SCOTUS: How did we get here, and where are we going?

[Drunkard]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

You think with certainty that Trump will get reelected? 

I think he will at this point. It's not set in stone but he knows how to motivate his base and Conservatives are much better at getting to the polls as a percentage of the population. There's plenty of things that could change that though. The best chance is for the Democrats to overtake the House in the midterms. They'd essentially be able to neuter his conservative agenda at that point and increase the changes of either constant stalemates (most likely) or actual bipartisan legislation (way less likely). Maybe after 2 years of that he gets sick of it and decides not to run or maybe Mueller pulls enough string in his investigation to chase him out. I'd give him better than 50% odds he gets a second term though.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Alkoholist

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

My preference would be for the Senate to go back to the rules that were in place prior to Reid blowing them up.  

Short of 1 party ending up w/ a supermajority and feeling magnanimous in victory, doubt we ever get back there, sadly.

Reid was idiotic to do that, but that has nothing to do with refusing to consider a nominee in 2016.

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Reid was idiotic to do that, but that has nothing to do with refusing to consider a nominee in 2016.

Are they both woven of the same cloth, no.  Is one a consequence of the other, yes.

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

You think with certainty that Trump will get reelected? 

I'm pretty confident, the incumbent rarely doesn't. It's not impossible that he doesn't though. There could even feasibly be a democrat  that grabs my vote, I just don't know who they'd be right this second. 

[JujuFish]

8 hours ago, Taro T said:

My preference would be for the Senate to go back to the rules that were in place prior to Reid blowing them up.  

Short of 1 party ending up w/ a supermajority and feeling magnanimous in victory, doubt we ever get back there, sadly.

 

This is my preference as well since 60 votes usually requires compromise between sides, though that's pointless if all it takes to change the rule is a simple majority.

 

That said, this really has nothing to do with the bologna McConnell pulled in 2016.  Gorsuch's seat should be Garland's and the open seat now should be Gorsuch's.

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, JujuFish said:

 

This is my preference as well since 60 votes usually requires compromise between sides, though that's pointless if all it takes to change the rule is a simple majority.

 

That said, this really has nothing to do with the bologna McConnell pulled in 2016.  Gorsuch's seat should be Garland's and the open seat now should be Gorsuch's.

Yup. That is exactly how it should have worked. I am for a constitutional amendment requiring the Senate to act on a nomination within 30 days of the president making it or be subject to expulsion from the senate and being barred from holding any federal office ever again. 

[Drunkard]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Yup. That is exactly how it should have worked. I am for a constitutional amendment requiring the Senate to act on a nomination within 30 days of the president making it or be subject to expulsion from the senate and being barred from holding any federal office ever again. 

It'll never happen. You need a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to do that and the GOP would never go for that because doing the opposite tipped the court in their favor.

[Eleven]

On 7/10/2018 at 1:37 PM, Taro T said:

Are they both woven of the same cloth, no.  Is one a consequence of the other, yes.

Huh?

[Taro T]

8 hours ago, Eleven said:

Huh?

If Reid doesn't blow up the other rule, McConnell doesn't attempt to simply bury Garland's nomination.  IMHO.  That's all that meant.

But for more background on my opinion:

Should he have recieved a full hearing & vote?  Again, IMHO, yes.

Should he have been voted in by the Senate?  Again, IMHO, yes.

I feel strongly, that except for cases of pretty clear incompetence that the President's nominee should be approved.  I do not believe the Chief of Staff W nominated (her name escapes me know) prior to nominating Roberts should have been voted in.  But I believe Robert Bork should have been approved.  (He's been a brilliant legal scholar, IMHO, again.)

I have been opposed to Ginsberg's opinions about 90% of the time that there has been a split decision, but agree that she was qualified and deserved to be approved.  Elections have consequences, you know.(Though I often disagree w/ her, she does know her field very well.  So do the 5 guys that normally disagree w/ her, too.)

I agree Kagen's qualified.  

My 2 cents.  Take 'em for whatever they're worth.

