Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 71834 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« on: September 04, 2018, 10:03:25 AM »
Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

His hearings began this morning with Democrats asking to adjourn to have time to review the 40,000 documents that were conveniently (finally) produced last night.

Live updates from the NYT at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/us/politics/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-updates.html

My prediction is that he will ultimately be nominated unless there is a groundswell with enough force to peel off some Republicans. There are conservatives that I disagree with but can still respect such as Roberts. I think Kavanaugh is too politically motivated to be an impartial judge and will work to push the boundaries of the courts in his tenure.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7279
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2018, 10:22:31 AM »
Anyone who picks "The Supreme Court doesn't matter" in this poll must not live in the United States.

I'm very scared by what the court will do when this nomination is approved; and I'm sure it will be.

vern

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 11:50:05 AM by vern »

caffeine

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2018, 11:54:26 AM »
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7279
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2018, 11:55:30 AM »
He will be confirmed thanks to Harry Reid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html?noredirect=on

Well, Reid didn't go so far as to extend that to Supreme court nominees. He could have, but he limited the change.  That was McConnell who extended it.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2018, 11:57:10 AM »
It doesn’t matter what I think about kavanaugh because he will be confirmed regardless.  As a Democrat, my chance to have a say in nominations for the Supreme Court was in November of 2016.  Now it’s an utterly moot point.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2018, 12:26:49 PM »
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably. 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7279
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2018, 12:45:29 PM »
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7279
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2018, 12:51:43 PM »
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.


Problem:
There is NO required qualification to be a justice.


There isn't an age limit, a residency or citizenship requirement, any requirement for knowing anything about the law.
The Constitution is silent on all of this.


« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 12:54:27 PM by I'm a red panda »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2018, 01:01:32 PM »
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

Wouldn't a law banning travel for a medical procedure violate interstate commerce law? (honest question)

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7279
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2018, 01:02:26 PM »
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

Wouldn't a law banning travel for a medical procedure violate interstate commerce law? (honest question)

One would think it would.
But the courts could decide otherwise.

States pass unconstitutional laws all the time in hopes of them being upheld by courts.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12238
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2018, 01:31:16 PM »
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

Wouldn't a law banning travel for a medical procedure violate interstate commerce law? (honest question)

If abortion were treated like a normal medical procedure in your country, there would be no opposition to someone getting one in the first place.  If you believe that abortion is murderous baby killing, why wouldn't banning travel to have it done be OK?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2018, 01:40:46 PM »
If abortion were treated like a normal medical procedure in your country, there would be no opposition to someone getting one in the first place.  If you believe that abortion is murderous baby killing, why wouldn't banning travel to have it done be OK?

Indeed. Section 20-58, Virginia, made it illegal for an interracial couple to marry out of state and then return to Virginia.


aaahhrealmarcus

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Location: Missouri
  • Declutter. Decommodify. Denerdify.
    • Minimally Nerdy
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2018, 02:58:19 PM »
I don't believe they're ever going to touch abortion. Not as long as there are so many single-issue voters they can manipulate with the promise of a repeal. That's too big of a carrot, and they know it. Once that's gone, what else do they have to offer anti-choice conservatives?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2018, 03:09:02 PM »
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.

caffeine

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2018, 03:27:10 PM »
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.

Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 03:29:04 PM by caffeine »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2018, 03:47:45 PM »
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.


Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?

Yes, the man said as much. Which is exactly when Kavanaugh withdrew his hand and turned away.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 03:49:58 PM by Kris »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2018, 04:07:31 PM »
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/99th-congress/1193

Edit to add:
https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm
Breyer was 87-9 and Ginsburg was 96-3.  The SCOTUS appointments were at one time considered off-limits to politics and it was merely a vote on qualifications.

Relevant:  https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-well-qualified-rating/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-20180710-story.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=kavanaugh+qualified&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US726&oq=kavanaugh+qualified&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7623j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 04:11:45 PM by TexasRunner »

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2018, 04:14:24 PM »
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

This false equivalence needs to die. Both sides are not the same. Republicans are the problem.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5967
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2018, 04:45:56 PM »
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.
So, we can just go back to Merrick Garland, right?

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2018, 04:48:07 PM »
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.
So, we can just go back to Merrick Garland, right?

