Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72414 times)

jinga nation

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 974
  • Location: 'Murica's Wang
  • Left, Right, Peddlin' Shite
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2018, 12:25:06 PM »
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.

I live in the US. SCOTUS hasn't mattered since Citizens United. They sold us out. All three branches are rigged, it's a pay-to-play system. The people are given "a choice to vote for a candidate" but almost all of them are bought out by corporations people.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2018, 01:01:22 PM »
Let's review:  Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple federal crimes.  Because they are felonies, he will have to stand trial, or be pardoned.  If his case goes to trial, it will undoubtedly reach the Supreme Court.  Trump desperately needs a friendly Supreme Court to keep himself out of jail, so he appoints a man who has spent his entire career openly mocking the law in pursuit of Republican causes.  Today, that man has refused to say that Trump cannot pardon himself for any and all crimes.

It's a perfect circle of corruption.  Man breaks law, then that same man "fixes" the judicial system to make laws irrelevant.  This is some serious banana republic level shit going down.  It's a sad day to be an American.

Aelias

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2018, 01:45:38 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?

AGREE to all you have said!

Seconded.  From what Iíve read at this point, Kavanaugh is indeed a very, very conservative jurist, heís made a lot of decisions I disagree with, and Iím certain that if heís confirmed (which he almost certainly will be), heíll make many more. People have valid concerns about him on that basis, and Iím not going to minimize the harm those decisions will cause.

But, the people whoíve worked with him also seem to believe heís a decent guy who reads broadly and who thinks carefully about his positions. That plus his credentials would put him on basically any list of potential nominees for any Republican president. If President Cruz / Romney / Rubio had picked Kavanaugh, it still would have be gross because of the theft of the Garland nomination, but it would have been less gross.

But Iím convinced that the reason Trump picked Kavanaugh over everyone else (despite his miles long document trail and the fact that it took him 3 years to get confirmed to the D.C. Cir) is his writings about deferring criminal investigation and civil litigation for a sitting president. Smart people have written thoughtful arguments about why Kavanaughís views arenít as favorable to Trump as they may seem, but I guarantee you Trump didnít get that nuance. He heard, ďWaitóthis guy thinks presidents shouldnít even be investigated? Thatís my dude!Ē

I think the Kavanaugh pick was Trumpís deliberate and not particularly subtle attempt to make SCOTUS more likely to stymy the Russia investigation in any matter that may come before it. In other words, he was picked in bad faith by a President who is currently a subject of an active criminal investigation into whether he and/or his campaign coordinated with a hostile foreign power to influence an election.

And that, by itself, should be reason enough FOR ANYONE to oppose his confirmation.  It won't be, but it should be.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2018, 03:04:33 PM »

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2018, 07:52:22 AM »
With Republicans holding the majority in the Senate, Kavanaguh's confirmation is pretty much a foregone conclusion as long as he avoids saying anything particularly stupid. My take is that in the longer run, the spectacle of a confirmation process will probably end up hurting Democrats. Montana, Indiana, and North Dakota are the reason why. Each of those states tends to skew conservative (at least 55%+ for Trump in 2016) and has a Democratic senator up for reelection desperately trying to portray themselves as a moderate. The Kavanaguh hearings aren't helping. One could speculate that the hearings were specifically scheduled to correspond with the midterms, and the Democrats are playing right into the GOP's hand.

If the GOP gains some or all of those seats in the Senate, let's just hope the 85-year-old colon-cancer and pancreatic-cancer survivor justice stays healthy for at least another two years.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2018, 08:22:32 AM »
Brett Kavanaugh evades Kamala Harris' question about whether he conversed with the Mueller investigation with anyone in the law firm that is representing Donald Trump.

Republican Senator Lee explodes, and the implications for this question could include Kavanaugh having to recuse himself with any cases that would come before the Supreme Court regarding the Mueller investigation.

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037518507423002629/video/1

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2018, 08:49:49 AM »
If the GOP gains some or all of those seats in the Senate, let's just hope the 85-year-old colon-cancer and pancreatic-cancer survivor justice stays healthy for at least another two six years.

