Your thoughts on the Judge Kavanaugh Hearings

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 11:26 am

Who’s keeping up? What are your thoughts? I’m amazed at the circus it is, the protesters disrupting, the antics of self serving Democrats just trying every which way to get the process postponed until after midterm elections, and in particular Senator Corey Booker, who will be running for president in 2020, shamelessly and endlessly grandstanding, and then breaking the senate rules by questioning the judge about an email and then refusing to show it to him! The senate now has the right to throw him off the senate but I have a feeling they won’t, as he will no doubt accuse them of racial bias, rather than take responsibility for his breaking the rules, and apologizing. Ugh, no wonder people get so disgusted with the corruption and dishonesty of govt. This judge, on the other hand, seems to be an outstanding choice, beyond reproach, someone who finds time despite his unbelievably busy schedule, to coach his daughters’ sports team, to represent needy people pro bono, to volunteer in numerous way, etc. And he was one of the judges on the side side of Shlomo Rubashkin against the excessive charges against him. He’s a man of integrity and anyone seeking to block him is merely doing so for their own political reasons, not based on honesty or his impeccable credentials.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 11:58 am

[quote="simcha2

The administration held off releasing 45000 pages until the night before the confirmation hearings started so they couldn't be reviewed. So there is no way to know one way or amother about his "impeccable credentials".)

This is something that is regularly done, can’t be helped sometimes, and nothing new. An excuse for Democrats. They’ve already decided not to support him under any circumstances, anyone honest will acknowledge that, and what they’re doing is simply wasting time.

Did it bother you at all when Democrats refused to allow the Obamacare details to be shown at all before it was passed through into law, and Nancy Pelosi responding to that outrage by saying, “you have to pass it to see it!” A double standard on their part, no?

simcha2

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 12:05 pm

Ok, you are obviously not interested in a discussion, so I'll bow out. Not only releasing 7% is not something that is "always done".

I don't have an opinion on Kavanaugh either way. (Though concerned about newly released comments on Roe vs Wade).

But, if you think that democracy is not worth fighting for, it is not worth a conversation.

You are drinking the koolaid. It is our job, as citizens, to demand transparency and checks and balances in government, if we hand that over in partisan fighting we have abdicated our responsibility.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 12:26 pm

simcha2 wrote:

The administration held off releasing 45000 pages until the night before the confirmation hearings started so they couldn't be reviewed. So there is no way to know one way or amother about his "impeccable credentials".

Regardless of whether he is competent or not, don't you care about democracy at all?

These are complete red herrings.

First of all, very few members of the Senate are expert enough in Constitutional law to know what they're reading. This has been made obvious in their questioning. They could have everything going back to Kavanaugh's 3rd grade book reports, and it wouldn't help them determine his qualifications. That's one of the reasons for the ABA rating.

Second, Kavanaugh is not exactly some dark horse nominee. He's been in the pipeline for the Supreme Court for a long time. His approach to the law is not a secret.

What the obstructionists really mean is, "You didn't give our staff lawyers ample time to pick through everything with a fine tooth comb in hopes of finding something we could use to disqualify him because we don't like the President who nominated him."

So Booker, Hirono, et. al., are trying to find ways to stretch unrelated opinions or circumstances to paint him as a racist, sexist . . . etc.

Everyone knows that Brett Kavanaugh is qualified for the Supreme Court. They're just afraid he might follow the law rather than giving them what they want.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 12:33 pm

chaiz wrote:

I don't know. I am a real NeverTrumper, but a lot of what is going on with the anti Kavanaugh hate doesn't make much sense to me other than ugly silly partisanship. But my philosophies and ideas tend more to the conservative side, both socially and fiscally.

The main concern is giving Trump the opportunity to select his own judge when he's under investigation. Kavanaugh's views on executive power, pardon power etc will most likely come before the court in the very near future. That's the most robust reason for opposing him.

The rest is probably pretty standard liberal vs conservative issues that any conservative justice would face: will he overturn Roe v Wade? Support citizens over corporations? What's his stance on affirmative action? Remove pre-existing conditions protections from ACA?

Nobody can have a serious argument about dem obstruction given the Merrick Garland blockade and the unprecedented rushing of the process to get him through by midterms. Of course that's not going to stop anyone from making the argument, but it's not one I take particularly seriously.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 12:36 pm

On a related note, the real entertainment yesterday was in the House, where @jack was testifying. Laura Loomer interrupted, though to her credit, she didn't wear a handmaid cosplay costume.

I have mixed feelings about Loomer. I hate when she pulls these kinds of stunts, but I acknowledge that she's also a kind of Star Trek reporter, going boldly where other outlets refuse to go (no reporter in Minnesota thought to check out police records on Keith Ellison? C'mon?).