No, see, because you can't appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election ye-

Oh.

msilenus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2018, 07:12:48 PM »
Related: there's a group collecting donation pledges for Susan Collins' 2020 opponent.  You only have to pay up if she votes to confirm.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/brett-kavanaugh-susan-collins-ady-barkan/

Very Mustachian, if you ask me. :D

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2018, 07:28:56 PM »
Related: there's a group collecting donation pledges for Susan Collins' 2020 opponent.  You only have to pay up if she votes to confirm.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/brett-kavanaugh-susan-collins-ady-barkan/

Very Mustachian, if you ask me. :D

So good.

Totally donating now.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2018, 07:35:13 PM »
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.


Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?

Yes, the man said as much. Which is exactly when Kavanaugh withdrew his hand and turned away.
Meh. Have you ever been approached on the street to save kids or some other cause? Techniques include shoving your hand in the person's face, or asking a very innocuous question, or commenting on anything to get a reaction. It's very effective, most people fall for it once or twice then learn to ignore.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3399
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2018, 08:02:59 PM »
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.


Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?

Yes, the man said as much. Which is exactly when Kavanaugh withdrew his hand and turned away.
Meh. Have you ever been approached on the street to save kids or some other cause? Techniques include shoving your hand in the person's face, or asking a very innocuous question, or commenting on anything to get a reaction. It's very effective, most people fall for it once or twice then learn to ignore.

Yes! i have.

I have not, however, been nominated to serve in the highest court in the land and then felt entirely within my rights to immediately turn away from a citizen of that country who was in the audience at the hearing as soon as I decided — based on the fact that I recognized them as someone whose child had just been gunned down by a school shooter — that they weren’t marching in lockstep with my NRA-funded views and could therefore be ignored as though invisible.

« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 08:29:23 PM by Kris »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2018, 08:21:32 PM »
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

This false equivalence needs to die. Both sides are not the same. Republicans are the problem.

And this is why things never change.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2018, 08:36:01 PM »
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

This false equivalence needs to die. Both sides are not the same. Republicans are the problem.

And this is why things never change.

Things are changing, for the worse, because of Republicans.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7462
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2018, 11:54:42 PM »
Kavanaugh is a lifelong Republican activist who has made no secret of his desire to advance conservative social causes regardless of what the law says, so he's probably a poor choice to be a judge of any sort. 

But that's basically just a sideshow to the larger issue here.  The reason this galls me is that a President who is currently under multiple criminal investigations and has openly subverted the justice system for personal political gain is the last person on earth who should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, who will serve for life.  This is like a bank robber making his getaway driver the judge.  This is a divorce court where your spouse is the judge.  Justice cannot be served under these circumstances, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Not that it will matter, because Russia swayed the election and the US Constitution gives zero power to the minority party in Congress, so America is basically broken until the next election anyway.  They get to do whatever they want.  They can make Stephen Miller the Supreme Court justice if they want to, what are you going to do about it?


FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2018, 12:47:10 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.


Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2018, 01:10:21 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.
Yes, exactly this. Trump's blatant disdain (or is it just misunderstanding?) for the rule of law makes this pick all the more remarkable. So much so that I would bet a couple fingers that this was not his doing. Someone must have tricked him into nominating him, and we should all be thankful for that, in a weird way.

NYT op-ed on the matter that made the rounds a few weeks ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2018, 02:18:22 AM »
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

Policy-wise, the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is huge, and far more important than anything else Trump could do in his entire presidency short of ending fair elections or starting World War 3. Yes, Trump and most of his administration are criminals and they should be criminally prosecuted, but there will be time for that later. The nomination hearings for Kavanaugh are happening now.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2018, 07:53:28 AM »
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 07:56:04 AM by bacchi »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2018, 08:31:07 AM »
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.

His views on executive power seem to be that a sitting president should not come under criminal or civil prosecution. This is more nuanced than "presidents should be above the law" as some in the media portrayed it. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the POTUS should not be bogged down by such investigations while in power (Clinton and many other examples to pull from), and the impeachment process should be used instead. Presumably criminal charges can be explored after impeachment. Interesting to note that he published this opinion right after Obama's election.

Quote
For a primary author of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's occasionally explicit report detailing Clinton's transgressions, Kavanaugh traveled a long way to his 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review recommending that presidents be free from prosecution.

"This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s," he wrote. But "looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots."