 

[Eleven]

15 hours ago, Taro T said:

If Reid doesn't blow up the other rule, McConnell doesn't attempt to simply bury Garland's nomination.  IMHO.  That's all that meant.

But for more background on my opinion:

Should he have recieved a full hearing & vote?  Again, IMHO, yes.

Should he have been voted in by the Senate?  Again, IMHO, yes.

I feel strongly, that except for cases of pretty clear incompetence that the President's nominee should be approved.  I do not believe the Chief of Staff W nominated (her name escapes me know) prior to nominating Roberts should have been voted in.  But I believe Robert Bork should have been approved.  (He's been a brilliant legal scholar, IMHO, again.)

I have been opposed to Ginsberg's opinions about 90% of the time that there has been a split decision, but agree that she was qualified and deserved to be approved.  Elections have consequences, you know.(Though I often disagree w/ her, she does know her field very well.  So do the 5 guys that normally disagree w/ her, too.)

I agree Kagen's qualified.  

My 2 cents.  Take 'em for whatever they're worth.

 

I don't see the cause-and-effect between the Reid and McConnell situations at all.

Harriet Myers is the name you're looking for.  She had no judicial experience and flunked on even the most basic questions from the Judiciary Committee.  (Actually, not only did she have no judicial experience, but also, she had little experience in litigation.)  She was basically W's version of Matthew Petersen, except at the Supreme Court rather than district court level.

Robert Bork was a mess.  He supported poll taxes, FFS.  There's a reason we have checks and balances, and Bork is basically the poster child.

The more moderate the justice--I miss O'Connor and will miss Kennedy (both are Reagan appointees, I might note)--the better, IMO.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Eleven

[Sabel79]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

I don't see the cause-and-effect between the Reid and McConnell situations at all.

Harriet Myers is the name you're looking for.  She had no judicial experience and flunked on even the most basic questions from the Judiciary Committee.  (Actually, not only did she have no judicial experience, but also, she had little experience in litigation.)  She was basically W's version of Matthew Petersen, except at the Supreme Court rather than district court level.

Robert Bork was a mess.  He supported poll taxes, FFS.  There's a reason we have checks and balances, and Bork is basically the poster child.

She also, as I recall, once had her license to practice suspended because she failed to pay dues.  Dillegence. 

And yes, Bork was literally the worst case scenario.  They learned lessons and dressed the same package up in comforting neutral colors later on.  

[Sabel79]

Welp.  Cory Booker is going to get himself thrown out of the Senate for providing the public with (committee confidential) proof that Kavanaugh perjured himself... Eceryone on that committee has ostensibly seen it, they’re going to confirm him anyway.  

I’m laughing, but only to prevent myself from crying.  

[Taro T]

7 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Welp. Cory Booker is going to get himself thrown out of the Senate for providing the public with (committee confidential) proof that Kavanaugh perjured himself... Eceryone on that committee has ostensibly seen it, they’re going to confirm him anyway.  

I’m laughing, but only to prevent myself from crying.  

Not exactly.  It appears the docs were cleared from "confidential" last night, so Senator Booker wasn't violating Senate rules for handling confidential information.  Evenif he had publicly released confidential documents, doubt they'd have kicked him out of the Senate.  Censure him, sure.  Remove him, doubtful.

Not sure how the 4 docs in question demonstrate that Judge Kavanaugh has perjured himself.  Having quickly read them, what he writes seems reasonable.  Haven't heard the Senator's full comments, so am not sure what contradiction in testimony they supposedly represent.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Taro T

[Eleven]

7 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Welp.  Cory Booker is going to get himself thrown out of the Senate for providing the public with (committee confidential) proof that Kavanaugh perjured himself... Eceryone on that committee has ostensibly seen it, they’re going to confirm him anyway.  

I’m laughing, but only to prevent myself from crying.  

It's partisan hackery on both sides.  Booker will be fine.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Eleven

[Sabel79]

I think I may have been mixing up facts: Booker's stunt and the perjury accusation are separate.  

