Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

Bork was an example of the Senate carrying out its constitutional obligations and exercising its power of consent. 

Garland was an example of McConnell pretending there was an "or not" clause in the Constitution's SC confirmation process, stating his personal belief that there should be no confirmation hearings in the final year of a presidential term, sooo... we're just going to do it this other way instead, only to gloat later that his reasoning was a complete lie and not only would a Trump SC nominee get a hearing in the final year of a presidential term, he'd be seated.

Apples and elephant shit.

[bernorange 8,348]

You peeps really like to jump on Anastasis' back.  His original post was pretty clear to me.

Quote

... The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit  over time.  ...

He pretty clearly stated that the problem has been getting worse with each swing of the pendulum.  JJ's assertion:

Quote

... 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.   ...

Wat?

[seven 1,366]

Not an Ana hater, but bringing a completely justified borking into this discussion is puzzling. It's amazing that people still try to defend that nomination and try to shame democrats for rightfully rejecting him. 

[kevwun 15,608]

I mean why shouldn't the guy who tried to help Nixon kill the Watergate investigation have been on the Supreme Court?

[wildcat09 29,213]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

The funny thing is that Democrats are still playing by the old rules 98% of the time and that's exactly WHY they get lambasted the other 2% when they actually stop pretending that the GOP didn't flip the game board over and light it on fire years ago.

This "well someone has to try to uphold our norms" attitude restrains Democrats from being able to effectively respond to our new political reality and always benefits Republicans, which makes it harder to actually restore any norms. If we actually want to restore norms we need stop pretending they still exist.

[Brisketexan 104,537]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The funny thing is that Democrats are still playing by the old rules 98% of the time and that's exactly WHY they get lambasted the other 2% when they actually stop pretending that the GOP didn't flip the game board over and light it on fire years ago.

This "well someone has to try to uphold our norms" attitude restrains Democrats from being able to effectively respond to our new political reality and always benefits Republicans, which makes it harder to actually restore any norms. If we actually want to restore norms we need stop pretending they still exist.

You don't restore peace until you win the war.

The time for diplomacy has passed.  Peace will follow when the enemy has been defeated.  Until then, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.  Game on, fuckers.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,545]

9 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I mean why shouldn't the guy who tried to help Nixon kill the Watergate investigation have been on the Supreme Court?

Considering the number of Reagan administration officials that ended up being indicted, convicted, or going to prison, Bork's nomination was almost comically on-brand.

 

"Oh. Of course that's the guy you want on the Supreme Court. Lulz."

[hayden_horn 11,360]

Quote

Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.

who wore it better?

edit: this is not a defense of schumer's clumsy attempt to reframe kavanaugh's quote above. bet let's not pretend that wasn't a judicial threat to democrats from a future supreme court justice.

Edited March 5, 2020 by hayden_horn

[SaucyJack 3,487]

15 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.

[Anastasis 23,390]

33 minutes ago, bernorange said:

You peeps really like to jump on Anastasis' back.  His original post was pretty clear to me.

He pretty clearly stated that the problem has been getting worse with each swing of the pendulum.  JJ's assertion:

Wat?

Thanks for that bern. 

30 minutes ago, seven said:

Not an Ana hater, but bringing a completely justified borking into this discussion is puzzling.

I regret even making a passing reference to Bork. Read in context, I was clearly attempting to draw out the point that politicization of the confirmation process is a multi-decade trend. Suggesting otherwise is not due to a lack of clarity in the writing. Bork's nomination is commonly discussed as a point in that decline, so it's not a particularly novel take.  He also has the added flourish of being related to the the line of succession resulting in Kavanaugh's nomination. Amazing how much it makes people's brains lock up.    

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.

[horn4life 3,753]

2 hours 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

Well the GOP blocked so many of Obama's appointments that the Dems STUPIDLY lowered the threshold for federal judges because there were so many vacancies because of the unjustified blocking. The GOP held up a Supreme nomination for a year based on a LIE.  The Schumer "rule". Where Shumer said that a RESIGNATION late in an election year might now mean a confirmation of a new judge. 