Kavanaugh did not suggest that judges treat presidents differently, however. He said Congress should pass a law providing that civil suits and criminal investigations be deferred while the president is in office. If the president acts "dastardly," he said, "the impeachment process is available."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-fan-presidential-powers/776292002/

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2018, 08:51:29 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2018, 09:05:37 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2018, 09:07:40 AM »
Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.
Clearly the latter. Garland should have been confirmed, but the GOP leadership decided to roll the dice, correctly guessing that they would suffer no electoral damage for their behavior. They get to throw tantrums and it works for them.

This will not work when your base has fewer nutjobs, and you don't hold a majority anywhere.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2018, 09:38:33 AM »
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.

His views on executive power seem to be that a sitting president should not come under criminal or civil prosecution. This is more nuanced than "presidents should be above the law" as some in the media portrayed it. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the POTUS should not be bogged down by such investigations while in power (Clinton and many other examples to pull from), and the impeachment process should be used instead. Presumably criminal charges can be explored after impeachment. Interesting to note that he published this opinion right after Obama's election.

Quote
For a primary author of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's occasionally explicit report detailing Clinton's transgressions, Kavanaugh traveled a long way to his 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review recommending that presidents be free from prosecution.

"This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s," he wrote. But "looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots."

Kavanaugh did not suggest that judges treat presidents differently, however. He said Congress should pass a law providing that civil suits and criminal investigations be deferred while the president is in office. If the president acts "dastardly," he said, "the impeachment process is available."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-fan-presidential-powers/776292002/

Yeah, that's what concerns me.

Kavanaugh was a lead author on the Starr Report, which advocated for wide impeachment powers. An impeachment is brought by Congress and is investigated by a Special Counsel. As part of the Starr team, he investigated the Paula Jones case.

Now he's against such investigations as a distraction to the sitting President.

Is he against a Special Counsel entirely? Or only a Special Counsel investigating certain crimes (e.g., Paula Jones and lying about porn star payouts)? Given that a Special Counsel can be a prelude to an impeachment, how does Congress then gain investigative knowledge without one? Does the "dastardly" deed just surface and Congress can then act on it or can Congress have someone do some investigating?

tldr; When Kavanuagh said, "Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel," does that include Special Counsel?


shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2018, 10:08:08 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

No, that's my point.  If Dems control the Senate after the midterms then they shouldn't bring any of Trumps judicial nominees up for a vote, and you shouldn't support Kavanaugh just because he's qualified and has legal experience.  Since we agree that the Supreme Court nomination process is inherently political we should be supporting those justices that we agree with and fighting with every tool at our disposal to stop those justices that we disagree with.  Instead of, for example, giving Clarence Thomas eleven votes when he passed by two, giving John Roberts 22 votes and not filibustering Alito.  Basically what I'm saying is that these were all mistakes made by Democrats and we should definitely not repeat them by trying to follow norms and traditions that Republicans won't honor such as only considering whether a candidate is "qualified" or not when deciding who to support.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 10:26:18 AM by shenlong55 »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2018, 10:13:39 AM »
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.

His views on executive power seem to be that a sitting president should not come under criminal or civil prosecution. This is more nuanced than "presidents should be above the law" as some in the media portrayed it. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the POTUS should not be bogged down by such investigations while in power (Clinton and many other examples to pull from), and the impeachment process should be used instead. Presumably criminal charges can be explored after impeachment. Interesting to note that he published this opinion right after Obama's election.

Quote
For a primary author of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's occasionally explicit report detailing Clinton's transgressions, Kavanaugh traveled a long way to his 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review recommending that presidents be free from prosecution.

"This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s," he wrote. But "looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots."

Kavanaugh did not suggest that judges treat presidents differently, however. He said Congress should pass a law providing that civil suits and criminal investigations be deferred while the president is in office. If the president acts "dastardly," he said, "the impeachment process is available."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-fan-presidential-powers/776292002/

Yeah, that's what concerns me.

Kavanaugh was a lead author on the Starr Report, which advocated for wide impeachment powers. An impeachment is brought by Congress and is investigated by a Special Counsel. As part of the Starr team, he investigated the Paula Jones case.

Now he's against such investigations as a distraction to the sitting President.