Anyway, her ejection was hilarious and perfect, and even Loomer had to bow in recognition of a masterful play.

InnerMe

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 12:42 pm

Fox wrote:

Yes, this was hysterical.
Even though I don't get all those political nuances.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 12:48 pm

Jeanette wrote:

That's odd. President Clinton made two Supreme Court appointments while under investigation for obstruction of justice, and I don't recall this argument.

Jeanette wrote:

The rest is probably pretty standard liberal vs conservative issues that any conservative justice would face: will he overturn Roe v Wade? Support citizens over corporations? What's his stance on affirmative action? Remove pre-existing conditions protections from ACA?

For that matter, what's his stance on Coke versus Pepsi? That's almost as relevant.

There is an easy way to maintain abortion rights, keep corporations from running roughshod over citizens, etc. Pass. Good. Laws. Congress and state legislatures are like parents who want to hire nannies to turn out perfect kids for them. They want to avoid all the icky, boring elements of lawmaking and just have the judges fix everything. It doesn't -- or shouldn't -- work like that.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:04 pm

Quote:

That's odd. President Clinton made two Supreme Court appointments while under investigation for obstruction of justice, and I don't recall this argument.

Yes, very odd, especially considering that the investigation is into the very circumstances that put him in the position to select a Supreme Court justice.

I wonder if either of Clinton's appointees expressed any opinions on the independent counsel regulation itself that allowed the investigation to be conducted. I wonder what their opinions were about subpoena power, pardon power and the limits of executive power. Did they come up at all in the hearing? Maybe they should have at least been asked? And if they had previously expressed opinions about any of the above before their nomination, do you think they should have been questioned about them? Maybe!

It's also odd that Kavanaugh has apparently perjured himself on at least two occasions on matters at least as significant as the perjury that got Clinton impeached. But I don't suppose that will matter.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:04 pm

Fox wrote:

I agree with all you said, all excellent and truthful points! The whole questioning process is a sham because no matter what he answers, Democrats will vote against him. The disingenuousness is amazing.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:14 pm

Jeanette wrote:

The main concern is giving Trump the opportunity to select his own judge when he's under investigation.

The investigation into Trump has nothing at all to do with his pick for Supreme Court, or Kavanaugh himself. The investigation has not affected Trump’s ability to make a sensible pick for Supreme Court judge, and Kavanaugh is highly competent, deserving and admired by everyone (even dems who suddenly changed their minds about him when he became Trump’s pick). While I’m sure the issues you cite are important to you, the truth about what the dems are doing is that they wouldn’t confirm any Trump nominee even if the pope himself was up for the position. The process going on is just their way to waste time and try to somehow push it off until after midterm elections, in their hope that they might win and then put in their own nominee.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:17 pm

causemommysaid wrote:

I'm fairly conservative but I remember back when Obama tried to nominate a justice and the Republicans were behaving just as horrible as the Democrats are behaving now.

I think it's pretty standard that the opposition acts like children having a tantrum. Nothing new.

Actually everyone agrees it’s neverbeen this bad by far...especially with all the protesters who are pawns used by the left, and I can’t understand the republicans allowing them to keep disrupting the proceedings and turning them into a circus.

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:20 pm

Fox wrote:

I wasn't aware that you were a constitutional scholar, able to make such determinations.

So, is it your opinion that the Constitutional obligation for Congressional oversight of nominees should be abandoned, and anyone with the ABA's OK should be confirmed?

Of course, we'd have Justice Garland in that case.

Fox wrote:

Second, Kavanaugh is not exactly some dark horse nominee. He's been in the pipeline for the Supreme Court for a long time. His approach to the law is not a secret.

And? Does that mean that his records on matters that directly implicate his nomination should not have been released?

Fox wrote:

What the obstructionists really mean is, "You didn't give our staff lawyers ample time to pick through everything with a fine tooth comb in hopes of finding something we could use to disqualify him because we don't like the President who nominated him."

So Booker, Hirono, et. al., are trying to find ways to stretch unrelated opinions or circumstances to paint him as a racist, sexist . . . etc.

Everyone knows that Brett Kavanaugh is qualified for the Supreme Court. They're just afraid he might follow the law rather than giving them what they want.

Well, that certainly paints you as no constitutional scholar if you think that its all black and white.

We're afraid that Kavanaugh will not adhere to precedent. And one of the withheld documents certainly suggests that he won't. In particular, he wrote that he was not sure that Roe was considered settled "since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so." Don't you think that's relevant.

Of course you don't! Because he's conservative, he's ok.

What are you so afraid of? The Republicans control the process. So why are they so terrified of providing the same level of information that is usually provided?

Why withhold documents about warrantless searches. And affirmative action. And torture. And why don't you care about them?