Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[elfenix 34,169]

1 hour 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.

good.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,659]

1 hour 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?

Wrong. He voted to uphold the restrictions in Texas that are nearly identical to the ones in Louisiana. 

He only voted to stay the Louisiana law because the majority had voted the other way in the Texas case. 

He loves him some pretext to let transparent "protecting women's health" justifications erode any meaningful access to abortion services. 

[DDD Dad 14,243]

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.
 

And yet crickets when Trump went after Sotomayor and RBG.

Schumer should apologize. He was way out of line. But if Roberts is going to chime in he needs to be balanced. Otherwise he looks just as political.

[Biff Tannen 45,491]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

And yet crickets when Trump went after Sotomayor and RBG.

Schumer should apologize. He was way out of line. But if Roberts is going to chime in he needs to be balanced. Otherwise he looks just as political.

This is the point I'm taking from this.  Where has Roberts been when the dotard has railed on the courts multiple times since he's been elected.  I literally just saw video of Schumer and yes, that was out of line.  What dotard has done is far worse, especially considering his position, and Roberts should criticize equally if he's going to criticize.  

[Brisketexan 104,537]

This is the point I'm taking from this.  Where has Roberts been when the dotard has railed on the courts multiple times since he's been elected.  I literally just saw video of Schumer and yes, that was out of line.  What dotard has done is far worse, especially considering his position, and Roberts should criticize equally if he's going to criticize.  

Bingo.
It’s actually much more dangerous coming from Dotus. But from Roberts, crickets.
I used to have at least a little respect for Roberts. That’s gone. He can go fuck himself. He’s going to preside over SCOTUS when it fully and finally loses credibility as an institution. Amazing fucking legacy, you shitbag.

[wildcat09 29,213]

There’s not really any value left in pretending the courts are a politically neutral institution. We should have abandoned that fiction after Bush v. Gore because that was pretty clear evidence that the GOP already had, but better late than never I suppose.

[Captainant 27,405]

2 hours ago, ftf82 said:

Oh Okay.  That wasn’t what Schumer was protesting about or what my discussion with GOLL was about. 

Oh for sure, I was mainly defending my shitpost-level post with data since you also provided a datapoint

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

Had Roberts not looked at the floor like a scolded puppy when Trump blasted Sotomayor and RBG his admonishment would carry weight. He didn't. It doesn't. He can go fuck himself.

[LTtxfan 48,952]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

And yet crickets when Trump went after Sotomayor and RBG.
Schumer should apologize. He was way out of line. But if Roberts is going to chime in he needs to be balanced. Otherwise he looks just as political.

Potus gets out of line and has been too personal with the Supreme Court Justices no doubt. Supreme Court's have been historically criticized for their decisions and that's fair game.  But Schumer severely crossed a line with his direct threats towards Gorsuch and  Kavanaugh.  

Supreme Court Justices should not be threatened...

(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.)

[David Dennison 18,646]

2 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Potus gets out of line and has been too personal with the Supreme Court Justices no doubt. Supreme Court's have been historically criticized for their decisions and that's fair game.  But Schumer severely crossed a line with his direct threats towards Gorsuch and  Kavanaugh.  

Supreme Court Justices should not be threatened...

(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.)

What kind of threat do you think that is, exactly?

[DalTxHornFan 3,085]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What kind of threat do you think that is, exactly?

 

[David Dennison 18,646]

Oh, so it was a political threat.

The way people are hyperventilating, I thought it was something serious.

[DalTxHornFan 3,085]

Keep on trying to justify this if you must, but there is no clean side of a piece of turd, it is known.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

Whirlwind.

 

I wonder how Roberts would react if the SC was receiving mail bombs and Schumer was repeatedly calling the SC the Enemy Of People?

[David Dennison 18,646]

1 minute ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Keep on trying to justify this if you must, but there is no clean side of a piece of turd, it is known.

You'll get over it.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

3 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Keep on trying to justify this if you must, but there is no clean side of a piece of turd, it is known.

