Kavanaugh

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Kavanaugh

#1 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:20 pm

He's fairly impressive.
Oh please.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#2 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:35 pm

Beebs52 wrote:He's fairly impressive.
If only he'd use his powers for good instead of evil. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
a1mamacat
Posts: 6447
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: Great White North

Re: Kavanaugh

#3 Post by a1mamacat » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:38 pm

not really, he is very agile though, avoiding direct answers.

No horse in the race, but it sure seems he was reluctant to talk about the group that put him on the list, and where the money came from.
Lover of Soft Animals and Fine Art
1st annual international BBBL Champeeeeen!

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#4 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:38 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:He's fairly impressive.
If only he'd use his powers for good instead of evil. --Bob
He's not a judicial activist. Is that your criterion for evil? Realizing you're jesting.
Oh please.

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Kavanaugh

#5 Post by tlynn78 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:41 pm

Beebs52 wrote:He's fairly impressive.
Agreed. Watching some of the confirmation hearing has reinforced my thankfulness that I was never stupid enough to buy into the utter nonsense exhibited by some on the left.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#6 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:45 pm

a1mamacat wrote:not really, he is very agile though, avoiding direct answers.

No horse in the race, but it sure seems he was reluctant to talk about the group that put him on the list, and where the money came from.
He's been very forthcoming. You are not really correct. Plus, wth?
Oh please.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5163
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#7 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:48 pm

I am particularly impressed by the courteousness and important input presented by many members of the invited audience. It is one of the best aspects of our democracy that average citizens can participate in and provide their well thought out positions to such an important civic process. These are the best and brightest of our country, and will certainly guide our nation once the democrats are given power again.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#8 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:57 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:He's fairly impressive.
If only he'd use his powers for good instead of evil. --Bob
He's not a judicial activist. Is that your criterion for evil? Realizing you're jesting.
I'm quite confident he'll be more than willing to overrule precedent (as the current Court is already doing) in pursuit of partisan Republican goals. By my lights, that makes him both a judicial activist, bad for the country, and bad for the Court.

When the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act (overruling a Congressional factual determination that the Fourteenth Amendment expressly committed to Congress), that was pure judicial activism. The Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has given us example after example of judicial activism. The Court's invalidation of the nationwide Medicaid expansion, using an argument that doesn't hold water logically and had never been raised before, was an example of judicial activism. I'm sure there are plenty of others -- those are the ones that leap to my mind.

And what makes this all the more galling is that the upcoming surge of judicial activism, contrary to the desires of this country's majority, all was made possible by stealing the seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland. So when the tables are turned, I'll be joining many Democrats in calling for the elected branches to take whatever steps are available to restore balance. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#9 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:57 pm

:)
Oh please.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#10 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:26 pm

And there are other reasons to be leery of this particular conservative nominee (rather than some other conservative nominee) at this particular time in history. Kavanaugh has such an expansive view of the President's powers that he appears to believe Donny can fire the special counsel, that he can't be charged with a crime during his term, and (contrary to Nixon v. United States) he can't be compelled to provide testimony or documents during his term (with the possible exception of by Congress during an impeachment investigation). That's a pretty good description of an imperial President, rather than a citizen President. I don't ever want that, but the possibility is particularly dangerous at this particular moment in history. I'm guessing it was also one of his most important job qualifications in Donny's eyes. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#11 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:29 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:If only he'd use his powers for good instead of evil. --Bob
He's not a judicial activist. Is that your criterion for evil? Realizing you're jesting.
I'm quite confident he'll be more than willing to overrule precedent (as the current Court is already doing) in pursuit of partisan Republican goals. By my lights, that makes him both a judicial activist, bad for the country, and bad for the Court.

When the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act (overruling a Congressional factual determination that the Fourteenth Amendment expressly committed to Congress), that was pure judicial activism. The Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has given us example after example of judicial activism. The Court's invalidation of the nationwide Medicaid expansion, using an argument that doesn't hold water logically and had never been raised before, was an example of judicial activism. I'm sure there are plenty of others -- those are the ones that leap to my mind.