One party has been a shitload dirtier.  One party has specifically avoided finding out the truth, especially with Kavanaugh. 

YEs the dems don't have clean hands, but the GOP's are dripping in blood. 

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

It doesn't take much research to find that, in addition to Bork, 10 other SCOTUS nominees were rejected by the Senate.  This goes back to 1811, and at a pretty consistent rate.  Surely there were "political" aspects to those failures to confirm, no?

[Anastasis 23,390]

1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

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.  

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't create a strawman.

You presented the impression that you were refuting the argument I made by attacking an argument that I did not actually make.  Not sure what y'all think a strawman argument is. 

And pointing to brisket's posts was not an appeal to authority, lest it go to his head. 

[Anastasis 23,390]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It doesn't take much research to find that, in addition to Bork, 10 other SCOTUS nominees were rejected by the Senate.  This goes back to 1811, and at a pretty consistent rate.  Surely there were "political" aspects to those failures to confirm, no?

Is rejection of a nominee a sufficient proxy for the negative aspects of extreme polarization around the Court? Before you answer, remember that you are posting in the Kavanaugh thread.  

Edited March 5, 2020 by Anastasis

[hobbes2702 12,791]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

You peeps really like to jump on Anastasis' back.  His original post was pretty clear to me.

He pretty clearly stated that the problem has been getting worse with each swing of the pendulum.  JJ's assertion:

Wat?

Yup. No problems with what he posted this time. He wasn’t equivocating he was simply making a statement. 

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

You presented the impression that you were refuting the argument I made by attacking an argument that I did not actually make.  Not sure what y'all think a strawman argument is. 

And pointing to brisket's posts was not an appeal to authority, lest it go to his head. 

Through your first two sentences you are placing the Bork nomination and the Garland nomination in the same bucket of shit without providing any information regarding the scope of the bucket of shit or why each nomination process deserves to be in the bucket of shit.  A person who understands what happened in both of those processes can reasonably respond by saying that the Bork process doesn't deserve to be placed in the bucket of shit whereas the Garland process does.  That's what jimmy did, but you claim he made a strawman argument.  

You're now saying that your point was "politicization of the confirmation process is a multi-decade trend."  That's a conclusion you're making without providing any reasoning other than, "well some people say that's a point that decline."  When your writing is so unclear that you can't even articulate a reason that you came to a conclusion, you leave yourself open to any number of perfectly reasonable counter arguments to which you then respond "but I didn't say that."  

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

This particular sub-argument is as interesting as watching paint dry.  Out.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This particular sub-argument is as interesting as watching paint dry.  Out.

Probably a good idea.  I'm failing particularly hard at internet rule whatever: don't engage the troll.

[tx 3 putt 76,296]

Will the Louisiana abortion case and Obamacare decisions drop before the election ?

[elfenix 34,169]

1 hour ago, seven said:

Not an Ana hater, but bringing a completely justified borking into this discussion is puzzling. It's amazing that people still try to defend that nomination and try to shame democrats for rightfully rejecting him. 

he could have at least gone back to abe fortas rather than the common conservative calling card of robert bork.

[Anastasis 23,390]

23 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Through your first two sentences you are placing the Bork nomination and the Garland nomination in the same bucket of shit without providing any information regarding the scope of the bucket of shit or why each nomination process deserves to be in the bucket of shit. 

I did not put them in the same bucket, and when jimmy suggested I did, I stated that I was not saying they were equivalent, and intended to suggest a trajectory. Which was clear in the original statement "The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit over time."  To argue that I was implying that they occupy the same bucket of shit ignores the fact that I explicitly state that the scat play is increasing over time, culminating with the GOP rolling around in it, enjoying it, and making it core to their political being. That was clear to the readers who are not trying to parse and manufacturer a reason to disagree with what was posted because I posted it.