Yeah, some of us have been trying to hammer home this point since it became evident a huge hunk of this country supports a guy that unapologetically calls for execution of innocent Americans. Who fantasizes out loud about shooting a guy on 5th Avenue and cites his supposed (and likely) steadfast support from his followers as a virtue. Who explicitly incites violence at his rallies and, in case there was any doubt, offers legal aid to those who follow through. Who encourages police to rough up those they arrest, etc, etc... that it would inevitably lead to situation where the kid gloves came off and threats of "whirlwind" and possibly "dust devils" would be unleashed into the public arena with nary a care of the damage it could do to the decorum essential to this republic and civilized society. Fucking vapors.

[Mdhorn 5,910]

13 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Yeah, some of us have been trying to hammer home this point since it became evident a huge hunk of this country supports a guy that unapologetically calls for execution of innocent Americans. Who fantasizes out loud about shooting a guy on 5th Avenue and cites his supposed (and likely) steadfast support from his followers as a virtue. Who explicitly incites violence at his rallies and, in case there was any doubt, offers legal aid to those who follow through. Who encourages police to rough up those they arrest, etc, etc... that it would inevitably lead to situation where the kid gloves came off and threats of "whirlwind" and possibly "dust devils" would be unleashed into the public arena with nary a care of the damage it could do to the decorum essential to this republic and civilized society. Fucking vapors.

and "grab 'em by the pussy" infers rape, misogyny, abuse, and a host of other shitty, slime ball douchebaggery.  But let's tippy toe around Der leader.  

[RomaVicta 29,769]

5 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Lol. Schumer is a clown...

I love that this got two pos reps. I'm actually laughing as I type. 

These guys.

[DalTxHornFan 3,085]

Sounds like errbody agrees that Schumer's actions today are indefensible, but Orange Man Bad, so there's that. 

Ad hominem responses unrelated to Schumer and his statements today is a weak strategy.  Good luck with that. 

Schumer is gonna end up having to walk back every word of it and make a full apology.

[WhatTheBuck 28,703]

Let's not forget that Brett Kavanaugh is a lying, crying, whiney little bitch. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

25 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Sounds like errbody agrees that Schumer's actions today are indefensible, but Orange Man Bad, so there's that. 

 

Schumer doing a fraction of what Trump does as standard operational procedure repercussion-free is completely defensible, specifically as it relates to Roberts.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Anastasis 23,390]

Yep. This is pretty much where we are. It’s not going to get better. 

[Pam Cummings 9,560]

6 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Sounds like errbody agrees that Schumer's actions today are indefensible, but Orange Man Bad, so there's that. 

Ad hominem responses unrelated to Schumer and his statements today is a weak strategy.  Good luck with that. 

Schumer is gonna end up having to walk back every word of it and make a full apology.

Lmfao, yeah, because rules and decorum obviously matter at this point

[bernorange 8,348]

#whataboutisms never going away.

I wonder how much of Roberts response was a personal catharsis for the political pressure he endured on the ACA decision.

[Longhorn 145]

 

12 hours 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.

I’m guessing it will either go to 100 or to 435.

[DDD Dad 14,243]

and "grab 'em by the pussy" infers rape, misogyny, abuse, and a host of other shitty, slime ball douchebaggery.  But let's tippy toe around Der leader.  

Implies

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

LMAO at Trumpkins getting overheated over Mean Chuck Schumer's statement.

[horn4life 3,753]

Only one side has cheated in the nomination and confirmation of Supreme court justices and that is the Republican side.

All the Dems need to do is make it easy for people to vote and encourage people to vote.  There won't be any worries about GOP reprisals for anything if voting is made easy.  Simply because the GOP KNOWS that right now only voter suppression gives them a fighting chance. Without widespread voter suppression the GOP doesn't have a viable long term future. 

[Anastasis 23,390]

5 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Only one side has cheated in the nomination and confirmation of Supreme court justices and that is the Republican side.