Is he against a Special Counsel entirely? Or only a Special Counsel investigating certain crimes (e.g., Paula Jones and lying about porn star payouts)? Given that a Special Counsel can be a prelude to an impeachment, how does Congress then gain investigative knowledge without one? Does the "dastardly" deed just surface and Congress can then act on it or can Congress have someone do some investigating?

tldr; When Kavanuagh said, "Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel," does that include Special Counsel?

Obviously I can't speak for him, but I don't see how deferring criminal or civil investigations would preclude a Special Prosecutor to pursue impeachment. I think he's saying that, at the level of the three Federal branches, the proper channel to deal with a bad president is impeachment, not the courts, and then worry about criminal charges after impeachment. This is pure speculation, but my guess is that he's seen enough of the fishing expeditions, and if Congress thinks there's impropriety then they should move to impeach, which has its own dangers, as the Republicans discovered with Clinton.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2018, 10:16:54 AM »
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2018, 10:17:30 AM »
Kavanaugh is a lifelong Republican activist who has made no secret of his desire to advance conservative social causes regardless of what the law says, so he's probably a poor choice to be a judge of any sort. 

But that's basically just a sideshow to the larger issue here.  The reason this galls me is that a President who is currently under multiple criminal investigations and has openly subverted the justice system for personal political gain is the last person on earth who should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, who will serve for life.  This is like a bank robber making his getaway driver the judge.  This is a divorce court where your spouse is the judge.  Justice cannot be served under these circumstances, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Not that it will matter, because Russia swayed the election and the US Constitution gives zero power to the minority party in Congress, so America is basically broken until the next election anyway.  They get to do whatever they want.  They can make Stephen Miller the Supreme Court justice if they want to, what are you going to do about it?

AGREE to all you have said!

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2018, 10:35:21 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

No, that's my point.  They shouldn't, and you shouldn't support Kavanaugh just because he's qualified and has legal experience.  Since we agree that the Supreme Court nomination process is inherently political we should be supporting those justices that we agree with and fighting with every tool at our disposal to stop those justices that we disagree with.  Instead of, for example, giving Clarence Thomas eleven votes when he passed by two, giving John Roberts 22 votes and not filibustering Alito.  Basically what I'm saying is that these were all mistakes made by Democrats and we should definitely not repeat them by trying to follow norms and traditions that Republicans won't honor such as only considering whether a candidate is "qualified" or not when deciding who to support.

You're free to support or oppose whoever you like and use all political means within the process for your cause. More power to you. The goal of the Dems right now is to try and delay confirmation past the mid-term, which they hope will give them more leverage in the confirmation process. That's fine, probably the only strategy option for them at this point. But own it. Stop pretending that it's not partisan or biased, or that Garland was wronged, or that there's a double standard (more accurately, both sides have a double standard).

Although I don't agree with Kavanaugh on everything, there's enough there that I support his confirmation. He is a generic conservative, the product of a careful and long term vetting process designed as a pipeline for conservative justices to get to the SCOTUS. Of course I would expect those on the Left to be vehemently opposed, but he would likely be on the short list of candidates even if an establishment Republican was at the helm. I agree with Paul, this is the most surprising thing given how bombastic Trump is, and I have a suspicion that the Dems are disappointed that he didn't nominate someone crazy and easy to swat down.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 10:37:04 AM by FINate »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2018, 10:51:40 AM »
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Fine, I'm not choosing my words well. There would be nothing preventing Congress from investigating a president for impeachment.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3176
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2018, 11:12:31 AM »
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Fine, I'm not choosing my words well. There would be nothing preventing Congress from investigating a president for impeachment.

With a Special Counsel or by their own committees and subpoenas?

To make matters worse, Kavanaugh has refused to say whether a sitting President can pardon himself or even broker a pardon-testify trade with someone who is on trial.

He's now turned into an king-lover, which is a far cry from his Starr days. It's also dangerous given the level of power that the executive branch currently has.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2018, 11:42:11 AM »
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

No, that's my point.  They shouldn't, and you shouldn't support Kavanaugh just because he's qualified and has legal experience.  Since we agree that the Supreme Court nomination process is inherently political we should be supporting those justices that we agree with and fighting with every tool at our disposal to stop those justices that we disagree with.  Instead of, for example, giving Clarence Thomas eleven votes when he passed by two, giving John Roberts 22 votes and not filibustering Alito.  Basically what I'm saying is that these were all mistakes made by Democrats and we should definitely not repeat them by trying to follow norms and traditions that Republicans won't honor such as only considering whether a candidate is "qualified" or not when deciding who to support.

