Your thoughts on the Judge Kavanaugh Hearings

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

allthingsblue

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:20 pm

Cheiny wrote:

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.

I don't agree.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:22 pm

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

Unfortunately there’s a glaring double standard and hypocrisy that shamelessly emanates from the left.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 1:55 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

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

Huh? I'm not allowed to point out that Senators aren't necessarily Constitutional scholars simply because I'm not one myself? I'm not allowed to observe that Constitutional law isn't something you can just pick up on the fly?

SixOfWands wrote:

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.

As you have pointed out, I am not an expert in Constitutional law. However, I know there are many experts who feel that Roe v. Wade is bad law. Not that they are anti-abortion, pro-life, or whatever. Rather, that they feel the legal arguments and framework are shaky.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? I don't know. If people weren't so hysterical on both sides of the issue, the answer would be "absolutely." States should enact their own laws based on what their citizens want. Given that a large majority of Americans, including Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, favor few or no restrictions on abortion, such laws should pass easily. They would offer far more protection than Roe v. Wade, and we could stop with the cosplay costumes every time there's a Supreme Court opening.

SixOfWands wrote:

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

Actually, he's an originalist. But by all means, try to paint me as some sort of unthinking, ill-read kook. It makes it a lot easy to argue with the stereotype you've created.

SixOfWands wrote:

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?

A number of key Democrats have already said they will not vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation under any circumstances. So why do they need more documents? They're not going to change their minds. In fact, they made these announcements the day after the nomination, being the fair-minded people they are. Senator Grassley has repeatedly explained how Committee members can see everything; sadly, there are no auctioneers to spoil Senator Booker's and Senator Harris's performances.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:06 pm

allthingsblue wrote:

I don't agree.

So you’ve seen these types of proceedings repeatedly disrupted by protesters inside the room, screaming, calling the nominee a baby killer, and other vicious accusations etc.., causing interruptions in the process so the police can remove them? When?

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:09 pm

Jeanette wrote:

My impression is they are making this gamble very intentionally and deliberately.

I would like to believe this, since the only other alternative is to worry about Senator Booker's blood pressure, but I can't quite figure out the audience they're playing for.

If they're trying to attract soccer moms in flyover country, they lost their case when the Kavanaugh daughters were taken out. If they're playing for their own constituencies, why bother?

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:11 pm

[quote="SixOfWands"]Well, that certainly paints you as no constitutional scholar. (quote]

Why must every thread take a nasty turn? I ask that everyone speak with respect towards others here, even if their views don’t match yours. We should be able to have a debate and exchange of ideas without attacking others.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:15 pm

Fox wrote:

I was embarrassed for Booker as I watched his performance. It was so clearly a staged act, with his plan for a presidential run clearly at the forefront of his mind. No doubt you’ll see clips of his feigned outrage, and his claim that it was driven only by his “goal of bringing transparency for the American people” become campaign ads on tv for his presidential run. Yuch. How does anyone fall for this?

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:17 pm

fox wrote:

SixOfWands wrote:

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

Patented Fox. Take what I wrote out of context. Then pretend I said things I didn't. Your comments amply demonstrate that you're no constitutional scholar. And not qualified to determine if others are.

fox wrote:

SixOfWands wrote:

If people weren't so hysterical, then we wouldn't be arguing over whether or not a Supreme Court decision made 45 years ago should be considered valid precedent.

But how a potential justice views precedent is a vital part of considering his qualifications.

fox wrote:

SixOfWands wrote:

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

Actually, he's an originalist. But by all means, try to paint me as some sort of unthinking, ill-read kook. It makes it a lot easy to argue with the stereotype you've created.

Its much easier to play the victim than to respond to why you think its OK to withhold documents, isn't it? So tell us, why is it not important to view these documents?

Were he an "originalist" he would adhere to precedent. But its now clear that he won't do that.

fox wrote:

SixOfWands wrote:

So I guess that you assume that Republicans will vote for him no matter what, since Trump nominated him, and that the contents of all documents are irrelevant to them. That Republicans just hoe the party line, and don't care about qualifications. Glad you're willing to admit that.