Politicizing the confirmation process is not a new thing, or exclusively the actions of one party. The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit  over time. Shit, you can draw a line right from Kavanaugh through Kennedy right to Bork.  We are now at the point where the GOP is straight up rolling around in the shit, rubbing it all over their faces, and enjoying it. Thriving on it, politically, in fact. The democratic party leadership seems to be itching to jump in the pit with them and roll around. #politicaldeathspiral #sorry,not sorry

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

Bork's rejection was nothing like failing to even consider Merrick Garland.  Bork was rejected with bipartisan voting on both "yay" and "nay".

#bothsides

[Anastasis 23,390]

I didn't say the two were equivalent.  In fact I implicitly stated that there is a meaningful difference between what happened 30 years ago and what happened just over a year ago, given the trajectory we are on. #don'twastethehashtag 

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I didn't say the two were equivalent.  In fact I implicitly stated that there is a meaningful difference between what happened 30 years ago and what happened just over a year ago, given the trajectory we are on. #don'twastethehashtag 

So what was the point of your previous post?  

[Brisketexan 104,537]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lmfao, yeah, because rules and decorum obviously matter at this point

This.  Fuck anyone lecturing the non-Trumpers on decorum, what's proper, etc.

It's as if we have one team that's blatantly holding, tripping, and clipping on every play.  And fucking CELEBRATING it, dancing for the cameras about their "TOTAL DOMINATION" every play.  Then, when the other team finally grabs ahold of an opposing jersey and tosses a cheater to the ground....we get a fucking LECTURE on the fucking integrity of the game?

Fuck that shit.

Rules are over. They're done.  Is it improper for someone to threaten SCOTUS justices?  Sure.  But fuck it, it's in play now.  That's where we are.  And playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules just means you'll fucking lose.

And again, Roberts has had a chance to truly stand up for the integrity and sanctity of the courts.  Instead, he has chosen partisan teams.  So fuck him.  He will preside over the death of SCOTUS as an institution worthy of respect and deference.  His page in all the history books should be smeared with shit.

[Anastasis 23,390]

Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

So what was the point of your previous post?  

That "politicizing the confirmation process is not a new thing, or exclusively the actions of one party. The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit  over time. Shit, you can draw a line right from Kavanaugh through Kennedy right to Bork.  We are now at the point where the GOP is straight up rolling around in the shit, rubbing it all over their faces, and enjoying it. Thriving on it, politically, in fact. The democratic party leadership seems to be itching to jump in the pit with them and roll around. #politicaldeathspiral #sorry,not sorry"

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That "politicizing the confirmation process is not a new thing, or exclusively the actions of one party. The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit  over time. Shit, you can draw a line right from Kavanaugh through Kennedy right to Bork.  We are now at the point where the GOP is straight up rolling around in the shit, rubbing it all over their faces, and enjoying it. Thriving on it, politically, in fact. The democratic party leadership seems to be itching to jump in the pit with them and roll around. #politicaldeathspiral #sorry,not sorry"

You don't write as clearly as you think you do.  Or perhaps you intentionally include ambiguities in your statements so that when you get called out for bothsiding an issue you can respond by cowardly trying to wiggle your way out of the obvious implications of your statement.  

[Anastasis 23,390]

1 minute ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

You don't write as clearly as you think you do.  Or perhaps you intentionally include ambiguities in your statements so that when you get called out for bothsiding an issue you can respond by cowardly trying to wiggle your way out of the obvious implications of your statement.  

What is not clear exactly? Go ahead and quote it, and I will address. If there is an ambiguity, I will be happy to address. I haven't cowardly shrunk away from anything, but let's see what you do with your response.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,491]

[elfenix 34,169]

Robert Bork, the man who didn't have the conviction or moral compass to quit when the AG and Deputy AG both quit over the same corrupt instruction from Nixon. The biggest moment of his life as a lawyer, with a clear right and wrong choice, with the examples from two better men to go by, and he completely fucking failed.  Just nominating that shitbird was a massive middle finger from Saint Ronald to any sense of judicial decorum.  But 35 years later old Schumi says something mean so, fuck it, bothsides!

