Kavanaugh Hearing

LOL another Kennedy would be just as awful.

 

So you would support Judge Kavanaugh in pursuing legal action action against Dr. Ford and the rest of this esteemed group of Democrats?

 

“Deeply flawed”????

Right!!!

 

How is Kavanaugh "deeply flawed"? His judiciary credentials are better than pretty much anyone else out there. Unless you're referring to allegations made against him that have been completely uncorroborated and unsubstantiated? In that case, can I just make up a bunch of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated stuff about you and call you a "deeply flawed Swamp Gas poster" now?

 

I mean, the 14th amendment was watered down from the courts from the get go by Slaughter-House in 1873. The Civil Rights ACt of 1875 was ruled unconstitutional thanks to the 14th too. Certainly didn't prevent Jim Crow or second class citizenship. It was cited in most of the Lochner era jurisprudence too. I mean I guess you can say it expanded rights ... to corporations and bosses over workers until the crisis of the New Deal and the very real threat of court packing. And now the Lochner Court is basically back again.

 

Eh, lying about whether or not you're a virgin in college isn't unusual, but Kavanaugh is having extreme credibility issues.

 

Have at it.

Multiple sexual assault allegations. Refusal to release documents. Questions regarding whether he lied under oath. Feel free to make up whatever you want about me. It won't be credible because you don't even know my name. The allegations against Kavanaugh are credible.

However, you refused to answer the question. Don't dodge it. If elections decide these things, why are the Republicans so desperate to ram Kavanaugh through before the election? Why not let the election decide it?

 

It was never "gutted", the interpretation was narrow as to the intent of the amendment. You are trying to compare what it has evolved to today to what it was back then and ignoring what it was intended to be. In any case, Slaughterhouse wouldn't have ended up any differently without courts since the law would not have been challenged. Civil rights wouldn't have been overturned though. Either could have been reversed at any point in time through legislative action. Many bills might never have even been drafted had the right of speech and assembly been "democratically" curbed.

 

Obstructing Garland in favor of Gorsuch represented a much more significant shift in the Court's make up, and there was plenty of hand-wringing over that fact. The loss of Kennedy certainly inspired some fear that long held rights would be abrogated, but ultimately a minority party can do nothing but put on a frowny-face if the only grievance against a judge is ideological. If that's all we had here, you and I both know Kavanaugh would already be confirmed.

But it's not. What's made the issue explode isn't anything that happened at his hearings; it has nothing to do with his ideology; it's his history of sexually assaulting women. That's it.

You claim his hearings were "unprecedented" and "ridiculous." I would like to see you defend that. I went back and looked at the history in this thread -- which is titled "Kavanaugh Hearing" and now spans 123 pages. How many of those pages do you suppose concern the "unprecedented" and "ridiculous" nature of these hearings? A grand total of 8. And good portion of those were you and I engaging in a largely meaningless academic debate over the contours of executive power. So what makes his hearings out of line with the norm? Some people one time making some noise in the hearing chamber? Democrats complaining? Largely ignoring the nominee's likely perjury? Maybe I could get on board with that last one, but it hardly proves your point.

 

Most liars tell lies with the idea that enough people will believe them to achieve their goal for lying in the first place. But yeah, I agree that if she is indeed lying, that it will likely backfire if nothing else.

 

Anthony Kennedy retired. Under the U.S. Constitution, the POTUS has the duty of nominating his replacement. There are to be 9 justices. The Senate has a duty to confirm or deny the POTUS's nominee. It would actually be irresponsible for the Senate to delay the confirmation in lieu of the election. Imagine if the GOP made gains in the Senate (which is very plausible this year). They would be accused of sandbagging the nomination (especially now) and waiting for a more sure outcome in January. But to answer your most awesome question, the POTUS and the Senate are doing what the Constitution says they are to do. Didn't mean to dodge such an elementary question, my apologies.

 

Except when it is a Democratic President and a far-right justice like Scalia dies during his 4 years. Then the next election apparently decides these things, not the one that occurred that was supposed to decide the direction of the country for the next 4 years.

 

Poe's law - Wikipedia

 

Hitler and Stalin would be proud.

 

I agree. That's why these criminal charges against Kavanaugh should be taken very seriously. Ooops, wait, there are no criminal charges. Guess we'll have to convict him on hearsay and hypotheticals. Can you find something in Wiki that addresses this?

 

The Democratic politicians understood that, but their pissed off base wanted them to oppose Kavanaugh more strongly so they put on a show. I read a few articles about this, but can't find them now.

None of the allegations were in the public sphere at the time of the hearings. I guess some knew they existed, but the tone of the hearings with Democrats attacking Kavanaugh was very different than prior nominees. If you look at Sotomayor's hearing (and she is pretty far bent the other way), it was far more cordial. The hearings were focused on ideology and record, not sex.

Don't believe me...Ginsburg said the same thing. It was a political hit job. He had some subjects to explore and concerns as all judges do, but the rest was silly. You had Booker trying to find out how he is a secret racist and Harris trying to explore his relationship with law firm staff she would not name. Whitehouse wouldn't give him 10 seconds to get out a response if it wasn't headed the way he wanted it to. It was stupid. But yeah, I guess the most informed and non-partisan information on this subject would be found here in this Too Hot thread.

 

LOL at Pubs now saying delay is bad and nominees deserve a speedy hearing when McConnell virtually shut down the appointment process of the almost 100 Federal trial and appellate court vacancies that Trump inherited, without even getting into the Garland debate.

 

So you agree that, due to the republican senate failing to do their duty when Obama was in office, Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS instead of Gorsuch?

 

I would love to see an actual response, not a deflection, to the below question:

 

We do not know Garland would have been confirmed by a majority GOP Senate, one. We do not know if Kavanaugh will be confirmed if they hold the vote this month, two. And I'm not even going to delve into the politics of these, because there are plenty of points to be made on both sides. I'm simply pointing out that the POTUS and the Senate are carrying out their Constitutional duties in this instance. Not to mention there isn't any precedence on Kavanaugh, whereas there was 80 years of precedence on a lame duck POTUS nominating justices his last year in office.