Because otherwise, the documents would be relevant to them. And to you. But clearly they're not.

Oh, and just remember that the Republicans refused to so much as hold a hearing on Merrick Garland.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:20 pm

Fox wrote:

As a Republican you should be feeling very confident. They're in a win-win position. Either Kavanaugh gets confirmed (likely) or they have a winning electoral message to coast through midterms.

For dems, what do they have to lose? Playing it safe won't win them any new seats. Their only gamble is to fight like h3ll. They're laying it all on the line. Of course it could backfire big time and they'll lose the house and Senate too. But they played it safe last election and look where they're at.

Anyway it's not just senators to consider, its voters. Are voters so charged up by having Kavanaugh on the supreme court that it will drive them to the polls in droves? Opinion polls dont seem to show that kind of energy in support of him (an understatement) but polls were wrong in 2016 and could be wrong again, in either direction.

Anyway if there is one lesson we learned from 2016 it's that you get up and fight for what you believe in. You gotta take some risks. That's why you support Trump, right?

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:41 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

1. Posters referenced various Senators who claim they haven't received enough documentation or haven't received it in a timely manner.

2. I pointed out that this is red herring because these Senators have shown themselves to be inexpert in Constitutional law based on their questioning of Kavanaugh. More documents wouldn't help them.

3. You claim I have no authority to make that determination.

4. I agree. I am basing it on the lines of questioning and comments from Constitutional scholars. I'll provide citations, if you wish.

5. You once again claim I have no authority. Um, okay.

SixOfWands wrote:

I don't "guess" anything. Right now, most analysts are counting 46 votes in favor, 44 votes against, and 9 votes undecided.

Kavanaugh has answered questions about all of these things, including how he views precedents, etc. Anyone who claims that Roe v. Wade is a strong precedent is lying. That does not mean it will be or should be overturned; just that it is not a strong precedent in the same way of, say, Marbury v. Madison.

Personally, I don't know why Obama didn't press for confirmation hearings for Garland. He was basically hiding in the WH by that time, though, and perhaps didn't have the political capital left.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:53 pm

Jeanette wrote:

For dems, what do they have to lose? Playing it safe won't win them any new seats. Their only gamble is to fight like h3ll. They're laying it all on the line. Of course it could backfire big time and they'll lose the house and Senate too. But they played it safe last election and look where they're at.

I wouldn't say they played it safe in 2016. I'd say they didn't run a campaign at all. They selected a badly compromised candidate who divided her time between the Hamptons and Hollywood.

I'm not seeing how this is going to work out for them for the midterms or beyond. Nor do I see where they're going to find a viable candidate for 2020. Harris has personal baggage that will likely keep her out of the race, and Booker's tilt to the hard left will garner him votes in NY, NJ, WA, OR, and CA.

As for being "worried" -- I'm not. I just find the whole thing interesting. I'm way more worried about the fact that social media algorithms are apparently beyond human control at this point.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 2:54 pm

Fox wrote:

You should be feeling smug as a bug in a rug right now.

33055

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 3:16 pm

Cheiny wrote:

It didn't matter the emails were cleared. He had his I am idiot moment.

Cheiny

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 3:20 pm

Squishy wrote:

It didn't matter the emails were cleared. He had his I am idiot moment.

And that’s who’s going to run for Pres in 2020!

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 3:23 pm

Fox wrote:

So, if someone denies something, you don't think that documents should be produced to support that.

Hmmm. I don't recall your horror at Clinton being forced to produce her emails. She said she didn't use the server for anything confidential. Wasn't that good enough for you?

What more could Obama have done to press for hearings. The Republicans refused. They controlled the process. Done deal.

In any case, Roe v Wade isn't "strong precedent" because right wingers keep attacking it. Not for any other reason. I'm not sure why Jews aren't more upset at the prospect of its being overturned. Unlike Christians, we believe that there are circumstances in which women should have abortions. Our religious rights could be impacted.