Edited March 5, 2020 by elfenix

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What is not clear exactly? Go ahead and quote it, and I will address. If there is an ambiguity, I will be happy to address. I haven't cowardly shrunk away from anything, but let's see what you do with your response.

 

You're treating Bork's nomination as similar to Garland and Kavanaugh without actually providing detail regarding the similarities and differences or providing any context whatsoever.  That way, you can both side the issue by making them seem similar and then when someone like jimmyjazz reasonably concludes that you intended to argue that the situations are the same you can respond with "but I didn't say that."  It's a cowardly.  If you have an argument to make, then make it with detail and clarity.  Don't use ambiguity and a lack of clarity to leave yourself an out when someone makes a reasonable conclusion regarding your argument.  That's a pussy's approach.    

[kevwun 15,608]

The current equivalent would be nominating Bill Barr.

[David Dennison 18,646]

The right wing selective outrage machine rolls on.

[WhatTheBuck 28,703]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The right wing selective outrage machine rolls on.

How dare they treat us the way we treat them?!

[Anastasis 23,390]

 

22 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

You're treating Bork's nomination as similar to Garland and Kavanaugh without actually providing detail regarding the similarities and differences or providing any context whatsoever.  That way, you can both side the issue by making them seem similar and then when someone like jimmyjazz reasonably concludes that you intended to argue that the situations are the same you can respond with "but I didn't say that."  It's a cowardly.  If you have an argument to make, then make it with detail and clarity.  Don't use ambiguity and a lack of clarity to leave yourself an out when someone makes a reasonable conclusion regarding your argument.  That's a pussy's approach.    

Nothing in my post was unclear or ambiguous. Pointing to Bork as example of the smearing of the confirmation process is not a defense of Bork, nor it is equating Bork with Garland, nor it is particularly novel. Such to the extent that "Bork" has entered the lexicon of American English to describe the action of "smear[ing] heavily a political nominee while denying him confirmation". If guys like you and jimmyjazz would stop reacting to strawmen created in the hollows of your brain case, and instead actually quote my words, I wouldn't have to say "but I didn't say that".

I will also note that the thrust of my post is only exemplified by posts such as @Brisketexan's. And he is spot on correct when he says "Rules are over. They're done".  Which is why "This is pretty much where we are. It’s not going to get better." seems like a pretty fair assessment to me. 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Anastasis

[Brisketexan 104,537]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I will also note that the thrust of my post is only exemplified by posts such as @Brisketexan's. And he is spot on correct.  Which is why "This is pretty much where we are. It’s not going to get better." seems like a pretty fair assessment to me. 

Correct.

It's why the fucking Trumptards choosing to go all in on this path was the step that made the death of the Republic inevitable.  Once you start swinging folding chairs in the ring, you are no longer a sanctioned boxing match   You're just another fucking installment of WWE idiocy.  And lamenting the fact that your opponent grabbed a chair and started swinging back is the height of laughable fucking hypocrisy.  THEY FUCKING CHOSE THIS.

I hope that Trump and every sycophantic politician who worships at his altar gets this fucking treatment:

 

They decided to play this fucking game, they get what they fucking deserve.

[elfenix 34,169]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Nothing in my post was unclear or ambiguous. Pointing to Bork as example of the smearing of the confirmation process is not a defense of Bork, nor it is equating Bork with Garland, nor it is particularly novel. Such to the extent that "Bork" has entered the lexicon of American English to describe the action of "smear[ing] heavily a political nominee while denying him confirmation". If guys like you and jimmyjazz would stop reacting to strawmen created in the hollows of your brain case, and instead actually quote my words, I wouldn't have to say "but I didn't say that".