The perjury accusation is made regarding testimony given in 2006, where he claimed to have nothing to do with the confirmation process  of another judicial candidate, which is belied by the fact that emails recovered show he was clearly not only involved, but in possession of stolen documents pertaining to Democratic Senators in opposition.  

Blog post about it, take it for what it's worth: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-perjured-himself-impeachment/

Edited September 7, 2018 by Sabel79
Clarity

[Sabel79]

Also (and again, consider the source, but still...): https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

[LGR4GM]

Today might be interesting. 

[Sabel79]

Interesting, and infuriating.  They're going to confirm him.  This, the hard-right control of the Supreme Court for the next generation, is literally the last installment on the price that they (the entire Republican establishment) negotiated in exchange for their souls in 2016. 

I'm laughing, but only to prevent myself from lighting things on fire.

[josie]

This is so painful to watch. She's extremely eloquent. And we know none of it will matter. 

 

She was 15 when this happened. I was around that age when I went through some sh!t and the cops told me I didn't want to ruin the boys' lives. Class president, after all, boys make mistakes, I don't want to send him to jail and be hated in town, now do I? I could never do what this woman is doing today.  And she's just one who's come forward. But yep, he will get to vote on and decide my bodily rights.

 

I want to puke. I fu*king hate everything about the last 2 years. Every day is a fu*king assault on my brain. 

[SwampD]

Can these jackasses please just stop with "innocent until proven guilty" garbage? This isn't a trial. He's applying for a job. 

And for the president, who fancies himself a businessman, here's a business comparison for him. If this were a corporation hiring a CEO, with even just a wiff of something this controversial, Kavanaugh's resume would have been thrown on the burn pile faster than Trump can say Stormy Daniels

[Randall Flagg]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

Can these jackasses please just stop with "innocent until proven guilty" garbage? This isn't a trial. He's applying for a job. 

And for the president, who fancies himself a businessman, here's a business comparison for him. If this were a corporation hiring a CEO, with even just a wiff of something this controversial, Kavanaugh's resume would have been thrown on the burn pile faster than Trump can say Stormy Daniels

Isn't that what is going on now though? If the FBI HAD caught a whiff of it, he wouldn't be about to be sworn in right now. But now there's a whiff, so stuff is happening, eh?

To be clear, I haven't followed this any closer than headlines (a blessing of being in-semester) so I have no idea what impact the investigations/whatever have on him being confirmed.

[TrueBlueGED]

Posted this on Facebook. Just my thoughts on the matter. It's long--you've been warned. TLDR: This entire thing sucks.

I've been struggling for awhile to find the words to describe how I feel re: the Kavanaugh hearing today. I'm not sure I do even now, but I need to say something, if for no better reason than my own catharsis. I have no delusions about convincing anyone to change their mind, regardless of where they stand on the matter. And truth be told, that's not even my attempt here. What follows is very long, and much of it is process-oriented, so if you don't want to read and think, you should probably cut your losses and stop reading now.

I have no idea what happened that night decades ago. None. I found Dr. Ford's testimony to be both compelling and credible--nobody who watched it in full, prior to partisan commentary, could rightly say she came off as some fringe nutjob out to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life. I legitimately feel for what she and her family have been going through since she came forward--receiving death threats, needing to (at least temporarily) relocate. Whether you think she's out to "get" Judge Kavanaugh, I would like to think empathy for what her family is going through (and will continue to endure for the foreseeable future) is simply the humane thing to feel.

Likewise, I would hope we can feel empathy for what Judge Kavanaugh's family has been going through. Whether Judge Kavanaugh himself did attempt to rape Dr. Ford, or anyone else, his family didn't. They do not deserve the death threats their family has received, and seeing their husband/father publicly accused of a heinous crime is surely a horrible experience. Much like empathy for Dr. Ford's family is the human thing to feel, I think empathy for his is also the human thing to feel. Judge Kavanaugh himself responded with the righteous indignation I would expect of someone who was accused, whether falsely or not. I could have done without him peddling a partisan conspiracy theory, but the tenor of his opening statement wasn't surprising. I don't think I'd have responded quite that way, but I don't necessarily fault him for doing so. If he is innocent, or simply believes he is innocent, it was a fairly natural reaction. I have issues with several aspects of his testimony, but the raw emotion isn't one of them, and I think the liberal talking points focusing on them are quite misguided.