SixOfWands

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 5:06 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You should be feeling smug as a bug in a rug right now.

Oh, everyone here should be quite happy.

He's now referred to birth control as an "abortion-inducing drug." And of course his confirmation puts abortion at risk.

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 5:33 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Oh, everyone here should be quite happy.

He's now referred to birth control as an "abortion-inducing drug." And of course his confirmation puts abortion at risk.

Between you and me the hearings are a train wreck for him and he should never be confirmed. But of course with GOP at the Helm it's full train wreck ahead.

But it's great that Rs feel so confident about midterms. Dems should continue fighting like they're ten points behind in every race.

Fox

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 7:48 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

In any case, Roe v Wade isn't "strong precedent" because right wingers keep attacking it. Not for any other reason. I'm not sure why Jews aren't more upset at the prospect of its being overturned. Unlike Christians, we believe that there are circumstances in which women should have abortions. Our religious rights could be impacted.

I don't know where you're getting this. Here's a NYT article going back to 1989(!) that talks about the problems in the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade.

NYT

Like many people, you seem to be confusing the desire and/or need for abortion rights in a pluralistic society with whether a specific Court decision represents good law.

As you have pointed out and I have agreed, I am not a Constitutional law scholar, but it's simply inaccurate to say that the only people who consider Roe v. Wade to be legally problematic are anti-abortion activists seeking to overturn it.

Now, as it happens, I don't think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned, even by a highly orginalist Court. It's been reaffirmed repeatedly (as Kavanaugh has stated), and nobody wants to open that can of worms. The states certainly don't want the issue dumped back on their laps. But the fact that it's too much of a social hot potato to handle doesn't make it good law.

And, again, if the handmaid cosplayers are really all that concerned, they need to figure out how to legislate these rights rather than balance them on a precarious legal base.

SixOfWands wrote:

He's now referred to birth control as an "abortion-inducing drug."

Did you actually think that no one was going to call out this whopper?

No, Kavanaugh did not refer to birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs." He was referring to a specific case, similar to the Hobby Lobby case, in which the plaintiff (Priests for Life) did not want to be forced to provide certain types of birth control for their employees -- specifically, the morning-after pill and certain types of IUDs. So Kavanaugh's description was in reference to specific drugs or devices that in fact or in belief cause the abortion of a fertilized embryo.

Moreover, he found that the government had a compelling interest in forcing the employer to provide the specific coverage because of the overriding goal of providing equal access to health care under the ACA!

His final step was to evaluate whether a solution could be found that achieved both the goals of the ACA (equal access to health care) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (protecting religious interests). His opinion supported finding such a compromise.

In short, (a) Kavanaugh was referring to a very select type of birth control to which the plaintiffs objected, not his own opinions, which don't matter anyway; (b) he found there was a compelling interest in the government mandating equality of access to health care; and (c) he argued in favor of compromises that achieved equality without violating existing law.

So what is it you object to? That certain methods of birth control are considered objectionable within certain religions? Um, that would include Judaism. That people should have equal access to health care? Well, I guess the Democratic Socialists better not count on your vote. Or that people's religious beliefs should be respected whenever possible? That seems like something Jews would be concerned about.

I realize that HuffPo and Vice are trying to make a round tablecloth fit a rectangular table, but anyone who actually watches Kavanaugh's response to Senator Cruz will see that he's not out to confiscate your birth control pills. That's Milo and Gavin. Smile

sushilover

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 11:00 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I'm not sure why Jews aren't more upset at the prospect of its being overturned. Unlike Christians, we believe that there are circumstances in which women should have abortions. Our religious rights could be impacted.

I can't speak for all Jews, but I know why I won't be upset if it's overturned. Because I value all innocent life, and I think the unborn deserve to be protected because they cannot speak for themselves.
Oh and most pro lifers believe the mother's life and health come before her baby's, even Christians.

sushilover

Thu, Sep 06 2018, 11:01 pm

sushilover wrote:

This is all a moot point because Kavanaugh will not overturn roe v wade.....

Page 2 of 4

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next