Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BNB said:

Is this about Ramirez? Do they have anything besides someone saying they heard that it happened?

I don't know what "this" you are referring to.  NBC has text messages proving Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez allegations prior to the story that was printed in The New Yorker, but asserted otherwise under oath in front of Congress.  That's perjury.  (Never mind the fact that he committed multiple other acts of perjury, too.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

These latest revelations don't move the needle for me with him.  I thought his performance before the Senate was disqualifying regardless of the truth of the assault allegations.  But I guess that's just because I'm a lawyer.

They don't move the needle because adding perjury #8 to 1-7 seems inconsequential.  That's understandable, especially for someone paying attention.  For John Q. Public?  It's new information regarding a story that had faded from sight.  I think it's important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29225

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Dems seeking to impeach Kav (while failing to move swiftly on DJ) would be such a colossally stupid move.

I fully expect them to do this, of course.

 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

They don't move the needle because adding perjury #8 to 1-7 seems inconsequential.  That's understandable, especially for someone paying attention.  For John Q. Public?  It's new information regarding a story that had faded from sight.  I think it's important.

I don't necessarily disagree with these takes, but the Dems are going to have to take a stand at some point if they want to actually stave off fascism. The Dems reducing everything to the optimal political tactic at a specific moment in time (or at least what they think that is) as their entire political strategy is a huge reason we are where we are now.  There is a clear moral case to be argued against the GOP's rampant corruption and complete disregard for American democracy and the rule of law and they need to fucking make it to the American people.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't necessarily disagree with these takes, but the Dems are going to have to take a stand at some point if they want to actually stave off fascism. The Dems reducing everything to the optimal political tactic at a specific moment in time (or at least what they think that is) as their entire political strategy is a huge reason we are where we are now.  There is a clear moral case to be argued against the GOP's rampant corruption and complete disregard for American democracy and the rule of law and they need to fucking make it to the American people.

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying.  I think impeaching Kavanaugh is the right thing to do, independent of what happens with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28705

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

These latest revelations don't move the needle for me with him.  I thought his performance before the Senate was disqualifying regardless of the truth of the assault allegations.  But I guess that's just because I'm a lawyer.

I saw with my own eyes that he's a lying, crying, whiny little bitch. Nothing can change that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1953

Posted
Posted
I don't necessarily disagree with these takes, but the Dems are going to have to take a stand at some point if they want to actually stave off fascism. The Dems reducing everything to the optimal political tactic at a specific moment in time (or at least what they think that is) as their entire political strategy is a huge reason we are where we are now.  There is a clear moral case to be argued against the GOP's rampant corruption and complete disregard for American democracy and the rule of law and they need to fucking make it to the American people.


Dems need to focus on impeaching, dragging and defeating the orange one or we will end up with two more Kavanaughs. That scenario = irreparable lasting damage to the country.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, scottsins said:

 


Dems need to focus on impeaching, dragging and defeating the orange one or we will end up with two more Kavanaughs. That scenario = irreparable lasting damage to the country.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but imo the Dems need to focus on winning the next god-damn election. 

Impeachment? Maybe as a moral act, but as a political act it's not going to go anywhere, imo. 

And Kavanaugh? Whining about him just hurts the Dems. 

Jesus, Dems, grow the fuck up, get a clue, and win the next election. RBG herself praised Kavanaugh. Let that one go for god's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 months later...
ftf82

ftf82 485

Posted
Posted

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts publicly chastised Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Wednesday over comments Schumer made outside the court as the justices were hearing a case on abortion rights.

Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested that President Donald Trump's court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, "won't know what hit" them if they vote to uphold abortion restrictions. He spoke during a rally on the sidewalk in front of the court building.

 

"I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.

In a highly unusual written statement issued late Wednesday, Roberts said "statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only appropriate, they are dangerous."

"All members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter," Roberts said.

The court was hearing a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It was the first major abortion case to reach the Supreme Court since the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold a woman's right to choose. He was replaced by Kavanaugh, who is generally more conservative.

Schumer told the crowd that state legislatures are waging a war on women by passing tough new abortion laws. "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

The senator's spokesman said Schumer was referring to the political price Republicans "will pay for putting them on the court." It was a warning, the spokesman said, "that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision."