FTFY.   :)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2018, 09:07:21 AM »
the implications for this question could include Kavanaugh having to recuse himself with any cases that would come before the Supreme Court regarding the Mueller investigation.

I wouldn't count on it.  Recusal is only enforced as a matter of personal integrity, and Kavanaugh has never let integrity get in the way of advancing the conservative agenda.  I'm betting he would refuse to recuse, then rule in Trump's favor, despite of his prior work for the Trump campaign.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though

These things aren't even in the same universe.  Conservatives made a huge fuss about Elena Kagan's refusal to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, and that was only because other people at her law firm had worked on it.  She wasn't even involved, and they still threw a fit over it because they thought she might have been influenced by the political views of her former partners.  That is a far cry from Kavanaugh's situation, where he has personally and openly advocated subverting the law to advance conservative causes.  He is a partisan appointee in the way that no democratic appointee has ever been.

But none of that matters.  As I've previously pointed out, Republicans could appoint a dancing monkey to the supreme court and then laugh in your face about it.  They don't care about what's "right" and they definitely don't care about what the people want.  Remember when their tax plan had a 34% approval rating and they passed it anyway because their big-money corporate donors wanted it?  Remember their ~40 votes to "repeal and replace" the ACA?  Remember Republicans getting a minority of the national popular vote and yet still commandeering every branch of government?

The entire Republican party stands for one thing these days, and that's using procedural technicalities to enforce the will of a wealthy elite minority on the entirety of America.  They are good at it!  They don't need or want your support, they already have all the power and they plan to keep it that way.  Confirming a partisan tool like Kavanaugh is just the latest example of the party subverting American democracy, of using power to retain power.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2018, 11:32:07 AM »
I find it concerning besides his very conservative views and inability to answer Senator Harris on whether he has has contact with the President's lawyers is that his financial disclosures do not add up.  He had six figure credit card debt on his financial disclosures prior to 2016, however, in 2016 those debts disappeared.  The White House said it was on baseball tickets and friends paid him back for the tickets.  While I don't doubt that Mustachians could pay off six figure credit card debt on what his salary is, this man has an expensive house, private school tuition, etc. 

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2018, 11:10:12 PM »
He appears to have lied under oath in 2006.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #60 on: September 06, 2018, 11:18:41 PM »
inability to answer Senator Harris on whether he has has contact with the President's lawyers
It wasn't just this issue.  Kavanaugh also refused to answer questions about whether a president can ignore a subpoena and refuse to testify.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2018, 11:37:50 PM »
Kavanaugh also refused to answer questions about whether a president can ignore a subpoena and refuse to testify.

Again, as he should.

Quote
Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties of their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Source https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2018, 11:53:00 PM »
Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues.

This is not an abstract issue.  This is a current legal reality regarding the criminal investigation of the man who nominated this specific judge.  That's exactly the reason he HAS to get asked about it.

Rudy has been on tv for weeks declaring (without evidence or argument) that Trump is above the law and doesn't have to do a damn thing he doesn't want to, for any reason.  The rest of the Justice department has been quietly suggesting that Trump, as an American citizen, is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.  Kavanaugh just sided with Rudy, and against the Justice department (and common sense, IMO).

He might as well have been asked "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" and your answer is "well I can't comment without knowing the specifics of a particular case presented to me..."  Like under what possible set of circumstances is that answer ever "no"?

At this point, I will not be surprised when WaPo breaks the story about Kavanaugh being an unregistered foreign agent working for Russia.  The layers of corruption here are beginning to conceal each other.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #63 on: September 07, 2018, 12:03:18 AM »
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #64 on: September 07, 2018, 08:40:34 AM »
there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

I'm pretty sure the separation of powers was never intended to let one branch of government go full-on Keyser Soze and then refuse to even speak to the other branches of government when they attempt to use the system of checks and balances to hold him accountable.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #65 on: September 07, 2018, 09:53:37 AM »
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #66 on: September 07, 2018, 10:01:10 AM »
there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

I'm pretty sure the separation of powers was never intended to let one branch of government go full-on Keyser Soze and then refuse to even speak to the other branches of government when they attempt to use the system of checks and balances to hold him accountable.