And what makes this all the more galling is that the upcoming surge of judicial activism, contrary to the desires of this country's majority, all was made possible by stealing the seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland. So when the tables are turned, I'll be joining many Democrats in calling for the elected branches to take whatever steps are available to restore balance. --Bob
You sorta insert wishes and hopeses into your statements. No facts.
Oh please.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#12 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:31 pm

Bob78164 wrote:And there are other reasons to be leery of this particular conservative nominee (rather than some other conservative nominee) at this particular time in history. Kavanaugh has such an expansive view of the President's powers that he appears to believe Donny can fire the special counsel, that he can't be charged with a crime during his term, and (contrary to Nixon v. United States) he can't be compelled to provide testimony or documents during his term (with the possible exception of by Congress during an impeachment investigation). That's a pretty good description of an imperial President, rather than a citizen President. I don't ever want that, but the possibility is particularly dangerous at this particular moment in history. I'm guessing it was also one of his most important job qualifications in Donny's eyes. --Bob
He did not say this. Make shit up.
Oh please.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#13 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:39 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:And there are other reasons to be leery of this particular conservative nominee (rather than some other conservative nominee) at this particular time in history. Kavanaugh has such an expansive view of the President's powers that he appears to believe Donny can fire the special counsel, that he can't be charged with a crime during his term, and (contrary to Nixon v. United States) he can't be compelled to provide testimony or documents during his term (with the possible exception of by Congress during an impeachment investigation). That's a pretty good description of an imperial President, rather than a citizen President. I don't ever want that, but the possibility is particularly dangerous at this particular moment in history. I'm guessing it was also one of his most important job qualifications in Donny's eyes. --Bob
He did not say this. Make shit up.
He wrote it. Some when he was working for Ken Starr and some in a speech he gave sometime later.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I'm making it up.

And you're right that it's impossible to know with certainty how a Justice will vote once he reaches the Court. But this particular nominee has given some very strong indications he'll join the other conservative Justices on these issues.

But I sure didn't make up how the Republicans stole a seat on the Court. I haven't forgotten. And I still want it back. That isn't going to change. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#14 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:44 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:And there are other reasons to be leery of this particular conservative nominee (rather than some other conservative nominee) at this particular time in history. Kavanaugh has such an expansive view of the President's powers that he appears to believe Donny can fire the special counsel, that he can't be charged with a crime during his term, and (contrary to Nixon v. United States) he can't be compelled to provide testimony or documents during his term (with the possible exception of by Congress during an impeachment investigation). That's a pretty good description of an imperial President, rather than a citizen President. I don't ever want that, but the possibility is particularly dangerous at this particular moment in history. I'm guessing it was also one of his most important job qualifications in Donny's eyes. --Bob
He did not say this. Make shit up.
He wrote it. Some when he was working for Ken Starr and some in a speech he gave sometime later.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I'm making it up.

And you're right that it's impossible to know with certainty how a Justice will vote once he reaches the Court. But this particular nominee has given some very strong indications he'll join the other conservative Justices on these issues.

But I sure didn't make up how the Republicans stole a seat on the Court. I haven't forgotten. And I still want it back. That isn't going to change. --Bob
Did you even watch his testimony, or know the context of his decisions? No. Didn't think so.
Oh please.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#15 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:48 pm

Oh Bob, ur just ticked about Garland's non consideration. Get over it.
Oh please.

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Kavanaugh

#16 Post by tlynn78 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:48 pm

Some of his supporters:

"Bob Bennett, former attorney to President Bill Clinton: “Brett is the most qualified person any Republican President could possibly have nominated. Were the Senate to fail to confirm Brett, it would not only mean passing up the opportunity to confirm a great jurist, but it would also undermine civility in politics twice over: first in playing politics with such an obviously qualified nominee, and then again in losing the opportunity to put such a strong advocate for decency and civility on our Nation’s highest court.”

POLITICO: “President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has picked up an unlikely endorsement: a nod from Bob Bennett, a lawyer to President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky controversy two decades ago.”

Members of Harvard Black Law Students Association: “The Judge not only graciously offered his time for that panel, but also has continued to mentor numerous Harvard students whom he has taught or worked with in a number of capacities.”

Wash. Free Beacon: Several members of the Harvard Law School chapter of the Black Law Students Association sent a letter Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee extolling the mentorship they received from Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh and expressing support for his confirmation.