Which brings me to the substance of the hearing. Was Dr. Ford's testimony sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? No, no it was not. Saying otherwise is making an argument in bad faith--you can believe her, but barring corroborating evidence (note I said corroborating, as her testimony is, in fact, evidence), Judge Kavanaugh cannot be convicted. Which brings the important point: this is not criminal court. It's a promotion to one of the most powerful and prestigious positions in the entire world. If he isn't confirmed, he doesn't go to prison--he returns to the DC circuit, where he will continue to be an incredibly powerful judge. Given these things, I don't think having a different standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" is unfair.

Furthermore, despite the rhetoric of this as a "search and destroy" mission by the left, Judge Kavanaugh's life is far from destroyed. Even if he were to leave the federal bench, he could sign a 7-figure book deal yesterday, go to a private law firm and earn considerably more than his current salary, and/or make a killing on the TV/speech circuit for conservative media outlets and groups. The penalty for withdrawing the nomination, or losing the nomination, is not prison, or death, or unemployment. 

Again, I claim no knowledge of what did or did not happen decades ago. If this was a criminal trial, and I was on the jury, and the entirety of the evidence was what was presented today, I would vote not guilty. What bothers me most, though, is that the Senate Judiciary Committee (and Republican leadership in general) is not interested in even trying to find out what happened. It's not that they don't care whether Dr. Ford actually was raped by then-teenage Kavanaugh, it's that they don't even want to try to find out. It was decades ago, we might never convincingly know either way, but we should care enough to try. During the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, there was an FBI investigation and over 20 witnesses were called to testify. To the chagrin of many on the left, he was ultimately confirmed (through a Democratically-controlled Senate, it's worth noting). And a deeper investigation may well not have any impact on Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, but this time around we had 2 witnesses hear on the same day and 0 investigations, with a planned vote on Friday out of committee and a full floor vote on Saturday. That's just wrong. The allegations are serious, and should be treated seriously. They have not been, and as a human being, much less someone who thinks some degree of bipartisanship is necessary for good governance, that just makes me sad.

Whether Judge Kavanaugh ultimately did what he was accused of or not, he has every incentive to flatly deny it--a nomination to SCOTUS doesn't come around every day. Dr. Ford has nothing to gain. I guess you could argue she might get a book deal or paid speaking appearances now? Maybe. But there's definitely no incentive for Democrats or liberals to be waging a vast conspiracy built on lies. Even if Judge Kavanaugh is ultimately voted down (I'll be shocked if he is, but who knows these days), he will be replaced with someone else who is just as conservative and who liberals and Democrats will disagree with just as much and who will shift the ideological balance of the Court to the right. There is 0% chance that the Republican-controlled Senate doesn't confirm Kennedy's replacement before the new Congress is sworn in in January, and a similarly 0% chance that that nominee is a moderate. I think there's even a good argument that these allegations bringing down the nomination could hurt Democrats in the midterms, as it would surely fire up the Republican base (if it hasn't already). 

I'm sure some of my Republican and conservative friends may be thinking "yea, but if these accusations can take down Kavanaugh, they'll be used against any other nominee to block them and keep the seat open." This is not a logically sound argument. Democrats and/or liberals did not torpedo Gorsuch with allegations of sexual assault. Nor did they do it for Alito, or Roberts, or any other of a host of conservative jurists for the lower courts with whom they vehemently disagree ideologically. There are countless well-qualified conservative judges serving who could be nominated and confirmed without these kinds of allegations derailing the confirmation process. The idea that similar accusations would happen against anybody simply ignores observed reality and veers into some real tinfoil hat thinking. Again, it was just a year ago that Gorsuch, a justice who Democrats will despise for decades, was confirmed *with Democratic votes.*