True. At the same time Congress cannot just go on fishing expeditions in the executive branch. There are limitations. The information requested must be pertinent to the investigation, which is a matter of judgement. And the specifics of the case matter, which is why the SCOTUS would likely get pulled in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/07/what-happens-if-trump-is-subpoenaed-by-robert-mueller/).

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2018, 10:21:27 AM »
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #68 on: September 07, 2018, 10:26:04 AM »
There are limitations. The information requested must be pertinent to the investigation, which is a matter of judgement. And the specifics of the case matter, which is why the SCOTUS would likely get pulled in

In this case, the question is whether or not the President can blatantly ignore a subpoena while under criminal investigation.  I'm pretty sure "come talk to us about it" is a legitimately pertinent request.  Trump is arguing that he has no legal obligation to even respond to a subpoena, because he is above the law.  Not that the questions he will be asked aren't pertinent, not that the investigation is prejudicial, but that the law simply doesn't apply to him whenever he decides so.  That's not separation of powers, that's corruption.

And are we really surprised?  Trump's entire presidential campaign was built on the idea of ignoring the ordinary and customary rules of an election, and that's part of the reason his supporters loved him.  A president isn't supposed to bang porn stars, and yet here are.  A president isn't supposed to support racism, and yet here we are.  A president isn't supposed to take bribes, and yet here we are.  A president isn't supposed to work with hostile foreign powers to sway elections... shall I go on? 

And some people absolutely love these things about him, because they think it makes him "different" from all of those "elitist snobs" that used to run the government.  You know, those elitist snobs that actually felt compelled to follow the law?  The ones who will never "win" because they choose to follow rules that it turns out you can just ignore without consequences? 

As long as one particular party in government actively chooses to endorse criminal activity, American democracy is dead and gone.  I won't be surprised if the midterms are a republican landslide in every state, with coordinated Russian hacking of election machines and GOP governors conveniently continuing to destroy all paper receipts of voting records.  I won't be surprised if a republican congress refuses to do anything about Trump running for a blatantly illegal third or fourth consecutive term as president.  I won't be surprised if we end up like Russia or Cuba, where the dictator apparently gets 90% or more of the popular vote despite nobody on the street admitting to voting for him and widespread protests about corruption. 

Like what happens if Trump fires four supreme court justices and appoints his four children to fill the seats?  Would congressional republicans do anything, or would they just continue to say "we don't agree with the President's methods but it's not our place to intervene" like they've been doing for two years now?  What if decides to just cancel the EPA and allocates all of its budget to Exxon/Mobil, who would stop him?  Fires Mueller and his next three replacements until the investigation disappears?  Seriously, is there anything he couldn't get away with at this point?

Kavanaugh is just another stepping stone in this process, another way to ensure ultimate power forever by appointing someone who will never interfere with your dictatorial rise.  Arguing about the details of Kavanaugh's voting record is a red herring.  All that will matter is that Kavanaugh will support Trump's immunity from any criminal prosecution, protecting him from the system of checks and balances that the Constitution requested, but that we no longer believe in.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #69 on: September 07, 2018, 10:52:12 AM »
There are limitations. The information requested must be pertinent to the investigation, which is a matter of judgement. And the specifics of the case matter, which is why the SCOTUS would likely get pulled in

In this case, the question is whether or not the President can blatantly ignore a subpoena while under criminal investigation.  I'm pretty sure "come talk to us about it" is a legitimately pertinent request.  Trump is arguing that he has no legal obligation to even respond to a subpoena, because he is above the law.  Not that the questions he will be asked aren't pertinent, not that the investigation is prejudicial, but that the law simply doesn't apply to him whenever he decides so.  That's not separation of powers, that's corruption.