You're free to support or oppose whoever you like and use all political means within the process for your cause. More power to you. The goal of the Dems right now is to try and delay confirmation past the mid-term, which they hope will give them more leverage in the confirmation process. That's fine, probably the only strategy option for them at this point. But own it. Stop pretending that it's not partisan or biased, or that Garland was wronged, or that there's a double standard (more accurately, both sides have a double standard).

Although I don't agree with Kavanaugh on everything, there's enough there that I support his confirmation. He is a generic conservative, the product of a careful and long term vetting process designed as a pipeline for conservative justices to get to the SCOTUS. Of course I would expect those on the Left to be vehemently opposed, but he would likely be on the short list of candidates even if an establishment Republican was at the helm. I agree with Paul, this is the most surprising thing given how bombastic Trump is, and I have a suspicion that the Dems are disappointed that he didn't nominate someone crazy and easy to swat down.

Oh, well, if you mostly agree with him then by all means support him.  I just got the impression from your post that you mostly disagree with him but are supporting him because he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2018, 11:43:33 AM »
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Fine, I'm not choosing my words well. There would be nothing preventing Congress from investigating a president for impeachment.

With a Special Counsel or by their own committees and subpoenas?

To make matters worse, Kavanaugh has refused to say whether a sitting President can pardon himself or even broker a pardon-testify trade with someone who is on trial.

He's now turned into an king-lover, which is a far cry from his Starr days. It's also dangerous given the level of power that the executive branch currently has.

Quote
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas]

Whether through special council or other means, there's a way. The bigger question is to what extent must the executive branch comply [https://www.vox.com/2018/3/15/16997474/mueller-subpoena-trump-russia-probe]

He is absolutely right to refuse to answer a large unsettled legal question based on vague hypotheticals. If he had done so that itself would give me cause for concern. I'm not a lawyer and far far from an expert, but I recall studying lots of case law as part of an employment law class in grad school. I was impressed with the Justices across the board, Left and Right (albeit, less so with Thomas), with their careful handling of cases. They try to avoid making sweeping changes that upset the huge body of case law. So they are careful to issue judgements as narrow and nuanced as possible - they don't want to make a huge mess that they have to clean up later. So rulings are always on the specific merits of the the case before the court.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 12:10:55 PM by FINate »

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2018, 11:56:19 AM »
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

The concerns about the process being politicized come from both sides of the isle, depending on which side is trying to get their candidate through:

Quote
Kagan became the third consecutive high court pick, after Sotomayor and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006, to receive less than a three-fourths majority in the Senate, a trend that suggests that, in a departure from historical practice, the nominations are becoming increasingly politicized and that nominees are now being treated like contentious pieces of legislation.
[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/nation/la-na-elena-kagan-20100806]

By the River

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2018, 12:02:50 PM »
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2018, 12:15:41 PM »
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

The concerns about the process being politicized come from both sides of the isle, depending on which side is trying to get their candidate through:

Quote
Kagan became the third consecutive high court pick, after Sotomayor and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006, to receive less than a three-fourths majority in the Senate, a trend that suggests that, in a departure from historical practice, the nominations are becoming increasingly politicized and that nominees are now being treated like contentious pieces of legislation.
[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/nation/la-na-elena-kagan-20100806]

Yes, both sides talk about it.  But which side is doing the most to politicize the process?  Which side pushes the boundaries in order to politicize the process?  I get that both sides do it to an extent, but I do not agree that both sides do it to even close to the same degree.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

So far as I can tell, even the infamous Robert Bork was allowed a vote and even got two votes from democrats.

msilenus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2018, 12:23:14 PM »
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

Robert Bork was the toady Nixon got to fire Cox after three better men put their country first and resigned rather than carrying out the order.  [1]  Nixon had promised Bork a Supreme Court seat if he did the deed.  Of course, it fell to Reagan to follow through on the pact --which he eventually did. [2]

Instead of owning up to how shameful the whole affair was, conservatives have since tried to turn him into a sort of martyr.  What else could they do?  The whole corrupt affair is so shameful no small lie would do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination