Presumption of innocence doesn't refer to the beginning of an investigation, it refers to the end of one. You don't have a right not to be investigated when somebody makes an accusation against you.
If the appointment were a major driver for turnout, the polls would be getting better for Republicans, not worse (as they are). Perhaps any positive effect in the base is counterbalanced by the negative reaction to Kavanaugh from independents, but I think it's more likely that the hard core base -- the ones that dearly care about SCOTUS to begin with -- are already engaged and eager to vote R. Adding a vacancy doesn't really move the needle much, since the part of the base that cares will already vote, and the part of the base that doesn't won't feel any extra motivation precisely because they don't really care about the issue. I disagree that all nominations will become 120 page (and counting) threads on Too Hot. Gorsuch was confirmed without much fight because he's qualified and apparently has a clean, bookworm background. The kind of background you would expect out of a judge on the highest court in the land. Liberals obviously disagree with his views and he's a bit too smug for my taste, but those aren't factors that can engage much strong opposition from the minority. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has just an awful background comparatively. At various times apparently being a drunk, a womanizer, a political operative on some very questionable issues, and to top it all off, owning multiple allegations of perjury and sexual misconduct against him. He's being seriously questioned for good reason, and politics aside, I don't see how he's fit to serve on SCOTUS.
I agree with you on Feinstein. Completely. The letter should have been turned over when she got it or as soon as she got confirmation Ford would follow through, and then there could have been a real investigation much sooner and this other stuff coming out, and whatever else may be out there could have been addressed. Of course I rather doubt the Pubs would have allowed / supported an investigation then either. But who knows. At least Feinstein and company wouldn't have been party to holding this up. Regardless, there is plenty of smoke on this warranting an investigation at this point. His college roommate's statements are pretty damning and make the accusations that Kavanaugh was abusive as a drunk pretty believable. He and his buddies laying claim to having their way with Renate was pretty low as well, although not a case of abuse.
Terrible track record? Can I get a toke? If it was up to a simple majority in congress to reverse "rights", then gays would already be unmarried, speech would be seriously restricted and warrants would be a quaint antiquity. We can still overrule the SCOTUS, just not without broad agreement.
I'd suggest looking at the body of the courts work, rather than a small sample of cases at odd times in the court's history. Yes, at times the courts have "created" rights, quite anti-democratically I'd point out, all of which prompted massive backlash in our politics and made the courts a political play toy. "Impeach Earl Warren" was a political slogan before I was born.
It's pretty clear that for the foreseeable future, few if any circuit court and above judges will be sat with a split executive/senate. Followed by a flurry of activity every time the stars align for a party. It's obviously not ideal, but that's what happens when you politicize the courts to such an enormous extent.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Simply put, you reap what you sow. If that's how Republican decide to act now, the "left" will escalate at a later time. It would be nice if this country had some adults who would put the interest of the people over partisan games.
Are we seriously going to act as though derailing perhaps the most contentious confirmation to the SCOTUS ever would not be a motivation to lie? Really?
Seems like if that's your angle, lying would be a good strategy to assure confirmation as well given the motivations and money poured into getting Kavanaugh on the court.
I suggest you do the same because overwhelmingly they have deferred towards expanding rights, not contracting them. For example the right to privacy was deemed to be implied and from that was derived Roe. Not to mention how the 14th amendment was intended to prevent laws targeting ex slaves and keeping them as second class citizens, but has since been expanded way beyond that scope and applied to all kinds of situations. Should we still be living with segregation because democracy?
The 14th amendment was gutted by the Supreme Court extremely fast, that's a horrible example that actually proves my point!
Well, we'll never get to know if the GOP would have allowed an investigation or not, because Feinstein made sure they didn't get that option. Gee, I wonder why.
This became a big deal simply because of the order of appointment. Had Gorsuch been second, there would have been a similar backlash as the fear from the left is that the swing vote is going away. They think they are owed another Kennedy. If the allegations are true (or appear true to enough people) then that is definitely disqualifying, but the backlash started before that information was in the public sphere. The hearings were ridiculous and unprecedented (or maybe Bork's went the same way, I don't remember). His record isn't extreme in the least and as Ben pointed out, the GOP could find much worse if they wanted to.
Why are they "owed another Kennedy"? Elections decide these things. Owing them another Kennedy would imply they did something to earn that.
Yep, it did. The Supreme Court is populated with humans, who are not infallible. Due to that, it has made some seriously terrible rulings over time. However, later courts have often been able to rectify those mistakes, and that includes the 14th Amendment.
Gutted how? It's cited in a lot of the social issue cases these days. In any case your point is ridiculous. It doesn't take a super genius to see how the passions of the masses sway back and forth and if the law follows that's not good for the minority. One law restricting protests back in the early 1900s and AAs might still be second class citizens, women still in the kitchen, etc.
If elections decide these things, why are Republicans so desperate to ram a deeply flawed nominee through right before the election could decide it?