It is amazing to me that people who have paid any level of attention to matters related to the Court in general, and the confirmation process in particular, have a hard time acknowledging that it is increasingly politically charged and polarizing over our lifetimes. This doesn't seem particularly controversial.  Unless of course you suggest on this board that the Democrats played any part in it.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23,390]

13 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Probably a good idea.  I'm failing particularly hard at internet rule whatever: don't engage the troll.

Don't be a coward.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

28 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I did not put them in the same bucket, and when jimmy suggested I did, I stated that I was not saying they were equivalent, and intended to suggest a trajectory. Which was clear in the original statement "The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit over time."  To argue that I was implying that they occupy the same bucket of shit ignores the fact that I explicitly state that the scat play is increasing over time, culminating with the GOP rolling around in it, enjoying it, and making it core to their political being. That was clear to the readers who are not trying to parse and manufacturer a reason to disagree with what was posted because I posted it.

It is amazing to me that people who have paid any level of attention to matters related to the Court in general, and the confirmation process in particular, have a hard time acknowledging that it is increasingly politically charged and polarizing over our lifetimes. This doesn't seem particularly controversial.  Unless of course you suggest on this board that the Democrats played any part in it.

If you're too dumb to understand the meaning of what you write, I can't help you there.  

[JBJ 3,648]

43 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I did not put them in the same bucket, and when jimmy suggested I did, I stated that I was not saying they were equivalent, and intended to suggest a trajectory. Which was clear in the original statement "The process has been smeared in incrementally greater amounts of shit over time."  To argue that I was implying that they occupy the same bucket of shit ignores the fact that I explicitly state that the scat play is increasing over time, culminating with the GOP rolling around in it, enjoying it, and making it core to their political being. That was clear to the readers who are not trying to parse and manufacturer a reason to disagree with what was posted because I posted it.

It is amazing to me that people who have paid any level of attention to matters related to the Court in general, and the confirmation process in particular, have a hard time acknowledging that it is increasingly politically charged and polarizing over our lifetimes. This doesn't seem particularly controversial.  Unless of course you suggest on this board that the Democrats played any part in it.

Still, did you intently not write what was not written or did you only intend to write what was written? Because if there are things that were not written with no intent to not write them, then there needs to be an intent to not write them next time.

[Bateshorn 9,897]

Schumer's comments, while being taken out of context, are stupid.  He should do a heat of the moment/Sorry I upset you apology and call it a day.

Robert's jumping in on this while letting Trump's Sotomayor and RBG comments go last week is Roger Taney levels of partisan hackery.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Bateshorn

[wildcat09 29,213]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Schumer's comments, while being taken out of context, are stupid.  He should do a heat of the moment/Sorry I upset you apology and call it a day.

Robert's jumping in on this while letting Trump's Sotomayor and RBG comments go last week is Roger Taney levels of partisan hackery.

 

[workswithseed 2,034]

32 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Still, did you intently not write what was not written or did you only intend to write what was written? Because if there are things that were not written with no intent to not write them, then there needs to be an intent to not write them next time.

[bernorange 8,348]

22 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

... Robert's jumping in on this while letting Trump's Sotomayor and RBG comments go last week is Roger Taney levels of partisan hackery.

Partisan hackery is really out of character for Roberts from what I've seen.  Hence my speculation that the reprimand might, to some degree, be motivated by past history during the ACA decision (when presumably Schumer and the Obama administration) were likely pressuring Roberts.

[hobbes2702 12,791]

33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

This is the issue in my opinion. He ignores Trump calling out other justices but wants an apology from Schumer

[hobbes2702 12,791]

10 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Partisan hackery is really out of character for Roberts from what I've seen.  Hence my speculation that the reprimand might, to some degree, be motivated by past history during the ACA decision (when presumably Schumer and the Obama administration) were likely pressuring Roberts.

John Roberts showed he was a partisan hack when he declared racism dead and gutted the voting rights act

[wildcat09 29,213]

11 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Partisan hackery is really out of character for Roberts from what I've seen.  Hence my speculation that the reprimand might, to some degree, be motivated by past history during the ACA decision (when presumably Schumer and the Obama administration) were likely pressuring Roberts.