The Supreme Court is important. Its legitimacy matters. And right now, its legitimacy is in flux. There are many on the left who feel everything that has followed McConnell's blockade of Merrick Garland's nomination has been illegitimate. That's a theoretical argument, but it's not purely an academic exercise. The Court's power and role in our system of checks and balances is dependent upon its legitimacy as an institution--it's reliant on the other branches and outside actors to enforce and comply with its decisions. Nixon ultimately complied with SCOTUS, but what if SCOTUS was viewed as a nakedly partisan political institution? Would he still have complied? What if the next Democratic president views a 5-4 decision against an action/policy as a political move by 5 Republicans rather than a valid judgment by the high court? We don't know, but it's not an irrelevant thing to think about as the political climate continues to devolve.

Political scientists have long known that the Court is political, but the public at large hasn't. The Supreme Court, as far as we can measure public opinion, has been the most popular branch of the federal government. A big part of the reason for this is it hasn't been viewed as overtly political. Potentially since Bush v. Gore, but certainly since the Garland fiasco, it's trending in the political direction. And once this happens, what is to stop escalation? It's my biggest fear. The next time Democrats get unified control of government (which will happen, whether it's in 2 years, or 6...it's just how politics works), there is likely to be massive pressure from the base to either expand the size of the court or to impeach a hypothetical Justice Kavanaugh. Or both. It's going to be a disaster. But if the public starts viewing the Court strictly down partisan lines, there is every political reason to do exactly that.

If the Court is to be viewed as a purely political institution, then go ahead and play unabashed partisan politics with it. And that's probably going to have a trickle-down effect. It's entirely possible we're heading to a reality where federal judges at all levels are only confirmed when the same party controls both the presidency and the Senate. On the flip side, when there is unified control, we're likely already in a reality where all of the judges appointed are going to be on the extreme ends of the ideological continuum. That's a horrible reality to live in, I fear we're already there, and both sides are too busy saying "they started it" to take a step back and think about the larger and longer-term consequences of what is going on.

[TrueBlueGED]

38 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Isn't that what is going on now though? If the FBI HAD caught a whiff of it, he wouldn't be about to be sworn in right now. But now there's a whiff, so stuff is happening, eh?

To be clear, I haven't followed this any closer than headlines (a blessing of being in-semester) so I have no idea what impact the investigations/whatever have on him being confirmed.

A routine background check wouldn't catch anything that was only mentioned within a doctor's office or to close family/friends of Dr. Ford. It's essentially a quick check on whether there is a criminal record or recorded complaints, and brief phone interviews with associates of Judge Kavanaugh. The whole thing can be done in a matter of hours. Ever apply for a job where you have to submit references for a background check? It's basically that. Unless someone Kavanaugh recommended decided to mention something about a party and drinking and a possible attempted rape, the FBI wouldn't have found anything. 

[Randall Flagg]

17 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

A routine background check wouldn't catch anything that was only mentioned within a doctor's office or to close family/friends of Dr. Ford. It's essentially a quick check on whether there is a criminal record or recorded complaints, and brief phone interviews with associates of Judge Kavanaugh. The whole thing can be done in a matter of hours. Ever apply for a job where you have to submit references for a background check? It's basically that. Unless someone Kavanaugh recommended decided to mention something about a party and drinking and a possible attempted rape, the FBI wouldn't have found anything. 

Gotcha. 

So, is what's is going to happen qualify as faster than Trump can say Stormy Daniels, or does Brett have it easy? 

To clarify, there's a whiff of "this is unfair" in Swamp's post that I have trouble connecting to how things have played out. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[TrueBlueGED]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

Gotcha. 

So, is what's is going to happen qualify as faster than Trump can say Stormy Daniels, or does Brett have it easy? 

Well, the Judiciary Committee has the vote scheduled for Friday morning, and McConnell *I think* has full floor debate set to open Saturday morning. I'd assume that would put a confirmation vote early next week. The FBI could probably interview the relevant people before that, if mobilized, but I'm under the impression that could only come at the request of the committee (not happening) or a higher up at the FBI/DOJ (also not happening). Additional testimony in the committee, of course, would take considerably more time than FBI interviews.