

Is that too emotional for you?

She called on people to harass members of the Trump administration wherever they go.  That is a lot different from calling on "citizens to let administration officials know what they think of our immigration policies."   I'm sure there are plenty of official government phone numbers and websites a person can use to do that.  If they haven't completely fossilized they could even write a letter to their congressmen.  After all they are the ones who draft immigration legislation.   She called on people to be asses and she should be called out about it.  The same political party who got their panties in an uproar over one person screaming "you lied"  to Obama years ago now has no problem calling on people to scream anything and everything at any member of the Trump administration.   Just the usual extra large order of hypocrisy from Democrat politicians.

[Neonmoon 38130]

12 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

Former U.S. Senator Al Franken

17 mins · 

When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

He’ll say no, of course.

2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention—but not nearly enough.

4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

8. So, today, you are telling the American people—under oath—that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

9. And that determination—it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

Of course he doesn’t.

15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts—isn’t that right?

16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection—whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that—and I’ll quote it again—“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

Then I’d try to sum it up.

22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar—but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence—and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing—even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.

There are a million things to rake Kavanaugh over the coals for, like basically most of his positions,  but scrutinizing a political team rah rah statement to the press to some judicial standard is fucking stupid and Al Frankin is fucking stupid for doing it. 

[wildcat09 29376]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

There are a million things to rake Kavanaugh over the coals for, like basically most of his positions,  but scrutinizing a political team rah rah statement to the press to some judicial standard is fucking stupid and Al Frankin is fucking stupid for doing it. 

Bullshit. He’s a nominee for SCOTUS, he’s not running for elected office as a Republican. He shouldn’t be telling risible lies to the American people just because Trump wants him to.

[Neonmoon 38130]

44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Bullshit. He’s a nominee for SCOTUS, he’s not running for elected office as a Republican. He shouldn’t be telling risible lies to the American people just because Trump wants him to.

You are right. Supreme Court nominations are not politically motivated...at all

Supreme Court justices aren’t running for office in the literal sense but to think they arent playing on one of the teams is laughable.  His assertion about the most thorough search is indeed farcicle, just like Al Franklin’s assertion it means anything. 

 

[formermav43 4606]

I’m fine with Franken’s line of questioning.

He lost me with his lament on what conservatives have done to the judiciary, as if progressives are above the fray.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Texas73 said:

Trump has neither a high IQ or good judgement.

And your point is?

 

FYI, I am no fan of Trump either.  The SC situation however is one of the best things that will happen under his watch.

[David Dennison 18945]

21 minutes ago, slorch said:

And your point is?

 

FYI, I am no fan of Trump either.  The SC situation however is one of the best things that will happen under his watch.

Just remember, turnabout is fair play. As much as you like this, you will dislike it that much more when the court shifts left.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

19 hours ago, slorch said:

Obamacare wasn't conciliatory.

 

ACA

 

Available for review for 35 weeks

Debated for 169 hours

Amended 161 times by Republicans

Total Republican votes- 0

 

Trump Tax Bill (500 pages)

 

Dropped hours before being passed on a party line vote.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/obamacare-tax-bill-republicans-democrats-congress-730829%3famp=1

 

Yes I know it's slorch refusing to accept reality, but I had some time to kill.

[jimmyjazz 46099]

3 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

She called on people to harass members of the Trump administration wherever they go.  That is a lot different from calling on "citizens to let administration officials know what they think of our immigration policies."   I'm sure there are plenty of official government phone numbers and websites a person can use to do that.  If they haven't completely fossilized they could even write a letter to their congressmen.  After all they are the ones who draft immigration legislation.   She called on people to be asses and she should be called out about it.  The same political party who got their panties in an uproar over one person screaming "you lied"  to Obama years ago now has no problem calling on people to scream anything and everything at any member of the Trump administration.   Just the usual extra large order of hypocrisy from Democrat politicians.

You can call it hypocrisy.  I call it fighting fire with fire.  You're so fucking twisted you have no idea what's reality, but regardless, I will continue to encourage the left to behave exactly has the right has behaved for years.  Sucks to be you, but you earned it.  Suck it down. 

(Cue "I know you are but what am I".)

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

ACA

 

Available for review for 35 weeks

Debated for 169 hours

Amended 161 times by Republicans

Total Republican votes- 0

 

Trump Tax Bill (500 pages)

 

Dropped hours before being passed on a party line vote.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/obamacare-tax-bill-republicans-democrats-congress-730829%3famp=1

 

Yes I know it's slorch refusing to accept reality, but I had some time to kill.