I agree, it's corruption. But that's orthogonal to the question of how Kavanaugh would adjudicate in this matter.

Kavanaugh is just another stepping stone in this process, another way to ensure ultimate power forever by appointing someone who will never interfere with your dictatorial rise.  Arguing about the details of Kavanaugh's voting record is a red herring.  All that will matter is that Kavanaugh will support Trump's immunity from any criminal prosecution, protecting him from the system of checks and balances that the Constitution requested, but that we no longer believe in.

Pure speculation. Kavanaugh is his own person with a long and respected career in law. He's not a Trump lacky. On the contrary, he's part of a larger plan to prepare conservative justices for the SCOTUS that predates Trump. He's representative of what any other GOP president would have nominated (how's that speculation for ya' ;-) ). Once confirmed Justices are beholden to no one, including the president that nominated them. If anything they have every incentive to maintain the integrity of the branch they serve in while keeping the other branches in check.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #70 on: September 07, 2018, 11:11:49 AM »
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

While I respect Justice Ginsberg greatly, I don't understand how answering questions at a hearing prevents a justice from deciding a case impartially or acting independently in the future.  And I'm starting to feel like a party's base is generally more important that independents/centrists (from a winning elections perspective).  Turnout seems to be key, so I think fighting hard for things that the base cares about is probably more important than being "civil" to appeal to centrists most of the time.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #71 on: September 07, 2018, 11:22:47 AM »
Pure speculation.

Isn't that what we're doing here?

Quote
Kavanaugh is his own person with a long and respected career in law.  He's not a Trump lacky.

This is like the 2016 speculation that Trump would become more presidential and respectful if he got the nomination.  Why would you possibly think his future would be any different from his past?  Kavanaugh has made a career out of openly subverting the law to advance conservative causes.  He twists and warps it to advance his own political agenda.  He literally worked for Ken Starr on indicting Blill Clinton as part of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguably the genesis of our current hyperpartisan no-holds-barred culture war political warfare. 

Kavanaugh hates liberalism.  He hates the social progress America has enjoyed since the 1950s, and has spent a career finding ways to revert us back to the Eisenhower administration.  He would continue to do so as a supreme court justice, undermining everything that makes America great.  How's that speculation for you?

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #72 on: September 07, 2018, 11:31:00 AM »
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

While I respect Justice Ginsberg greatly, I don't understand how answering questions at a hearing prevents a justice from deciding a case impartially or acting independently in the future.  And I'm starting to feel like a party's base is generally more important that independents/centrists (from a winning elections perspective).  Turnout seems to be key, so I think fighting hard for things that the base cares about is probably more important than being "civil" to appeal to centrists most of the time.

It appears we're at an impasse as I don't know what else I can add. If the Dems want to pander to their base then that's their choice. Should be easy pickings on the East/West Coast for sure, certainly like shooting fish in a barrel here in California, but I have doubts about such a strategy in the rest of the country. I suppose time will tell.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #73 on: September 07, 2018, 11:37:40 AM »
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

While I respect Justice Ginsberg greatly, I don't understand how answering questions at a hearing prevents a justice from deciding a case impartially or acting independently in the future.  And I'm starting to feel like a party's base is generally more important that independents/centrists (from a winning elections perspective).  Turnout seems to be key, so I think fighting hard for things that the base cares about is probably more important than being "civil" to appeal to centrists most of the time.

It appears we're at an impasse as I don't know what else I can add. If the Dems want to pander to their base then that's their choice. Should be easy pickings on the East/West Coast for sure, certainly like shooting fish in a barrel here in California, but I have doubts about such a strategy in the rest of the country. I suppose time will tell.

Or maybe they really just don't want Kavanaugh on the court for the next 30 years.

FINate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #74 on: September 07, 2018, 11:39:03 AM »
Quote
Kavanaugh is his own person with a long and respected career in law.  He's not a Trump lacky.