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ftf82

ftf82 485

Posted
Posted

Not sure what your point is.  Roberts voted against the similar Texas law. Are you suggesting he was out of line for responding to Schumer? I’m not a big fan of Roberts personally given his predisposition to upholding Executive branch authority (regardless of the party) but I don’t see an issue with his statement here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15477

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ftf82 said:

Not sure what your point is.  Roberts voted against the similar Texas law. Are you suggesting he was out of line for responding to Schumer? I’m not a big fan of Roberts personally given his predisposition to upholding Executive branch authority (regardless of the party) but I don’t see an issue with his statement here.  

I'm saying that he needs to have some appreciation just how precarious the Court's position is in the current environment.

Edited by Ghost of LL
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
freyguy

freyguy 4245

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

John Roberts needs to get something through his head, and right fast: if he fucks up this and a number of other cases, the Democrats are going to pack the fuck out of the Court next year.

What Supreme Court positions are opening up next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ftf82

ftf82 485

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm saying that he needs to have some appreciation just how precarious the Court's position is in the current environment.

So should he have not responded to a leader in another branch of the government? I’m mean that’s a fair comment if that’s your point. Was that it? Roberts for all his faults has tried to maintain the decorum and public non partisanship of the Court. He’s not responsible for Kavanaugh or Gorsuch being appointed (or Sotomayor who was also a political appointment like Kavanaugh).  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15477

Posted
Posted
So should he have not responded to a leader in another branch of the government? I’m mean that’s a fair comment if that’s your point. Was that it? Roberts for all his faults has tried to maintain the decorum and public non partisanship of the Court. He’s not responsible for Kavanaugh or Gorsuch being appointed (or Sotomayor who was also a political appointment like Kavanaugh).  

That’s completely my point. He needs to keep his head down and ignore the political branches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn of Gabriel

Horn of Gabriel 1590

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm saying that he needs to have some appreciation just how precarious the Court's position is in the current environment.

Let's drop the pretense that if the (D)'s win they won't do this, or it will be "measured."  They will absolutely do this if they have the ablity to do it, the question is do they go to 11, 13, or 15?   Then how far beyond that does the next (R) President go?  I believe we'll get to around 57 SCOTUS justices in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29225

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Let's drop the pretense that if the (D)'s win they won't do this, or it will be "measured."  They will absolutely do this if they have the ablity to do it, the question is do they go to 11, 13, or 15?   Then how far beyond that does the next (R) President go?  I believe we'll get to around 57 SCOTUS justices in my lifetime.

Lol at the thought of a Biden administration pushing to expand the Court.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ftf82

ftf82 485

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:


That’s completely my point. He needs to keep his head down and ignore the political branches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it.  I misunderstood your original point and thought you were questioning his position on the case in question. Lo siento. As a lawyer (not an appelate or trial lawyer, but a Con Law nerd and AmJur recipient lol) I still feel like Schumer was way out of line (as is Trump when he goes off on judges and justices). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15477

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ftf82 said:

Got it.  I misunderstood your original point and thought you were questioning his position on the case in question. Lo siento. As a lawyer (not an appelate or trial lawyer, but a Con Law nerd and AmJur recipient lol) I still feel like Schumer was way out of line (as is Trump when he goes off on judges and justices). 

I also think Schumer shouldn't have said what he said.

But Roberts needs to exercise better judgment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ftf82

ftf82 485

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Now now, roberts can never pass up a chance to make the wrong choice in a case

Roberts was the deciding vote in the Texas case that was more or less the same as this new case from Louisiana.  Are you saying that was the wrong choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48962

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That’s completely my point. He needs to keep his head down and ignore the political branches.
 

Quote:  "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.

 

Publicly threatening Supreme Court Justices is dangerous... probably why Roberts responded.

 

Edited by LTtxfan
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27442

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ftf82 said:

Roberts was the deciding vote in the Texas case that was more or less the same as this new case from Louisiana.  Are you saying that was the wrong choice?

No, I was more talking about:

Shelby County v Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act on the basis of "there's no need for this law anymore" and now there's record long voting lines due to polling center closures

Connick v Thompson, which found that prosecutors could not be individually held accountable for willful withholding of exculpatory evidence. It makes citizens more vulnerable to overreach from bad cops or prosecutors. 

Citizens United, which found that corporations, which cannot be prosecuted or pursued like a person can, have the same rights as people do. And in addition to that, that spending is a form of speech, so corporations can donate unlimited funds to political campaigns without oversight or accountability. It's sure been a fucking winner if you ask me. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...