Will respond later. Off to work. You make an excellent point about ideological and judicial philosophy that I'd like to address. Gotta go!
Here's a link to the papers the creators of the chart have written on their methodology if you are interested. I don't think there is an "objectively true center" since you are talking about arguments here. Law is often complex and sometimes vague so the judge has to take what is there and is often informed by their own biases. Take the arguments over gun control and the second amendment. One side is arguing that the militia prefatory clause limits the operative clause and permits gun control. The other side points to the fact that the operative clause is entirely consistent in construction with all the other individual rights, so the limit makes little sense. That is gun ownership is textually an individual right under 2A, so you have to ignore that bit to make your militia clause argument. Which is "objectively true"?
We are talking about extreme in reference to how they rule versus their peers and justices in the past, which is what the chart shows. So I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. Nobody that's a complete nut job gets to sit on the SCOTUS.
She could have been fairly called a moderate in roughly the same way that Kavanaugh could have. Namely that she hadn't done anything crazy like try to declare the death penalty unconstitutional during her time as an appellate judge, and was friends with conservatives. Aside from spin, I don't think anyone was really of the notion that a former ACLU general counsel and founder of a women's justice law journal didn't have fairly strongly liberal views - only question would be if they may have underestimated how strongly liberal those views were.
Ginsberg was also right in the center of the voting chart when she was nominated, hence her relatively uncontested appointment. But regardless, how the GOP acted back you could still find USSR on nearly every map has exactly zero relevance to the current political climate of Court appointments. The GOP refused to even vote on a moderate Obama appointee for solely political reasons, and is now forcing through an unabashed political hack that literally swears vengeance against the Democrats. Complaints that the Democrats are to blame for politicizing the Court are as categorically laughable as complaints that they lack decorum in the era of Trump.
Re. Garland--Barry and the dems didn't force that issue simply because they figured they'd win in 11/16 anyway--so they just bided their time. ...but the GOP didn't take to annihilating his integrity and character. Notice the difference? (...and btw, they didn't go after Kagan or S-M).
I wish people would stop crying about Garland. You simply didn't have the political capital to get him confirmed. Time to move on.
Can you find me contemporaneous pieces that are saying that Kavanaugh would be on the center of the court or that he is a moderate? I can keep going on Ginsburg. Here is a law review article predicting where she would fall on the court's ideological balance. https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...com/&httpsredir=1&article=1544&context=facpub Here is the NBC News piece saying that she had become more moderate on her views with age: President Clinton Nominates Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Supreme Court She was suggested by Hatch. She was actually not a favorite of women's groups when she was nominated, as pointed out in the NBC piece above. Everything points to her being considered contemporaneously as a moderate. What can you show that Kavanaugh is viewed in the same manner?
Again.... Believe Doc Ford, and Anita Hill...(and affirmatively declare the Hon. Judge Kavanaugh and the Hon. Judge Thomas perjuring, perverted liars...) Dismiss Erica Kinsman as a cleat chasin' lying perjuring money grubb'n POS, notwithstanding the fact that she submitted to a rape kit, gave a sworn statement (which just last week, you said was proof that a thing happened), and id'd Rapeis within a like a month. So I ask again--what--besides your Leftist politics and nolie love, reconciles this apparent (patent?) hypocrisy??? (go on...hit me with the smells good...I know you'll hang a neg. rep. on me, and avoid answering--but I do enjoy posting the challenge anyway, just for the point it makes--made doubly so, by your avoidance...c'est la vie).
You've spent weeks crying about Democrats using their non existent political capital to block or prevent a nomination. My guess is that even if the nomination succeeds Republicans will bring it up for years in the future about how unfair it all was. So what I'm saying is, you go first.
Well, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, that will prove my statement about Garland still holds true. So, in other words, I'm not sure what you're even talking about. But please, enough with the Garland whining. He was DOA and Obama knew that before he even picked him.
Conservatives invented the term "Borking" and still use it today - they're still salty about it! I would guess Democrats will stop mentioning Garland around the same time Borking, Thomas and Kavanaugh hearings are never mentioned again.
"Caribou Barbie" says "Hi." Plenty of Dems were super-critical of Gov. Palin. Let's not act like this is one sided.
That's not how it should work though. It's the president's job to select someone for appointment, not congress's. Congress gets to weigh in if someone is too extreme or whatever, but when they block it for political purposes then they are stepping on an executive power. What if an unfriendly congress started pushing back on cabinet appointments too? So they stop the president from picking their own secretary of state in order to diminish the effectiveness of his administration or whatever.
The notion that anyone can claim Kavanaugh is a moderate at this point . . . after the fireworks display of partisanship he has put on over the last few weeks. There's just no words. The GOP really does think it can piss on you and call it rain.