This is like the 2016 speculation that Trump would become more presidential and respectful if he got the nomination.  Why would you possibly think his future would be any different from his past?  Kavanaugh has made a career out of openly subverting the law to advance conservative causes.  He twists and warps it to advance his own political agenda.  He literally worked for Ken Starr on indicting Blill Clinton as part of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguably the genesis of our current hyperpartisan no-holds-barred culture war political warfare. 

Kavanaugh hates liberalism.  He hates the social progress America has enjoyed since the 1950s, and has spent a career finding ways to revert us back to the Eisenhower administration.  He would continue to do so as a supreme court justice, undermining everything that makes America great.  How's that speculation for you?

Kavanaugh's behavior as a judge, or even personal life, is in no way similar to that of Trump. Every judge brings their own biases with them, and yes it's clear that he is biased Right. I don't disagree with you on that, but let that be your argument instead of demanding that he answer questions that have been, for good reasons, considered out-of-bounds for the better part of 30 years. And try as you may to equate Kavanaugh with Trump...it's not working, at least not for me.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #75 on: September 07, 2018, 12:38:51 PM »
Just to clarify, the reason that I oppose Brett Kavahaugh's nomination is because I don't think he believes in/accepts the idea of substantive due process.  Which basically means that he believes the government can restrict our liberty without having gone through due process first.  I actually wish democrats would ask more about this instead of about abortion, since it's the principle that forms the foundation of the abortion and gay marriage protections, but I get why they don't.  I just recently had to look it up and found this great article that explains it really well...

The Original Understanding of Substantive Due Process
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 01:09:21 PM by shenlong55 »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #76 on: September 07, 2018, 01:49:18 PM »
Until yesterday/today, my objections to Kavanaugh had to do with the person who nominated him, and the circumstances of these hearings. Not Kavanaugh himself. The GOP releasing only about 10% of the documents to the committee, AND the fact that they released them so soon before the beginning of the hearing that no one could possibly have read them, is absolutely outrageous and ABSOLUTELY should have resulted in postponing the hearings until the rest of the documentation was released and could be read.

The fact of the criminal investigations around the President should at least halt these proceedings until the legitimacy of his election could be confirmed.

And then, of course, there is the hypocrisy of the GOP not allowing the hearing of Merrick Garland.

Until today, even though I strongly dislike Kavanaugh's politics and even suspect he has views that I would interpret as unconstitutional, I didn't have enough of an objection of him as a judge to say he wasn't qualified.

However: now he has lied under oath. Multiple times.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

He should not be confirmed.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #78 on: September 07, 2018, 03:12:17 PM »
Kavanaugh seems to me to be both personally ambitious and a fanatic, and even his best efforts aren't able to hide that he has and is lying in pursuit of his ambition and his fanaticism.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut

sequoia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2018, 08:30:03 AM »

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #81 on: September 17, 2018, 08:40:08 AM »
But it's totally OK for Kavanaguh to commit perjury...

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #82 on: September 17, 2018, 08:59:06 AM »
Until this week my views of Kavanaugh mirrored @Kris - it seemed deeply unfair that Garland's nomination wouldn't even be considered, and that he was a judge hand-picked to appeal to social conservatives and not as some middle-ground or right-of-center pick.  But none of these were against Kavanaugh himself or his qualifications/experience.

Now I have much more serious misgivings.  During his hearings he played the now-typical dodge and refuse game, hiding behind republican skirts and defaulting to the line "it would be inappropriate to say how I'd rule in a hypothetical'...  but Kavanaugh missed some easy opportunities to appear impartial.  He could have said "of course I will recuse myself from any future cases involving Trump - the man who nominated me - and charges which might come from the investigation" - but he didn't.  He could have authorized the release of and dissemination of his documents from working with the White House - but he didn't. He skipped every question about his views about executive power and its limits, including the very straightforward question "does the president have the power to pardon himself?" This is neither an obscure nor, given Trump's texts and his lawyer's statements, a parlor-hypothetical.
These would not have been hard things to do, nor controversal questions for any federal judge to give an opinion on, save when they are in front of Congress for some reason.