I will die happy if I can somehow convince like 10 people that this is wrong. Roberts is and has always been a partisan hack. He just likes to hide it, unlike Thomas and Alito who can't wait to rub it in critics' faces. Roberts believes (maybe correctly, maybe not) that he needs to maintain a facade of objectivity in order to effectuate his partisan hack plans, but he's absolutely a partisan hack.

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

As mentioned on the other thread, I kind of assume that Roberts, wisely, does not want to get in a twitter war or pissing contest with Trump, Schumer, or anyone else.

So, he's going to call out a party once when they make shitty, stupid remarks, not continuously, even if their remarks are continuous.

Trumps remarks on Sotomayor and RBG, while scurrilous, were so legally stupid and empty that they barely require response.

[wildcat09 29,213]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

John Roberts showed he was a partisan hack when he declared racism dead and gutted the voting rights act

John Roberts showed he was a partisan hack when he decided in Citizens United to use a very narrow case in which the petitioner was merely seeking a judgment that a statute didn't apply to specific conduct to declare that basically all campaign finance laws were unconstitutional.

[jimmyjazz 45,538]

25 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Partisan hackery is really out of character for Roberts from what I've seen.  Hence my speculation that the reprimand might, to some degree, be motivated by past history during the ACA decision (when presumably Schumer and the Obama administration) were likely pressuring Roberts.

Wut?  Did you just make that up or is there any evidence of this pressure?

[sidis 9,731]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trumps remarks on Sotomayor and RBG, while scurrilous, were so legally stupid and empty that they barely require response.

this is the dangerous mentality that led to where we sit today.  oh, he's so fucking stupid that it's not worth it to even engage in his idiocy.

today: ha ha!  what a fucking moron.

 

tomorrow: what the fuck just happened?

 

roberts lost all my respect a long time ago with his judicial record.  his selective criticism (particularly after presiding over the complete fucking sham of a senate trial we just had) is utterly disingenuous and laughable in the face of his utter silence on trump.  his "no obama judges and no trump judges" was the most toothless and feckless rebuke of all time.  particularly compared to yesterday.

and give me a break, bern.  this has absolutely nothing to do with his aca decision.

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

22 minutes ago, sidis said:

this is the dangerous mentality that led to where we sit today.  oh, he's so fucking stupid that it's not worth it to even engage in his idiocy.

today: ha ha!  what a fucking moron.

 

tomorrow: what the fuck just happened?

 

roberts lost all my respect a long time ago with his judicial record.  his selective criticism (particularly after presiding over the complete fucking sham of a senate trial we just had) is utterly disingenuous and laughable in the face of his utter silence on trump.  his "no obama judges and no trump judges" was the most toothless and feckless rebuke of all time.  particularly compared to yesterday.

and give me a break, bern.  this has absolutely nothing to do with his aca decision.

Part of the problem with Trump is that one must choose their battles carefully or the protest rhetoric becomes as normalized as the latest outrage.  More symbolic protest is not the answer.

You can't talk sense to the morons that support this guy.  Forget about it.

More meaningful action and less talking about it is the answer.

Edited March 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[sidis 9,731]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Part of the problem with Trump is that one must choose their battles carefully or the protest rhetoric becomes as normalized as the latest outrage.  More symbolic protest is not the answer.

More meaningful action and less talking about it is the answer.

correct.  action is more important.  thus, people like john roberts and paul ryan just kind of rolling their eyes and saying stupid is as stupid does is dangerous to the country.  the ussc has done nothing but play defense for the white house since the 2016 election including letting them openly ignore congressional subpoenas and i have a strong feeling i know precisely what will happen with all three cases they will hear on march 31st. 

[wildcat09 29,213]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Part of the problem with Trump is that one must choose their battles carefully or the protest rhetoric becomes as normalized as the latest outrage.  More symbolic protest is not the answer.

