RIP Ruth

[Davnasty]

The "both sides" argument in this thread hasn't just been that both sides play hardball, it's that both sides are hypocrites in this specific scenario because Democrats flip-flopped too. Of course they only did so because Republicans loudly and repeatedly established the precedent of not seating a supreme court justice within 9 months of an election. Calling Dems hypocrites for this is nonsense.

So if you're arguing both sides play dirty sometimes, well of course, but my issue right now is that Republicans are announcing to the world that nothing they say can be trusted no matter how emphatic they are or how many tapes of them saying it have been recorded. The Republican party is becoming less like dishonest politicians and more like "not a single word can be trusted" Trump. There is a difference. That level of lying without hesitation and without any fear of consequences is deeply worrying.

Ok, well that's not my specific view.  McConnell is basically just exercising political power to the maximum extent he legally can to get the short term win.  It's fair to claim that this is eroding trust in our system. 

I don't think it's hypocritical for Democrats to be angry at what he's doing.  But I also think McConnell has very little trust that the Democrats would act fairly if they obtained political power (more accurately: will act fairly if they do obtain political power).  Which I think is accurate.  So if I was some sort of Senate advisor to him, it would be hard for me to advise not exercising political power when you have it if you don't trust the other side to act fairly if they obtain power. 

But of course it would also be logical to expect ramifications from this if the Republicans lose the Senate.  So it's a political gamble. 

Anyways, if politics is just war by other means, then what he is doing it quite logical even if it's a dirty trick. 

Maybe if we brought back duels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cilley), the swamp dwellers would think more carefully about being so aggressive in their political machinations.

Sounds like we largely agree then. I'm probably just riled up by some of the twisted logic I've seen in this thread.

But I would caution on the idea that the other side is going to do it anyway so they have to do it first. Did the Democrats ever give indication that they would reject any nominee from a Republican president near an election? I think we've established the opposite with justice Kennedy's 97-0 approval.

[FIPurpose]

Expanding the court would probably make it less political, not more.  With a court of say 15 justices most cases which went to the court would probably be heard by a bench of say 5, probably chosen randomly, subject to review by the whole court.  The court could take on a lot more cases that way, which would be good for the legal system, creating more certainty over a wider range of cases.  And there would likely be more of an emphasis on legal reasoning and less on extreme political positions.  It could be a big boon both to the court and to political life in the USA as a whole.

I oppose  panelization of the Supreme Court.

 The high Court's rulings, and especially its new precedents,  are too monumentally determinative of America's fiber to permit their formulation by only a panel.

Moreover, no exercise of the Supreme Court's ultimate power of judicial review speaks more of its constitutional authority  than its issuance of unanimous opinons: The Court's panelization could do away with or dilute   the authoritative essence  of unanimous opinions.

I insist on the traditional operation of the Supreme Court: All  of its decisions must result  from only en banc hearings.

What authoritative essence is there? There's been a push for decades now for modern conservatives to overturn previous conservatives decision of Roe v Wade. The GOP has been winning elections for the past 20 years based solely on the idea that the Supreme Court's decisions are wrong and pushing ideological justices can overturn that. The court has been a political football my entire life. Pretending it's a neutral party calling balls and strikes simply hinders the country's ability to reform and fix the issues with the court.

[LWYRUP]

Expanding the court would probably make it less political, not more.  With a court of say 15 justices most cases which went to the court would probably be heard by a bench of say 5, probably chosen randomly, subject to review by the whole court.  The court could take on a lot more cases that way, which would be good for the legal system, creating more certainty over a wider range of cases.  And there would likely be more of an emphasis on legal reasoning and less on extreme political positions.  It could be a big boon both to the court and to political life in the USA as a whole.

I oppose  panelization of the Supreme Court.

 The high Court's rulings, and especially its new precedents,  are too monumentally determinative of America's fiber to permit their formulation by only a panel.

Moreover, no exercise of the Supreme Court's ultimate power of judicial review speaks more of its constitutional authority  than its issuance of unanimous opinons: The Court's panelization could do away with or dilute   the authoritative essence  of unanimous opinions.

I insist on the traditional operation of the Supreme Court: All  of its decisions must result  from only en banc hearings.

What authoritative essence is there? There's been a push for decades now for modern conservatives to overturn previous conservatives decision of Roe v Wade. The GOP has been winning elections for the past 20 years based solely on the idea that the Supreme Court's decisions are wrong and pushing ideological justices can overturn that. The court has been a political football my entire life. Pretending it's a neutral party calling balls and strikes simply hinders the country's ability to reform and fix the issues with the court.

I suspect that the whole idea that there was this time in the past where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them, etc. is a myth, and basically a rhetorical ploy.  I think there are times when opposing political parties cooperate better and times where things are fractious, but I think the tussle is an endemic part of the game.

SCOTUS just happens to be stacked with ridiculously smart people, who can create elaborate justifications for what they are doing, who play the very long game, who think in terms of ideologies and generations rather than elections, and who make changes incrementally by stacking precedent on top of precedent.  So the game is better camouflaged, which is probably for the best as it increases trust in the system. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

Anyways, if politics is just war by other means, then what he is doing it quite logical even if it's a dirty trick. 

"Politics is war." Said by James Carville,(spelling?) a luminary among Democratic Party operatives.

[redbirdfan]

e.g.1 - Fundamental rights are not negotiable: A women's right of autonomy over her body is not negotiable - whatever the "populace" thinks.
e.g.2 - Conflicting rights should follow values of the polity: a gay couple's right to force an artist to work for them should depend on values of the people. No such exemption, however, should be present for corporations (i.e. no Hobby Lobby exemption). If a corporation can't serve people and employees without discrimination then it has no business being in business.