Bipartisan group of Supreme Court Lawyers: “Based on our experience with Judge Kavanaugh and his work over 12 years of distinguished judicial service, we are confident that he possesses the character, temperament and intellect that will make him an asset to our nation’s highest court.”

Daily Caller: A bipartisan coalition of elite Supreme Court lawyers submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Washington Times: Conservative legal superstars threw their support behind Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh Monday, urging lawmakers to back his confirmation to the high court. The stars include former Solicitor General Paul Clement, former appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada and prominent lawyer Michael Carvin, as well as 38 other members of the Supreme Court’s bar.

Msgr. John Enzler, President of Catholic Charities of Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.: “I also know him to be someone who is well-loved by his neighbors as ‘the guy next door’ -- no pretense, no need to flout his background or intellectual skills, he just continues to live by those school mottos, doing the best he can in whatever he does, and doing that on behalf of the community in which he lives, and the nation he serves so well.”

Washington Examiner: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s ties to the Catholic Church and his dedication to faith and family are being singled out for praise by those in the Washington area who have seen him go from altar boy to winning a championship as “Coach K” of a church girls basketball team. In two letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee that next week will begin hearings on the federal appeals court judge and former Bush aide, Kavanaugh was portrayed as an unpretentious “guy next door.”

Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association: “In October of 2017 Judge Kavanaugh rendered a decision in favor of black farmers on the merits of the evidence. We know all too well the challenges and inequalities the black farmers and 1890 Land Grant Universities still face today. Black farmers are entrepreneurs and we, like other black owned businesses, still face a lack of access to capital and markets.”

Washington Examiner: President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has won the support of a group that advocates for social justice for 17,000 black farmers.

Eighty-Four female colleagues in the Bush Administration: “We are women who served with Brett Kavanaugh in White House staff positions during President George W. Bush’s Administration. We are united in our admiration for Judge Kavanaugh as a public servant and as a person. He would be an exceptional Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. We strongly urge the Senate to confirm him promptly.”

The Hill: The nearly two dozen colleagues note that they saw how Kavanaugh handled his roles as a staff secretary and lawyer. "He was extraordinarily skilled, diligent, and honorable, with a respectful temperament. He demonstrated balance, fairness, careful listening, personal decency and humility, and a gift for unpretentious personal interaction," they wrote.

Local D.C. Basketball Parents: “In addition to his long list of professional and academic accomplishments, we hope that the Committee will also consider Brett Kavanaugh’s contributions as a volunteer youth basketball coach–and the service, selflessness, dedication, and commitment his coaching exhibits–to our community.”

Washingtonian: Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US Supreme Court got some support Friday from local parents. More than 30 people from DC’s Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Chevy Chase

Concerned Women for America: “Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial record alone gives a clear and most accurate picture of the type of judge he is. It shows he is a thoughtful, impartial jurist who respects his limited role as set forth by the U.S. Constitution. But beyond that, the unprecedented amount of material available for consideration, outside of his more than 300 opinions, only corroborates that he should be confirmed without delay.”

The Hill: Penny Nance, the CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, told Grassley and Feinstein that it "is time to put aside political maneuverings and consider this nominee on his own merits."

Former colleagues at Kirkland & Ellis law firm: “Although we hold a broad range of political views, we all believe that Brett is well suited by his talent, collegial demeanor, and integrity to be an outstanding justice on the Supreme Court. We strongly support his nomination and urge his confirmation by the Senate.”

Wash. Free Beacon: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's former colleagues at the Kirkland & Ellis law firm sent a letter Monday to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging his confirmation by the Senate.

Yale Law School classmates: “Based on our years of knowing Judge Kavanaugh, we are firmly convinced that his allegiance as a Supreme Court justice would be only to the Constitution and laws of the United States and not to any partisan interests.“

Weekly Standard: About two dozen Yale Law classmates of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh say the judge is a fair-minded jurist whose allegiance is not to politics, but to the Constitution. The bipartisan group said that at law school Kavanaugh did not mark himself as “ideological” or “a person with an agenda.” Kavanaugh was and is well-liked and respected, they said, “a thoughtful classmate and loyal friend.”

Former law clerks to Justice Kennedy: “If he is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, we believe that Judge Kavanaugh would continue to serve his country with distinction—like the Justice for whom we clerked.”