Now there's a very public accusation about a very serious charge.  If true, behaviour like this is rarely (if ever) a one-off, and there could very well be others  to terrified to come forward.   Of course the only logical thing to do is investigate this as far as possible, includiong putting Kavanaugh back under oath and asking him very direct questions about it.

... but he's already lost me. I never supported him based on his conservative stances, but now I oppose him because he was willing to lie and unwilling to declare his impartiality in concrete terms to all while under oath.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #83 on: September 17, 2018, 09:21:32 AM »
I oppose him because he was willing to lie and unwilling to declare his impartiality in concrete terms to all while under oath.

This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.  Kavanaugh's personal history is well known.  He has never made any pretext of being impartial.  At least he didn't try to fake it during his confirmation hearings.

His nomination is a giant middle finger to middle America.  He should have borrowed Melania's "I really don't care" jacket for his congressional appearances.  He knows that as long as republican control all of congress and continue to kowtow to Trump, he can stand up there and say "I hate feminazi libtards, and I would burn the Constitution if it helped the republican party" and he'll still get to be a supreme court justice.  This system is broken.


OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1010
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #84 on: September 17, 2018, 09:23:49 AM »
I would like to reaffirm my "nay."  I get that it was way back in high school and they were just a couple of drunk ass bros, but attempted rape demonstrates a real character flaw in my book.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #85 on: September 17, 2018, 10:09:45 AM »
I would like to reaffirm my "nay."  I get that it was way back in high school and they were just a couple of drunk ass bros, but attempted rape demonstrates a real character flaw in my book.
Yeah. The account is pretty damning, and apparently something she has a history of discussing with people like mental health professionals long before he was nominated. The story seems pretty credible. I said nay initially on politics, but this should make it bipartisan. There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #86 on: September 17, 2018, 10:30:15 AM »
I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #87 on: September 17, 2018, 10:53:40 AM »
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #88 on: September 17, 2018, 10:56:39 AM »
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers assaulters.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime.

FTFY. But in the substance of what you're saying, I agree.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #89 on: September 17, 2018, 11:00:59 AM »
I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

Also, don't forget the ones who say she was to blame for having been drinking at a party.

Kavanaugh aside, remembering how these types of allegations have been treated in the past (Anita Hill, most pertinently), I am at least somewhat comforted in seeing the difference in the general response now. I think there are still a lot of assholes out there who are victim blaming or not treating rape as the serious thing that it is, but the needle has shifted in the right direction.

My main fear at this point is that Trump will attempt a recess appointment.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2018, 11:10:43 AM »
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime.

She was able to fight off a rape.  How long is a woman supposed to wait to fight back and get out of the situation? 
Forcibly holding someone down is not sexual harrassment.



But for the person who called it sexual assualt- OK; but again, should women let themselves be raped so that the proper charge applies?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2018, 11:22:30 AM »

But for the person who called it sexual assualt- OK; but again, should women let themselves be raped so that the proper charge applies?

The charge would be 'attempted rape' along with  'assault' (quite possibly 'aggravated assault').  It's an interesting quirk of our judicial system that in many states 'attempted' is punished less severely as if the crime were carried to completion. It's not right, but it's the way it is.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #92 on: September 17, 2018, 11:22:59 AM »
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime.

She was able to fight off a rape.  How long is a woman supposed to wait to fight back and get out of the situation? 
Forcibly holding someone down is not sexual harrassment.



But for the person who called it sexual assualt- OK; but again, should women let themselves be raped so that the proper charge applies?

Obviously not. Sexual assault/attempted rape should be enough. But Sol's point, minus the inaccurate terminology, was that conservatives don't really care. Because they are willing to justify anything at this point to get their guy in at the Supreme Court.

That they could still consider Kavanaugh "their guy" after all of this is another discussion entirely.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #93 on: September 17, 2018, 11:31:34 AM »
But Sol's point, minus the inaccurate terminology, was that conservatives don't really care. Because they are willing to justify anything at this point to get their guy in at the Supreme Court.