Who determines which is a fundamental right?  It's telling what you consider to be a fundamental right versus conflicting rights.  Life should be a fundamental right.  You cavalierly place abortion in your first category and not the second.  To highlight the fallacy, if I physically assault a woman who is 3 months pregnant resulting in a miscarriage, I don't think the polity would say it's only a big deal if we know that the mother planned to carry the baby to term.  I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that there is a fundamental right to an abortion.  A women's autonomy over her body is always negotiable.  Anyone's autonomy over their body is negotiable.  That's literally the purpose of laws.  I can't sell a kidney to the highest bidder.  I can't inject drugs.  I can't agree to be a prostitute (in most jurisdictions).  I'm not allowed to walk down the street naked.  If no doctors agreed to perform abortions, I don't believe you could force them to perform one. I chafe every time I hear someone glibly say "my body, my choice." I'm pragmatic enough to believe that there should be some form of legal abortion, but I in no way feel that anyone has a right to one. 

An artist should not have to work for a gay couple if he/she doesn't want to.  Religious freedom should actually count for something.  It is a right under the First Amendment.  The gay couple in Denver went to the bakery they knew wouldn't want to make them a cake just to incite a lawsuit.   The baker agreed to sell them a pre-made cake, but did not want to make them a cake.  I do not support this type of legal gamesmanship.  Civil Rights should be used as a shield and not a sword.  If an artist does not support gay rights, I don't think he/she should be forced to make a cake, supply flowers, be the photographer, etc.  I personally support gay rights, but it's about forced artistic expression. The proper response isn't to force that artist to do the work.  It's to use the power of capitalism to steer business away from that baker and to bolster business for the artists who would make the cake, supply flowers, etc.  This is especially true in circumstances in which the gay couple has plenty of alternatives. 

As for the Court, McConnell should have held a vote for Garland.  I doubt that Garland would have received enough votes to be confirmed due to Scalia's stature in conservative jurisprudence.  Having invented the election year standard, the Republicans should let the next President nominate RBGs replacement.  That's not going to happen.  Democrats currently have public support.  They are squandering it by calling for statehood for PR and DC and seriously talking about packing the court.  There is no upside to doing this now.  Let the Republicans fill the seat because you can't stop them.  Eliminate the incentive for court-focused Republicans to affirmatively vote for Trump in November.  Use all the footage and videos of Republicans from 2016 and general public outrage to mobilize your voters.  Then, IF Biden wins the presidency and IF the Ds take control of the Senate, you will have all of December and January to float these radical ideas.  All you're doing now is guaranteeing that Biden will have to answer questions about packing the court during the debates.  He'll either upset the "progressive" wing of the party or prevent independents and Republicans from voting for him.  Either way, putting these ideas out into the mainstream now makes it less likely that Biden will win or that the Democrats will control the Senate. 

[LWYRUP]

But I would caution on the idea that the other side is going to do it anyway so they have to do it first. Did the Democrats ever give indication that they would reject any nominee from a Republican president near an election? I think we've established the opposite with justice Kennedy's 97-0 approval.

The specific example that comes to my mind when I think about not playing fair is that in my view the Kavanaugh hearing was basically an attempted railroading.

Feinstein sat on the accusation for months and never turned it over to the FBI.
Many inconsistencies (Ford afraid of flying but loved scuba diving; needed second door on her house because of fear, but the door was to an illegally converted apartment she rented out; didn't remember how she got home; her own friend didn't back her up).
When story started unraveling, operatives and journalists (sometimes, the same thing), went searching for any other dirt they could possibly find, publishing it immediately with no fact checking, then often needing to walk it back quietly the next day when multiple other people contradicted it.
All purposefully done right before an election to try to derail the nomination.

I think a lot of higher up Republicans didn't want to come out forcefully saying they thought Ford was lying because they wanted to let the process work itself out, and when it became a circus, that's when the moderates mentally lost people like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley, etc.  From that moment, they became squarely in the "OK, then it's war" camp and what you are seeing now is the result.

But of course the whole impeachment of Clinton was a big political farce, so this has been going along for a long time in Washington.  But it does seem like the stakes are getting raised every time, which is problematic for us that just want to live life in a reasonably well functioning country. 

[GuitarStv]

If I were you, I would be hesitant about unreserved support for all Warren court type decisions.  What if a group of right wingers decide in the future that they don't care about textualism anymore, and they agree with the Warren court method, they just want to use it to establish right wing precedent?  I imagine you would not like that very much.

Yes, I agree with you.  The non-textual modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment used in the Heller case of 2008 is a good example of the establishment of the very sort of right wing precedent that you warn of.

If you parse my response more carefully you'll see that I said that while I agreed with the decisions made by the Warren court, I don't agree with the method used to make them.

[LWYRUP]

If I were you, I would be hesitant about unreserved support for all Warren court type decisions.  What if a group of right wingers decide in the future that they don't care about textualism anymore, and they agree with the Warren court method, they just want to use it to establish right wing precedent?  I imagine you would not like that very much.

Yes, I agree with you.  The non-textual modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment used in the Heller case of 2008 is a good example of the establishment of the very sort of right wing precedent that you warn of.

If you parse my response more carefully you'll see that I said that while I agreed with the decisions made by the Warren court, I don't agree with the method used to make them.

Yep, I got it. 

It would be really great to have a well functioning legislature and an executive and judiciary who can then just stay in their lanes.  Though I sometimes understand why the other two branches feel like they need to intervene to keep the system functioning. 

[PDXTabs]

An artist should not have to work for a gay couple if he/she doesn't want to.  Religious freedom should actually count for something.  It is a right under the First Amendment.  The gay couple in Denver went to the bakery they knew wouldn't want to make them a cake just to incite a lawsuit.   The baker agreed to sell them a pre-made cake, but did not want to make them a cake.  I do not support this type of legal gamesmanship.  Civil Rights should be used as a shield and not a sword.  If an artist does not support gay rights, I don't think he/she should be forced to make a cake, supply flowers, be the photographer, etc.  I personally support gay rights, but it's about forced artistic expression. The proper response isn't to force that artist to do the work.  It's to use the power of capitalism to steer business away from that baker and to bolster business for the artists who would make the cake, supply flowers, etc.  This is especially true in circumstances in which the gay couple has plenty of alternatives.

Does that carry over to cooking for Black people? Because I thought that we settled that a long time ago. Obviously, there is a gray area around actual religious events (should a church have to accept everyone? surely not under freedom of association?).

[LWYRUP]

An artist should not have to work for a gay couple if he/she doesn't want to.  Religious freedom should actually count for something.  It is a right under the First Amendment.  The gay couple in Denver went to the bakery they knew wouldn't want to make them a cake just to incite a lawsuit.   The baker agreed to sell them a pre-made cake, but did not want to make them a cake.  I do not support this type of legal gamesmanship.  Civil Rights should be used as a shield and not a sword.  If an artist does not support gay rights, I don't think he/she should be forced to make a cake, supply flowers, be the photographer, etc.  I personally support gay rights, but it's about forced artistic expression. The proper response isn't to force that artist to do the work.  It's to use the power of capitalism to steer business away from that baker and to bolster business for the artists who would make the cake, supply flowers, etc.  This is especially true in circumstances in which the gay couple has plenty of alternatives.

Does that carry over to cooking for Black people? Because I thought that we settled that a long time ago. Obviously, there is a gray area around actual religious events (should a church have to accept everyone? surely not under freedom of association?).

Not really an analogous situation, since we fought a war and enacted three separate Constitutional amendments on the issue you are raising. 

I actually think SCOTUS did a great job with the wedding cake issues.  I think they basically tried to the skirt the line between services and expression, and so yes you need to bake the cake, and no you do not need to put "Have A Great Gay Wedding" on it.  I though the end of the day solution was just. 

Again, in theory the legislature could have been able to try to sort through these issues in a fair way to begin with, and then our highest court could have spent its time dealing with issues other than wedding cakes. 

My pointless work zoom call is ending so sadly will need to depart from this thread for the moment...

[GuitarStv]

e.g.1 - Fundamental rights are not negotiable: A women's right of autonomy over her body is not negotiable - whatever the "populace" thinks.
e.g.2 - Conflicting rights should follow values of the polity: a gay couple's right to force an artist to work for them should depend on values of the people. No such exemption, however, should be present for corporations (i.e. no Hobby Lobby exemption). If a corporation can't serve people and employees without discrimination then it has no business being in business.

Who determines which is a fundamental right?

Usually the person who is claiming to support one.  There exists no such thing as a fundamental (or natural) right.  All rights are the mental constructs of people, and it's not often that everyone is in complete agreement over what is and is not a right.

An artist should not have to work for a gay couple if he/she doesn't want to.  Religious freedom should actually count for something.  It is a right under the First Amendment.  The gay couple in Denver went to the bakery they knew wouldn't want to make them a cake just to incite a lawsuit.   The baker agreed to sell them a pre-made cake, but did not want to make them a cake.  I do not support this type of legal gamesmanship.  Civil Rights should be used as a shield and not a sword.  If an artist does not support gay rights, I don't think he/she should be forced to make a cake, supply flowers, be the photographer, etc.  I personally support gay rights, but it's about forced artistic expression. The proper response isn't to force that artist to do the work.  It's to use the power of capitalism to steer business away from that baker and to bolster business for the artists who would make the cake, supply flowers, etc.  This is especially true in circumstances in which the gay couple has plenty of alternatives.

If a black couple went into the same bakery, and the man at the back said he wouldn't make 'em a cake because as a Christian member of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan the colour of their skin and thought of them breeding disgusted him would you make the same argument?

Because people in the US had to explicitly have laws that prevented the kind of discrimination you're waving off.  Without these laws we would still have 'no blacks' signs up in businesses all over.  Important to note that many Christians found support for treating black people as inferior in their bibles, so the same "freedom of religion" argument that you're touting for the homophobic baker was also used against integration.

I agree with you that making a cake is rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.  But racist or homophobic actions are negative and these actions of intolerance cause long lasting pain to the people who are targeted by them, and to the community as a whole (which learns to tolerate the intolerance).  That is a much larger issue than a cake.

All you're doing now is guaranteeing that Biden will have to answer questions about packing the court during the debates.  He'll either upset the "progressive" wing of the party or prevent independents and Republicans from voting for him.

I don't think answering questions about packing the court during debates will be too difficult for Biden.
 Lindsay Graham has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

[redbirdfan]

Does that carry over to cooking for Black people? Because I thought that we settled that a long time ago. Obviously, there is a gray area around actual religious events (should a church have to accept everyone? surely not under freedom of association?).

Yes and no.  If a restaurant is open the general public, I do not believe that business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  You are just ordering standard things off of the standard menu just like everyone else.  There are lots of private membership restaurants that don't have any black members.  I'm ok with that.  As a black person, I sure as shit wouldn't go into the KKK Cafe and Bakery and demand that they make me a Black Live Matter Cake.  To me, that's crossing the line and being purposefully antagonistic. 

[LWYRUP]

Lindsay Graham has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

Lindsay Graham Virtually every important elected politician or autocratic political figure in the history of the world has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

[sherr]

Lindsay Graham has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

Lindsay Graham Virtually every important elected politician or autocratic political figure in the history of the world has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

We are talking about a specific case here, where current Senate Republicans / Lindsey Graham in particular have been caught red-handed lying through their teeth.

You can't dismiss that very real fact with "but everyone does it" or "maybe the Dems would do it too if they had the chance". They did NOT do it about this issue, and in general I would argue the Dems are much more honest than Republicans are, but that's neither here nor there. The two sides are NOT the same on THIS ISSUE, and it's dishonest to dismiss them as such.

IF or WHEN the Democrats do something this breathtakingly dishonest, THEN we can complain about the Dem's dishonesty.

[LWYRUP]

Lindsay Graham has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

Lindsay Graham Virtually every important elected politician or autocratic political figure in the history of the world has pretty resoundingly proven that there is no problem lying through your teeth and then changing your tune later on.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

We are talking about a specific case here, where current Senate Republicans / Lindsey Graham in particular have been caught red-handed lying through their teeth.

You can't dismiss that very real fact with "but everyone does it" or "maybe the Dems would do it too if they had the chance". They did NOT do it about this issue, and in general I would argue the Dems are much more honest than Republicans are, but that's neither here nor there. The two sides are NOT the same on THIS ISSUE, and it's dishonest to dismiss them as such.

I've posted extensively in this thread, so you can use my prior posts to understand my position on this issue and several related ones.

There's nothing dishonest about what I posted.  It was mostly a joke.  However, jokes are typically funny because they are at least partially true. 

[ctuser1]

e.g.1 - Fundamental rights are not negotiable: A women's right of autonomy over her body is not negotiable - whatever the "populace" thinks.
e.g.2 - Conflicting rights should follow values of the polity: a gay couple's right to force an artist to work for them should depend on values of the people. No such exemption, however, should be present for corporations (i.e. no Hobby Lobby exemption). If a corporation can't serve people and employees without discrimination then it has no business being in business.

Who determines which is a fundamental right?  It's telling what you consider to be a fundamental right versus conflicting rights.  Life should be a fundamental right.

Getting into this debate will completely derail this thread. We had a pretty big fight over that in another off topic thread.

Yes, life is a fundamental right. Life is defined to begin at birth - per many legal precedents. Even the possibility of the said "life" is precious and hence abortion after viability is a very stern no no - with the only exceptions being when the mother's life is in danger, and per similar issues concerning vegetative patients kept alive by machines.

You assertion that a women's bodily autonomy is always negotiable is a fantastical one!! Outside of criminal law, that is simply not true - and I don't want to live in a society where that is the case. 

In any case, I doubt it matters a whole lot because I doubt you will have support for this stance from many people (that women do not own their body) in the US.

Democrats currently have public support.

Democrats have had public support for some time now - just count number of votes they get vs republicans in any election/chamber. In a rigged game, that clearly is not sufficient.

[Davnasty]

Not really an analogous situation, since we fought a war and enacted three separate Constitutional amendments on the issue you are raising. 

I actually think SCOTUS did a great job with the wedding cake issues.  I think they basically tried to the skirt the line between services and expression, and so yes you need to bake the cake, and no you do not need to put "Have A Great Gay Wedding" on it.  I though the end of the day solution was just. 

Again, in theory the legislature could have been able to try to sort through these issues in a fair way to begin with, and then our highest court could have spent its time dealing with issues other than wedding cakes. 

My pointless work zoom call is ending so sadly will need to depart from this thread for the moment...

Does that carry over to cooking for Black people? Because I thought that we settled that a long time ago. Obviously, there is a gray area around actual religious events (should a church have to accept everyone? surely not under freedom of association?).

Yes and no.  If a restaurant is open the general public, I do not believe that business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  You are just ordering standard things off of the standard menu just like everyone else.  There are lots of private membership restaurants that don't have any black members.  I'm ok with that.  As a black person, I sure as shit wouldn't go into the KKK Cafe and Bakery and demand that they make me a Black Live Matter Cake.  To me, that's crossing the line and being purposefully antagonistic.

You've both added imagined details to defend your positions. The details of what would be on the cake were never discussed. The baker refused based solely on the fact that it was for a same sex wedding.

It's also important to know that the supreme court did not defend the baker's right to do what he did, they only rejected the lower court's ruling due to the state's argument being unconstitutional.

The majority opinion stated that "although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution."

[PDXTabs]

An artist should not have to work for a gay couple if he/she doesn't want to.  Religious freedom should actually count for something.  It is a right under the First Amendment.  The gay couple in Denver went to the bakery they knew wouldn't want to make them a cake just to incite a lawsuit.   The baker agreed to sell them a pre-made cake, but did not want to make them a cake.  I do not support this type of legal gamesmanship.  Civil Rights should be used as a shield and not a sword.  If an artist does not support gay rights, I don't think he/she should be forced to make a cake, supply flowers, be the photographer, etc.  I personally support gay rights, but it's about forced artistic expression. The proper response isn't to force that artist to do the work.  It's to use the power of capitalism to steer business away from that baker and to bolster business for the artists who would make the cake, supply flowers, etc.  This is especially true in circumstances in which the gay couple has plenty of alternatives.

Does that carry over to cooking for Black people? Because I thought that we settled that a long time ago. Obviously, there is a gray area around actual religious events (should a church have to accept everyone? surely not under freedom of association?).

Not really an analogous situation, since we fought a war and enacted three separate Constitutional amendments on the issue you are raising. 

No, no we never fought a war or enacted a constitutional amendments to end lunch counter segregation. And even if we did there is still a 1st vs 13th constitutional debate, which is exactly what the supreme court is there to clarify.

[redbirdfan]

If a black couple went into the same bakery, and the man at the back said he wouldn't make 'em a cake because as a Christian member of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan the colour of their skin and thought of them breeding disgusted him would you make the same argument?

The scenario in that case was that the baker would agree to sell them one of the pre-made cakes, he just didn't want to make them a custom cake.  I actually would make the same argument.  I believe there is a difference between simply selling someone something in the course and scope of your business and creating a custom work for someone against your beliefs (I do not believe the relevant Colorado law makes this distinction.  It's just my position).  That was why I took issue with the Indiana law about simply serving gay people in businesses versus the Seattle-area florist case (the Washington law does not have this distinction, again it's just my opinion) and the Denver baker case.  It may be splitting hairs, but I see a difference.  Especially in this day and age where in all the would-be plaintiffs had easy access to lots of options.  That was not true in the civil rights era. 

[GuitarStv]

Especially in this day and age where in all the would-be plaintiffs had easy access to lots of options.  That was not true in the civil rights era.

I kinda feel that you're overlooking the reason that there is easy access to lots of options for gay or black people now.  It's because we implemented the laws that forced business owners to serve everyone equally.  Before that - no options.

[ctuser1]

If a black couple went into the same bakery, and the man at the back said he wouldn't make 'em a cake because as a Christian member of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan the colour of their skin and thought of them breeding disgusted him would you make the same argument?

The scenario in that case was that the baker would agree to sell them one of the pre-made cakes, he just didn't want to make them a custom cake.  I actually would make the same argument.  I believe there is a difference between simply selling someone something in the course and scope of your business and creating a custom work for someone against your beliefs (I do not believe the relevant Colorado law makes this distinction.  It's just my position).  That was why I took issue with the Indiana law about simply serving gay people in businesses versus the Seattle-area florist case (the Washington law does not have this distinction, again it's just my opinion) and the Denver baker case.  It may be splitting hairs, but I see a difference.  Especially in this day and age where in all the would-be plaintiffs had easy access to lots of options.  That was not true in the civil rights era.

My personal opinion - intent should matter.

If a devout Christian attempts to accommodate a gay couple as much as possible by selling them whatever exists in general display, but politely refuses to take custom order for them because it is against his beliefs - it should likely be okay.

If it is a corporation (and a business set up as anything other sole prop should count) and then have no bakers who aren't devout Christian's, and thus can't accommodate a gay couple - then they should be sued and fined out of existence.

Individual rights are very important, IMO.

[robartsd]

Especially in this day and age where in all the would-be plaintiffs had easy access to lots of options.  That was not true in the civil rights era.

I kinda feel that you're overlooking the reason that there is easy access to lots of options for gay or black people now.  It's because we implemented the laws that forced business owners to serve everyone equally.  Before that - no options.

We've never enacted laws forcing businesses to contribute to gay rights causes, but many now do. Yes, some businesses onlychanged their behavior due to legal pressure, but most of the change has been because social pressure has made supporting gay rights more profitable than not supporting gay rights regardless of any legal pressure.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I suspect that the whole idea that there was this time in the past where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them, etc. is a myth, and basically a rhetorical ploy.

Actually, that is not the case.

IIRC, one confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee  was unanimous  or almost!

It used to be that a Senate majority would  readily confirm  a nominee  selected by a president of the opposite party provided  the nominee was qualified.  Way back then no toxic drama attended the confirmation hearings of judicial nominees.

But that was before the end of comity in the Senate and politics in general and  the ugly metastasis of  rancor and hateful  partisanship that now infects  every aspect of politics including even  the politics of civil society far removed from Washingtonian intrigues.

The days "where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them" ended when Senator Kennedy "Borked " Judge Bork.

The "Borking"  was followed by  the poisonous acrimony of  Judge Thomas' confirmation hearing  and recently, the defamatory toxicity of Judge Kavanaugh's.

So LWYRUP, I am afraid that the train of comity, fair play, and authentically principled opposition departed the station long ago.

Those days are long gone.




 

[Davnasty]

I suspect that the whole idea that there was this time in the past where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them, etc. is a myth, and basically a rhetorical ploy.

Actually, that is not the case.

IIRC, one confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee  was unanimous  or almost!

It used to be that a Senate majority would  readily confirm  a nominee  selected by a president of the opposite party provided  the nominee was qualified.  Way back then no toxic drama attended the confirmation hearings of judicial nominees.

But that was before the end of comity in the Senate and politics in general and  the ugly metastasis of  rancor and hateful  partisanship that now infects  every aspect of politics including even  the politics of civil society far removed from Washingtonian intrigues.

The days "where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them" ended when Senator Kennedy "Borked " Judge Bork.

The "Borking"  was followed by  the poisonous acrimony of  Judge Thomas' confirmation hearing  and recently, the defamatory toxicity of Judge Kavanaugh's.

So LWYRUP, I am afraid that the train of comity, fair play, and authentically principled opposition departed the station long ago.

Those days are long gone.

Even though 6 republicans voted against Bork? And Justice Kennedy was approved 97-0 just 4 months later?

Somehow I doubt that was the beginning of partisan warfare against supreme court nominations.

I wasn't around at the time so maybe I've missed something but your narrative sounds like a rewriting of history.

ETA: I've heard a much stronger case that bipartisan compromise broke down with Newt Gingrich

[ctuser1]

The days "where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them" ended when Senator Kennedy "Borked " Judge Bork.

The "Borking"  was followed by  the poisonous acrimony of  Judge Thomas' confirmation hearing  and recently, the defamatory toxicity of Judge Kavanaugh's.

I'm not old enough and hence curious - what was so special about Bork being Bork'ed as opposed to all other unsuccessful nominees to the court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

From the list it sounds like a routine thing to me, isn't it?

[LWYRUP]

The days "where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them" ended when Senator Kennedy "Borked " Judge Bork.

The "Borking"  was followed by  the poisonous acrimony of  Judge Thomas' confirmation hearing  and recently, the defamatory toxicity of Judge Kavanaugh's.

So LWYRUP, I am afraid that the train of comity, fair play, and authentically principled opposition departed the station long ago.

Those days are long gone.

I think there were legitimate reasons to oppose Bork's nomination to the Court, and some Republicans did so as well.  The Senate does have the power of advice and consent.  However, you are right that many viewed it as a departure from the standards of the time, particularly given his qualifications. 

It's hard for me to judge the Thomas hearings because I was too little and never really read up on them (and also, who can you trust to give a fair reading of things so politically contentious).  But witnessing the Kavanaugh hearings first hand, and especially seeing how it was played up in the media, I have my suspicions.  Either things drastically changed since the early 90s or this was just the same playbook rolled forward.

I hesitate to fully engage in any analysis that says "this is the moment when it all turned bad."  I think that there is has been escalating tit-for-tat in the Senate, to the extent that the institutional norms have broken down over time.  And yes, it's reflective of the situation across the whole country and culture right now, unfortunately. 

[Davnasty]

The days "where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them" ended when Senator Kennedy "Borked " Judge Bork.

The "Borking"  was followed by  the poisonous acrimony of  Judge Thomas' confirmation hearing  and recently, the defamatory toxicity of Judge Kavanaugh's.

So LWYRUP, I am afraid that the train of comity, fair play, and authentically principled opposition departed the station long ago.

Those days are long gone.

I think there were legitimate reasons to oppose Bork's nomination to the Court, and some Republicans did so as well.  The Senate does have the power of advice and consent.  However, you are right that many viewed it as a departure from the standards of the time, particularly given his qualifications. 

It's hard for me to judge the Thomas hearings because I was too little and never really read up on them (and also, who can you trust to give a fair reading of things so politically contentious).  But witnessing the Kavanaugh hearings first hand, and especially seeing how it was played up in the media, I have my suspicions.  Either things drastically changed since the early 90s or this was just the same playbook rolled forward.

I hesitate to fully engage in any analysis that says "this is the moment when it all turned bad."  I think that there is has been escalating tit-for-tat in the Senate, to the extent that the institutional norms have broken down over time.  And yes, it's reflective of the situation across the whole country and culture right now, unfortunately.

I didn't want to derail this thread any further than we already have with getting into the Kavanaugh debate, but I do believe your previously list of reasons that the accusation against him was a hit job were half truths at best. I don't want to discuss it here as it was thoroughly covered in another thread as it occurred.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/

[John Galt incarnate!]

It's also important to know that the supreme court did not defend the baker's right to do what he did, they only rejected the lower court's ruling due to the state's argument being unconstitutional.

The majority opinion stated that "although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution."

IIRC,  during a hearing, a member of the commission said something about Nazis or Nazism in their criticism of the baker and/or his  position on the matter.

That reference convinced the Court, including RBG, that the baker didn't receive an impartial hearing.


EDIT:


I was wrong about RBG. She was a dissenter.

I was also wrong about one of the commissioners referring  to Nazis or Nazism though I do think it's fair to say that their   reference to the Holocaust evokes  Nazism.

The commissioner said “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”


Justice Kennedy found that the commissioner expressed  "sentiment [that] is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”

[sherr]

ETA: I've heard a much stronger case that bipartisan compromise broke down with Newt Gingrich

I mean, it's not really a theory, Newt Gingrich openly brags about it. He's very proud of what he's done to American politics. He considers it natural for politics to be a vicious blood-sport, the way it's "supposed to be".

[redbirdfan]

I'm not old enough and hence curious - what was so special about Bork being Bork'ed as opposed to all other unsuccessful nominees to the court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

From the list it sounds like a routine thing to me, isn't it?

It's a couple of things.  In 1984 Reagan won in a landslide.  He won 59% of the popular vote and won over 525 electoral votes.  He actually did have a mandate.  For context, Scalia was appointed shortly beforehand and was confirmed 98-0 in 1986.  Roe was fresh in the mind of Republicans and Reagan was the first Republican president after the decision came down.   When Bork was nominated, it was assumed that he would be confirmed.    Bork was the first of the modern-day contentious confirmation hearings.  Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor and basically equated the conservative view of constitutional interpretation to sexism and racism (back alley abortions and segregated lunch counters, etc.).  It was seen as a hit job on an otherwise qualified candidate.  It was the nature of the attack - not just that he wasn't confirmed.  After Bork's nomination failed, Kennedy was nominated.  Kennedy was the deciding vote in the same-sex litigation and also the deciding vote in the attacks on Roe.  Republicans have felt cheated because Bork would have been a more reliable vote.  This is viewed in the context of other justices appointed by Republicans moderating over the course of their tenure - see Souter, David and now Roberts, John. 

When you see what happened to Bork, there are parallels to what happened to Thomas and also Kavanaugh.  There is a recent history of Democrats blindsiding Republican nominees with allegations that are incapable of being proved one way or another creating very chaotic political theater.  It's why so many Republicans are wiling to fill the current vacancy no matter what. 

[GuitarStv]

I'm not old enough and hence curious - what was so special about Bork being Bork'ed as opposed to all other unsuccessful nominees to the court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

From the list it sounds like a routine thing to me, isn't it?

It's a couple of things.  In 1984 Reagan won in a landslide.  He won 59% of the popular vote and won over 525 electoral votes.  He actually did have a mandate.  For context, Scalia was appointed shortly beforehand and was confirmed 98-0 in 1986.  Roe was fresh in the mind of Republicans and Reagan was the first Republican president after the decision came down.   When Bork was nominated, it was assumed that he would be confirmed.    Bork was the first of the modern-day contentious confirmation hearings.  Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor and basically equated the conservative view of constitutional interpretation to sexism and racism (back alley abortions and segregated lunch counters, etc.).  It was seen as a hit job on an otherwise qualified candidate.  It was the nature of the attack - not just that he wasn't confirmed.  After Bork's nomination failed, Kennedy was nominated.  Kennedy was the deciding vote in the same-sex litigation and also the deciding vote in the attacks on Roe.  Republicans have felt cheated because Bork would have been a more reliable vote.  This is viewed in the context of other justices appointed by Republicans moderating over the course of their tenure - see Souter, David and now Roberts, John. 