The Hill: Seventy-two former Kennedy law clerks voiced their support for Kavanaugh in a Thursday letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Former colleagues in the White House Counsel’s Office: “We personally witnessed how Judge Kavanaugh performed his duties as Associate Counsel to the President and as Staff Secretary. He was extraordinarily skilled, diligent, and honorable, with a respectful temperament. He demonstrated balance, fairness, careful listening, personal decency and humility, and a gift for unpretentious personal interaction.”

The Hill: “Twenty one of Kavanaugh's former White House counsel colleagues sent a letter to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the top two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that while they don't agree with "every substantive view" of Kavanaugh's they all "agree that Judge Kavanaugh is superbly qualified."


Three Hundred and Eight State Lawmakers: “Judge Kavanaugh has a proven track record of strict constitutionalism. He applies the law as written. He is a judge who will enforce the text, structure and original understanding of the Constitution.”

The Hill: Hundreds of state legislators from across the country are urging the Senate to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court. "There is no attribute of Judge Kavanaugh’s character, intellect or life of public service that should preclude his immediate installment to the Supreme Court of the United States," the legislators add.


Iowa State Lawmakers: “We firmly believe the role of a judge in our government is to interpret the law as it is written,” the letter continued. “Judge Kavanaugh has a long record of doing just that and interpreting the Constitution as it was originally intended.”


The Gazette: All 29 members of the Iowa Senate Republican caucus have signed a letter supporting the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court."


I think I'll take their word for it.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#17 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:55 pm

Beebs52 wrote:Oh Bob, ur just ticked about Garland's non consideration. Get over it.
I'll get over it when we get the seat back. And not before. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#18 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:57 pm

tlynn78 wrote:Some of his supporters:
A whole bunch of Republicans want him on the Court. Somehow this doesn't give me comfort. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5163
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#19 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:00 pm

Enough of this Kavanaugh guy. There's so many august members of the invited audience that don't like him. Not worth it. I have the best solution:

We need a Supreme Court Associate Justice that we can trust.
bob-tel!!!

He is ethical. He said so himself, and since he is ethical we can trust that he is... No need for any confirmation hearings.
He is above average. Since he is ethical, he wouldn't lie, so it must be true. He may even be modest about it. Maybe he's actually slightly above above average.
One of his titles is 'illiterate'. So he will be very efficient in rendering his opinions, since he will not even have to read any of the arguments.
He obviously knows EVERYTHING about the law. You can see that when he posts on anything.
And last, but not least, he has shown not one-tenth of an ounce of bias on any subject.

What else do we need? bob-tel for Supreme Court. Maybe we can slip a few people in the confirmation audience to yell 'BOB-TEL FOR SUPREME COURT!' every 5 minutes during the hearings.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#20 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:00 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:Oh Bob, ur just ticked about Garland's non consideration. Get over it.
I'll get over it when we get the seat back. And not before. --Bob
Hormones make us cranky. Stamps our feets!
Oh please.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5163
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Kavanaugh

#21 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:21 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:Oh Bob, ur just ticked about Garland's non consideration. Get over it.
I'll get over it when we get the seat back. And not before. --Bob
bob-tel. Garland would NOT have been confirmed even if he had hearings. We saved a whole lot of money. (Well not actually, they just overspent it on something else.) Your side would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed, AND YOU KNOW IT. Your comrades ensured that years ago during the Bork hearings. Besides, the SC should not be politically driven. It's a travesty that it is. But regardless, it was not your seat.

But we've discussed this before. I know you don't read any posts by people you disagree with. I've proven it.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#22 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:40 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:Oh Bob, ur just ticked about Garland's non consideration. Get over it.
I'll get over it when we get the seat back. And not before. --Bob
bob-tel. Garland would NOT have been confirmed even if he had hearings. We saved a whole lot of money. (Well not actually, they just overspent it on something else.) Your side would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed, AND YOU KNOW IT. Your comrades ensured that years ago during the Bork hearings. Besides, the SC should not be politically driven. It's a travesty that it is. But regardless, it was not your seat.

But we've discussed this before. I know you don't read any posts by people you disagree with. I've proven it.
Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. If Garland had received hearings and a vote, I wouldn't be crying foul.