I didn't use the word collaborative.  You can read, can't you?

 

The ACA was not a measure of compromise for health insurance providors who won or many American citizens who lost. It was a good ole political fucking. 

 

We were getting it whether we wanted it or not. It was not conciliatory towards its opponents.  We have the votes, so fuck you.  That's where we are with this little SC sitiation. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by slorch

[TwiceHorn 31529]

DId Kavanaugh really say that?  First thing?  Geezus H.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

 

 

 

It was not conciliatory towards its opponents.  

 

 

The leader of "its opponents" stated from the very beginning of Obama's term their #1 priority was to stop Obama before he even had a chance to propose anything. At that point, Democrats should have just shut Republicans out of the entire legislative process, being that they and you insist on misrepresenting what happened during the passing of the ACA.

 

What incentive do Dems have to try to work with Republicans who did nothing to address health care reform when they controlled the House, Senate, and presidency for 4 years of W's term? They and you just propagate the lie it was railroaded thru despite your parsing of words.

 

Instead, Dems went above and beyond, invited and accepted a shitload of Pub input into the crafting of the ACA only to watch Pubs do exactly what Pubs said they were going to do at the beginning of Obama's term and then follow up with the lie that this law that resulted in millions of more Americans having health insurance, slowed the rate of health care cost increases, and lopped medical bankruptcies in half as some authoritative dictate that was shoved down America's throat.

 

Fuck you and fuck anyone who gives the GOP the benefit of the doubt they will act in good faith.

 

[VRHorn 718]

6 hours ago, Texas73 said:

Trump has neither a high IQ or good judgement.

Just for posterity, the great and powerful (moron) Slorch negged this.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

Also fuck Tapa's edit feature and/or my phone.

Sorry for the derail.

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 7/13/2018 at 2:57 PM, Johnny Sack said:

No. I’m bashing her for attacking Bill’s victims.  When she had to know her husband was a scumbag.  

On the Kennedy thread. For some reason. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 7/14/2018 at 2:50 PM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The leader of "its opponents" stated from the very beginning of Obama's term their #1 priority was to stop Obama before he even had a chance to propose anything. At that point, Democrats should have just shut Republicans out of the entire legislative process, being that they and you insist on misrepresenting what happened during the passing of the ACA.

 

What incentive do Dems have to try to work with Republicans who did nothing to address health care reform when they controlled the House, Senate, and presidency for 4 years of W's term? They and you just propagate the lie it was railroaded thru despite your parsing of words.

 

Instead, Dems went above and beyond, invited and accepted a shitload of Pub input into the crafting of the ACA only to watch Pubs do exactly what Pubs said they were going to do at the beginning of Obama's term and then follow up with the lie that this law that resulted in millions of more Americans having health insurance, slowed the rate of health care cost increases, and lopped medical bankruptcies in half as some authoritative dictate that was shoved down America's throat.

 

Fuck you and fuck anyone who gives the GOP the benefit of the doubt they will act in good faith.

 

The GOT is a lyin, cheating bunch of assholes. That much is known. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

On the Kennedy thread. For some reason. 

 Because that wrinkled old worthless cunt was commenting on kennedy’s successor.  

[Gil Bang 25999]

Sack's on full tilt. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I think sack might have gifted his handle to swam. Or maybe there were the same person all along. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

On 7/13/2018 at 5:41 PM, B00M said:

It appears the crux of this really is what's happening at the border. There was no solution or details discussed. Just outrage.

Growing up, I never missed The McLaughlin Group (I was an odd child). I enjoyed hearing all sides of an argument and you could tell that each of the guests/regulars enjoyed the hearty debate. I feel like those days are gone. Now it's FUCK OFF LIBTARD and FUCK YOU TRUMPKIN. Little substantial debate on issues. Our Congress is a reflection of us.

/rant

[Gil Bang 25999]

 

[Gil Bang 25999]

On 7/16/2018 at 6:33 AM, Cheeseweasel said:

Growing up, I never missed The McLaughlin Group (I was an odd child). I enjoyed hearing all sides of an argument and you could tell that each of the guests/regulars enjoyed the hearty debate. I feel like those days are gone. Now it's FUCK OFF LIBTARD and FUCK YOU TRUMPKIN. Little substantial debate on issues. Our Congress is a reflection of us.

/rant

that show had 1 rule; you couldn't talk unless at least two other people were already talking. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

12 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

that show had 1 rule; you couldn't talk unless at least two other people were already talking. 

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[David Dennison 18945]

The Kavanaugh pick is starting to make a whole lot of sense. I look forward to his responses about this in the hearings.