When you see what happened to Bork, there are parallels to what happened to Thomas and also Kavanaugh.  There is a recent history of Democrats blindsiding Republican nominees with allegations that are incapable of being proved one way or another creating very chaotic political theater.  It's why so many Republicans are wiling to fill the current vacancy no matter what.

While I don't believe that he was racist, Bork certainly had a history of opposing civil rights for black people.  (To his credit, he recanted this opposition later and indicated that he was mistaken.)

[former player]

I'm not old enough and hence curious - what was so special about Bork being Bork'ed as opposed to all other unsuccessful nominees to the court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

From the list it sounds like a routine thing to me, isn't it?

It's a couple of things.  In 1984 Reagan won in a landslide.  He won 59% of the popular vote and won over 525 electoral votes.  He actually did have a mandate.  For context, Scalia was appointed shortly beforehand and was confirmed 98-0 in 1986.  Roe was fresh in the mind of Republicans and Reagan was the first Republican president after the decision came down.   When Bork was nominated, it was assumed that he would be confirmed.    Bork was the first of the modern-day contentious confirmation hearings.  Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor and basically equated the conservative view of constitutional interpretation to sexism and racism (back alley abortions and segregated lunch counters, etc.).  It was seen as a hit job on an otherwise qualified candidate.  It was the nature of the attack - not just that he wasn't confirmed.  After Bork's nomination failed, Kennedy was nominated.  Kennedy was the deciding vote in the same-sex litigation and also the deciding vote in the attacks on Roe.  Republicans have felt cheated because Bork would have been a more reliable vote.  This is viewed in the context of other justices appointed by Republicans moderating over the course of their tenure - see Souter, David and now Roberts, John. 

When you see what happened to Bork, there are parallels to what happened to Thomas and also Kavanaugh.  There is a recent history of Democrats blindsiding Republican nominees with allegations that are incapable of being proved one way or another creating very chaotic political theater.  It's why so many Republicans are wiling to fill the current vacancy no matter what.

An otherwise qualified candidate who was Nixon's henchman at Watergate, right?

[redbirdfan]

An otherwise qualified candidate who was Nixon's henchman at Watergate, right?

Yes, but that was also true when he was confirmed unanimously for the Court of Appeals in '82.

[former player]

An otherwise qualified candidate who was Nixon's henchman at Watergate, right?

Yes, but that was also true when he was confirmed unanimously for the Court of Appeals in '82.

A somewhat different level of importance.

[LWYRUP]

The days "where things were non-partisan, fair, where everybody knew the rules and played by them" ended when Senator Kennedy "Borked " Judge Bork.

The "Borking"  was followed by  the poisonous acrimony of  Judge Thomas' confirmation hearing  and recently, the defamatory toxicity of Judge Kavanaugh's.

So LWYRUP, I am afraid that the train of comity, fair play, and authentically principled opposition departed the station long ago.

Those days are long gone.

I think there were legitimate reasons to oppose Bork's nomination to the Court, and some Republicans did so as well.  The Senate does have the power of advice and consent.  However, you are right that many viewed it as a departure from the standards of the time, particularly given his qualifications. 

It's hard for me to judge the Thomas hearings because I was too little and never really read up on them (and also, who can you trust to give a fair reading of things so politically contentious).  But witnessing the Kavanaugh hearings first hand, and especially seeing how it was played up in the media, I have my suspicions.  Either things drastically changed since the early 90s or this was just the same playbook rolled forward.

I hesitate to fully engage in any analysis that says "this is the moment when it all turned bad."  I think that there is has been escalating tit-for-tat in the Senate, to the extent that the institutional norms have broken down over time.  And yes, it's reflective of the situation across the whole country and culture right now, unfortunately.

I didn't want to derail this thread any further than we already have with getting into the Kavanaugh debate, but I do believe your previously list of reasons that the accusation against him was a hit job were half truths at best. I don't want to discuss it here as it was thoroughly covered in another thread as it occurred.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/

The Kavanaugh thing is something I feel strongly about because I don't know him personally but I know a lot of people that do know him.  Regardless of what you thought of his politics, within the community (both the legal community, and the local community of which he was part), he had a sterling reputation as someone who treated everyone as fairness and respect, and there were approximately zero people who thought or suspected he was some sort of serial sexual predator until... right about when he was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.  Unlike most people in the political scene, Kavanaugh was a local so there are LOT of people that know him across many decades. 

Now of course if there was some actual solid evidence that everyone's judgement of this man was totally and horribly wrong for decades, then of course it should be brought forward.  In an orderly fashion.  With actual evidence.  And as it was known, not at the perfect time to create political theater.  With a press willing to examine the actual evidence and willing to do things like... check basic facts. 

The Kavanaugh hearing was pretty much the last time anyone right of center in DC thought they could ever get a fair hearing in the mainstream press.  It's been obvious since then it's pretty much going to be 100% character assassinations and war through other means from here on out.  Meanwhile, left of center political figures (say, Harvey Milk) get beatified with anything counter to the narrative swept under the rug to the depths of the internet. 

I'm actually independent and have literally never voted for a Republican president, but I can say that watching that all go down, I can never really trust the NYT ever again.  We basically don't have a paper of record anymore, just various warring narratives with the citizens left desperately trying to check facts the best they can. 

[redbirdfan]

While I don't believe that he was racist, Bork certainly had a history of opposing civil rights for black people

History of opposing the constitutional validity on which the civil rights legislation is based.  There's a difference.  I don't believe the constitution contains a right to privacy.  I do not have a problem with women having access to legal abortions (within parameters). 