McConnell didn't refuse Garland a hearing because he knew Garland wouldn't be confirmed. He refused Garland a hearing because he knew damn well that Garland would be confirmed. Too many Republicans in tight Senate races would have been forced by their constituents to vote yes. And if not, then one way or another, their votes would have made them accountable to their constituents. That's how the process is supposed to work.

I don't think Democrats would have voted down a centrist Republican nominee (one in the mold of, say, Kennedy) if the positions had been reversed, but I may be wrong about that. But I am certain that they would have afforded such a nominee a hearing. We'll never know for sure, though, because McConnell's theft of a seat changed the rules and I don't see that change reversing itself any time soon.

In 2012 I voted for the candidate I wanted appointing Justices for the next four years. My candidate won. McConnell stole my vote. I want it back, and I won't shut up about it until I get it back. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 10617
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Kavanaugh

#23 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:46 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I'll get over it when we get the seat back. And not before. --Bob
bob-tel. Garland would NOT have been confirmed even if he had hearings. We saved a whole lot of money. (Well not actually, they just overspent it on something else.) Your side would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed, AND YOU KNOW IT. Your comrades ensured that years ago during the Bork hearings. Besides, the SC should not be politically driven. It's a travesty that it is. But regardless, it was not your seat.

But we've discussed this before. I know you don't read any posts by people you disagree with. I've proven it.
Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. If Garland had received hearings and a vote, I wouldn't be crying foul.

McConnell didn't refuse Garland a hearing because he knew Garland wouldn't be confirmed. He refused Garland a hearing because he knew damn well that Garland would be confirmed. Too many Republicans in tight Senate races would have been forced by their constituents to vote yes. And if not, then one way or another, their votes would have made them accountable to their constituents. That's how the process is supposed to work.

I don't think Democrats would have voted down a centrist Republican nominee (one in the mold of, say, Kennedy) if the positions had been reversed, but I may be wrong about that. But I am certain that they would have afforded such a nominee a hearing. We'll never know for sure, though, because McConnell's theft of a seat changed the rules and I don't see that change reversing itself any time soon.

In 2012 I voted for the candidate I wanted appointing Justices for the next four years. My candidate won. McConnell stole my vote. I want it back, and I won't shut up about it until I get it back. --Bob
Feet. Stomps.
Oh please.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18810
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Kavanaugh

#24 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:50 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: bob-tel. Garland would NOT have been confirmed even if he had hearings. We saved a whole lot of money. (Well not actually, they just overspent it on something else.) Your side would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed, AND YOU KNOW IT. Your comrades ensured that years ago during the Bork hearings. Besides, the SC should not be politically driven. It's a travesty that it is. But regardless, it was not your seat.

But we've discussed this before. I know you don't read any posts by people you disagree with. I've proven it.
Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. If Garland had received hearings and a vote, I wouldn't be crying foul.

McConnell didn't refuse Garland a hearing because he knew Garland wouldn't be confirmed. He refused Garland a hearing because he knew damn well that Garland would be confirmed. Too many Republicans in tight Senate races would have been forced by their constituents to vote yes. And if not, then one way or another, their votes would have made them accountable to their constituents. That's how the process is supposed to work.

I don't think Democrats would have voted down a centrist Republican nominee (one in the mold of, say, Kennedy) if the positions had been reversed, but I may be wrong about that. But I am certain that they would have afforded such a nominee a hearing. We'll never know for sure, though, because McConnell's theft of a seat changed the rules and I don't see that change reversing itself any time soon.

In 2012 I voted for the candidate I wanted appointing Justices for the next four years. My candidate won. McConnell stole my vote. I want it back, and I won't shut up about it until I get it back. --Bob
Feet. Stomps.
That analogy only works as long as we're powerless to change things. Right now, we more or less are. That won't last. And when the tide turns, I'll urge my elected officials to pay just as much attention to the concerns of Republicans on this issue as they paid to ours. No matter how long and loud they stomp their feet. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
elwoodblues
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Kavanaugh

#25 Post by elwoodblues » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:09 pm

Kavanaugh was and is well-liked and respected, they said, “a thoughtful classmate and loyal friend."
Nice to know that someone who is about to help overturn the Voting Rights Act is a good guy.

Post Reply