 

and it's a right wing fucking fable pushed by their mouthpiece rush limbaugh.  i used to believe that shit back when i was a good little republican asshole.  "we nominated this asshole who demonstrated by affirmative act that he didn't have the judicial compass to preside over a kangaroo court after a batavia muckdogs game but it's the democrats who are the problem!"

Edited March 5, 2020 by elfenix

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

and it's a right wing fucking fable pushed by their mouthpiece rush limbaugh.  i used to believe that shit back when i was a good little republican asshole.  "we nominated this asshole who demonstrated by affirmative act that he didn't have the judicial compass to preside over a kangaroo court after a batavia muckdogs game but it's the democrats who are the problem!"

Anastasis should understand that while, yes, it really is both sides, one side is a whole lot worse than the other. 

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If guys like you and jimmyjazz would stop reacting to strawmen created in the hollows of your brain case, and instead actually quote my words, I wouldn't have to say "but I didn't say that".

I didn't create a strawman.  I simply pointed out that Bork's rejection was nothing like the treatment of Garland.  You didn't state that truth, and you didn't even imply it. 

Just because multiple instances of "politicizing" the nomination and approval process occur doesn't mean they're equal or even of the same stripe.  What the Republicans did to Garland was nothing like what happened to Bork.  Nothing.  Now, maybe you can bring up a case of the modern Democratic party doing something similar to another nominee, and if so, great, but as I see it, based on what I know, the Republicans stepped outside of normal political behavior regarding SCOTUS justice approval and brought a whole different level of shit to the game.

NOT "both sides".

[wildcat09 29,213]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Politicizing the confirmation process is not a new thing, or exclusively the actions of one party. The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit  over time. Shit, you can draw a line right from Kavanaugh through Kennedy right to Bork.  We are now at the point where the GOP is straight up rolling around in the shit, rubbing it all over their faces, and enjoying it. Thriving on it, politically, in fact. The democratic party leadership seems to be itching to jump in the pit with them and roll around. #politicaldeathspiral #sorry,not sorry

But Bork! Drink!

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Nothing in my post was unclear or ambiguous. Pointing to Bork as example of the smearing of the confirmation process is not a defense of Bork, nor it is equating Bork with Garland, nor it is particularly novel. Such to the extent that "Bork" has entered the lexicon of American English to describe the action of "smear[ing] heavily a political nominee while denying him confirmation". If guys like you and jimmyjazz would stop reacting to strawmen created in the hollows of your brain case, and instead actually quote my words, I wouldn't have to say "but I didn't say that".

I will also note that the thrust of my post is only exemplified by posts such as @Brisketexan's. And he is spot on correct when he says "Rules are over. They're done".  Which is why "This is pretty much where we are. It’s not going to get better." seems like a pretty fair assessment to me. 

 

 

Of course your post was unclear.  It could have been interpreted as anything from all confirmations are political because they involve political parties to Bork and Garland were perfectly equivalent.  As I said, you're either a terrible writer who doesn't understand how poorly he writes or you're purposefully being unclear because you're a bothsiding coward who doesn't have the balls to stand by his position.  Given your shit trolling history, I will reasonably conclude that it was the latter.  

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't create a strawman.  I simply pointed out that Bork's rejection was nothing like the treatment of Garland.  You didn't state that truth, and you didn't even imply it. 

Just because multiple instances of "politicizing" the nomination and approval process occur doesn't mean they're equal or even of the same stripe.  What the Republicans did to Garland was nothing like what happened to Bork.  Nothing.  Now, maybe you can bring up a case of the modern Democratic party doing something similar to another nominee, and if so, great, but as I see it, based on what I know, the Republicans stepped outside of normal political behavior regarding SCOTUS justice approval and brought a whole different level of shit to the game.

NOT "both sides".

I always like it when anny throws out accusations that a poster is using logical fallacies without actually understanding the meaning of the supposed fallacy.  

It's particularly ironic given his appeal to authority when referencing brisket in his last response to me.