You can't talk sense to the morons that support this guy.  Forget about it.

More meaningful action and less talking about it is the answer.

Then he should stop rewarding them for all of their "emergency" procedural bullshit. 

[TwiceHorn 31,240]

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

correct.  action is more important.  thus, people like john roberts and paul ryan just kind of rolling their eyes and saying stupid is as stupid does is dangerous to the country.  the ussc has done nothing but play defense for the white house since the 2016 election including letting them openly ignore congressional subpoenas and i have a strong feeling i know precisely what will happen with all three cases they will hear on march 31st. 

I think you're wrong on those cases.

Unfortunately, the McGahn case was dismissed as a political question, which, in retrospect, was predictable, not as a partisan issue, but as the way these have historically gone.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Brisket is right in that right now there are no rules. Trump only follows rules that benefit him and that he likes and since he is the primary rule enforcer as chief of the executive branch, as long as that remains the case, there are no rules. 
 

But oh yeah about Robert Bork...

[sidis 9,731]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think you're wrong on those cases.

 

i certainly hope so.  i have seen nothing yet to make me believe that.

[Anastasis 23,390]

7 hours ago, JBJ said:

Still, did you intently not write what was not written or did you only intend to write what was written? Because if there are things that were not written with no intent to not write them, then there needs to be an intent to not write them next time.

It's really amazing.  I expect that kind of dipshittery from @Captainant and @jimmyjazz and @JimmyJames but every once in awhile a new poster decides to jump in on the bandwagon.  

Edited March 6, 2020 by Anastasis

[JimmyJames 12,271]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's really amazing.  I expect that kind of dipshittery from @Captainant and @jimmyjazz and @JimmyJames but every once in awhile a new poster decides to jump in on the bandwagon.  

Hey now! Don’t be dragging me into your we’re all a bunch a dipshits argument.

All I want is for trump to be gone as POTUS so I can retire from posting here forever. Once that happens, I might occasionally go back to debating the merits of Herman, Shaka or whether or not Charlie was a potato. But then maybe not even that all that much. 
 

So vote dem in the fall and you can kiss my ass goodbye.  Shouldn’t that be incentive enough. 
 

Carpe diem. 

[Anastasis 23,390]

15 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So vote dem in the fall and you can kiss my ass goodbye.  Shouldn’t that be incentive enough. 

Now that is a hard fucking bargain right there.  If I post a pic of my ballot with with a democratic candidate being submitted you never post in the CR again? Would be the first time I ever pulled the lever for a democrat presidential candidate, offsetting the solitary time decades ago that I pulled the lever for a republican, but the return would be much more valuable.  You have a deal my friend. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now that is a hard fucking bargain right there.  If I post a pic of my ballot with with a democratic candidate being submitted you never post in the CR again? Would be the first time I ever pulled the lever for a democrat presidential candidate, offsetting the solitary time decades ago that I pulled the lever for a republican, but the return would be much more valuable.  You have a deal my friend. 

If you do that and trump loses, you have a deal. I can’t promise it if trump wins anyway though. 

[Anastasis 23,390]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

If you do that and trump loses, you have a deal. I can’t promise it if trump wins anyway though. 

You expect me to predicate my initial action on the outcome? 

 

Shit the original offer was generous. Given your general dipshittery nature. You going ghost would not be much of a loss that anybody would notice. 

[Nivek 16,843]

Well this is fucking stupid.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You expect me to predicate my initial action on the outcome? 

 

Shit the original offer was generous. Given your general dipshittery nature. You going ghost would not be much of a loss that anybody would notice. 

All right I’ll think about it. But my offer still stands. I only post here because of trump. Otherwise I wouldn’t post here. You vote for the dem and trump loses I’m gone. You don’t vote for the dems and trump wins I stay. Other scenarios I’ll have to think about it. 

[Nivek 16,843]

Well this is fucking stupid.

[WhatTheBuck 28,703]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Well this is fucking stupid.

You can say that again.