Right.  A history of sexual assault is irrelevant.  Blatant racism is irrelevant.  If he had cheated on all of his wives, no problem.  Made fun of disabled people or the parents of dead soldiers?  Totally fine.  Colluding with Russia is also A-okay.  It honestly doesn't matter what Kavanaugh's history or qualifications are, as long as republicans control Congress they could appoint Steven Bannon to the seat, or abolish the seat and just have eight justices, or rig the voting machines in nine states with the help of Russian hackers.  They could start shooting illegal immigrants on sight, and hang a swastika flag over the White House.  Again, what are you going to do about it?

None of it matters as long as they control every branch of government because there is no avenue for opposition, except the midterm elections.  Until then, all bets are off.  They can do any damn thing they please, and what Kavanaugh says or doesn't say at a confirmation hearing is just irrelevant side show.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1823
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2018, 11:37:40 AM »
I suspect the sexual assault accusation and the lying won't matter at all, and he'll be confirmed.  Forget how fast this would overturn a nomination by a Dem president, I suspect these issues would also derail a GOP nominee IF they were female. 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2018, 11:39:13 AM »

None of it matters as long as they control every branch of government because there is no avenue for opposition, except the midterm elections.  Until then, all bets are off.  They can do any damn thing they please, and what Kavanaugh says or doesn't say at a confirmation hearing is just irrelevant side show.

Truth

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #96 on: September 17, 2018, 11:46:11 AM »
Yes I agree, I think this latest accusation will not make a whit of difference. Unlike the case with Roy Moore where there was a court of public opinion and people did have the freedom to vote their conscience, the senators involved are as much bought and sold.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #97 on: September 17, 2018, 12:34:27 PM »
Senator Collins may be looking for a reason to say "nay." She's asked for testimony from Ford.

I'm sure the GOP is already looking into Ford's past. There will inevitably be something along the lines of, "Ford had sex with 2 different guys in one week!"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #98 on: September 17, 2018, 12:36:36 PM »
Yes I agree, I think this latest accusation will not make a whit of difference. Unlike the case with Roy Moore where there was a court of public opinion and people did have the freedom to vote their conscience, the senators involved are as much bought and sold.

You think the court of public opinion cares about this?  Remember that Trump won the election immediately after "grab 'em by the pussy" went public.  They voted for him anyway.

Kavanaugh is at least denying the allegations, for now, just like Trump denied everything too until the videotape surfaced (and continues to deny all of his affaris, btw).  I don't think it would matter if this lady literally had a recording of the assault in progress.  It didn't matter last time, why should this be different?

CNN is breathlessly reporting that Kavanaugh nomination "hangs in the balance" but I think they're dreaming.  He's virtually guaranteed a confirmation, just like Clarence Thomas was after a similar history was revealed.  Conservative voters just love a man who knows how to put a woman in her place, which in this case means being elevated to the scotus and getting her to shut the hell up about the time he committed sexual assault.

edit:  this is a numbers game for Mitch, purely for partisan reasons, so I think he will force the confirmation vote either way.  He used his senate majority to refuse the Merrick Garland nomination, and he's not about to waste his senate majority by pausing Kavanaugh's confirmation until after the midterms, when his majority is potentially more vulnerable than it is now.  No, I think Mitch will damn the torpedoes and ram this through in the next few days.  This isn't about justice, or about the Constitution, it's just about getting the most partisan judge they could find into a lifetime appointment.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 03:04:35 PM by sol »

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #99 on: September 17, 2018, 12:46:16 PM »

CNN is breathlessly reporting that Kavanaugh nomination "hangs in the balance" but I think they're dreaming.  He's virtually guaranteed a confirmation, just like Clarence Thomas was after a similar history was revealed.  Conservative voters just love a man who knows how to put a woman in her place, which in this case means being elevated to the scotus and getting her to shut the hell up about the time he committed sexual assault.

There have been a few articles that pointed out men lost their senate seats after the Anita Hill stuff though....  It's insanity how few women were in the senate before the Thomas confirmation.