I am just providing the context in response to another poster's question and trying to explain why the right would be warranted in its distrust of the left when it comes to the nomination process. 

[bacchi]

The Kavanaugh thing is something I feel strongly about because I don't know him personally but I know a lot of people that do know him.  Regardless of what you thought of his politics, within the community (both the legal community, and the local community of which he was part), he had a sterling reputation as someone who treated everyone as fairness and respect, and there were approximately zero people who thought or suspected he was some sort of serial sexual predator until... right about when he was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.  Unlike most people in the political scene, Kavanaugh was a local so there are LOT of people that know him across many decades. 

Interesting. The ABA brought up his temperament when he was being considered for federal court in 2006. The committee was concerned about his ability to be "balanced and fair." He was rated "qualified" but not "well qualified" that year.

But people change and maybe Kavanaugh did in the next 10 years. (Though, given his tantrum in the Senate, he still has a temperament problem.)

[GuitarStv]

While I don't believe that he was racist, Bork certainly had a history of opposing civil rights for black people

History of opposing the constitutional validity on which the civil rights legislation is based.  There's a difference.  I don't believe the constitution contains a right to privacy.  I do not have a problem with women having access to legal abortions (within parameters). 

I am just providing the context in response to another poster's question and trying to explain why the right would be warranted in its distrust of the left when it comes to the nomination process.

Did the constitutional validity of the civil rights legislation changed?  Because Bork later said he was mistaken to oppose them, which is what confuses me about that argument.  If Bork was constitutionally correct, why did he recant?

Now of course if there was some actual solid evidence that everyone's judgement of this man was totally and horribly wrong for decades, then of course it should be brought forward.  In an orderly fashion.  With actual evidence.  And as it was known, not at the perfect time to create political theater.  With a press willing to examine the actual evidence and willing to do things like... check basic facts. 

The Kavanaugh hearing was pretty much the last time anyone right of center in DC thought they could ever get a fair hearing in the mainstream press.  It's been obvious since then it's pretty much going to be 100% character assassinations and war through other means from here on out.  Meanwhile, left of center political figures (say, Harvey Milk) get beatified with anything counter to the narrative swept under the rug to the depths of the internet.

I don't like the way that the Democrats handled that situation.  There was a lot of gamesmanship that went on regarding timing of releasing the claims and that was wrong.  It should have come out much earlier.  At the same time, Republicans did not hold a fair investigation into the matter.  They explicitly prevented the FBI from investigating the claims fully.  If the man is a stellar member of society and the allegations ridiculous, taking that action makes no sense at all.

That behaviour was a really big red flag in my viewpoint, and should give anyone interested in the matter some pause.  Usually innocent people are eager to prove their innocence.  They don't want to hide and obstruct the truth from coming out.

[Davnasty]

I don't like the way that the Democrats handled that situation.  There was a lot of gamesmanship that went on regarding timing of releasing the claims and that was wrong. It should have come out much earlier.  At the same time, Republicans did not hold a fair investigation into the matter.  They explicitly prevented the FBI from investigating the claims fully.  If the man is a stellar member of society and the allegations ridiculous, taking that action makes no sense at all.

That behaviour was a really big red flag in my viewpoint, and should give anyone interested in the matter some pause.  Usually innocent people are eager to prove their innocence.  They don't want to hide and obstruct the truth from coming out.

That was Blasey-Ford's decision, not Feinstein's or any other Democrat's. Ford asked for the letter to be confidential as she feared for her personal safety and reputation. In fact, even when it did come out, it was unintentional. It's still not known who leaked the story and yes it is possible that the "leak" was strategic, but Feinstein's reasoning was plausible. Ford consented to release the letter after the story was leaked and already in the headlines.

[LWYRUP]

The Kavanaugh thing is something I feel strongly about because I don't know him personally but I know a lot of people that do know him.  Regardless of what you thought of his politics, within the community (both the legal community, and the local community of which he was part), he had a sterling reputation as someone who treated everyone as fairness and respect, and there were approximately zero people who thought or suspected he was some sort of serial sexual predator until... right about when he was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.  Unlike most people in the political scene, Kavanaugh was a local so there are LOT of people that know him across many decades. 

Interesting. The ABA brought up his temperament when he was being considered for federal court in 2006. The committee was concerned about his ability to be "balanced and fair." He was rated "qualified" but not "well qualified" that year.

But people change and maybe Kavanaugh did in the next 10 years. (Though, given his tantrum in the Senate, he still has a temperament problem.)

His behavior in the Senate was not great, though the circumstances were quite extenuating.

You are assuming that the ABA is an impartial organization made up of people who have pretty much no interest in politics.  I am going to go out on a limb and say you should reconsider those assumptions.

Not well qualified?  Yale, Yale Law, Yale Law Journal, Kozinski Clerk, Supreme Court Clerk, Solicitor General's Office, Kirkland & Ellis partner, Circuit Court for a decade? 

If he wasn't qualified, we should boot everyone off the Court but Roberts and just have Roberts issue all the decisions. 

[redbirdfan]

Did the constitutional validity of the civil rights legislation changed?  Because Bork later said he was mistaken to oppose them, which is what confuses me about that argument.  If Bork was constitutionally correct, why did he recant?

BORK: I had come to Yale as an avid free-market type. I had gotten into classic economics, which teaches that by and large it's much better to let people arrange their own affairs and their own transactions than to try to govern them by law.I made the what I now regard as not uncommon intellectual mistake of trying to apply those principles to social interactions. I don't think it works there because you haven't gotten a marketplace to discipline people. But it is not uncommon for free market economists to display libertarian principles.

This article came about because I was arguing with Alex Bickel about this subject. I at that time thought that any coercion of the individual by government had to be justified by a principle that did not lead government into all kinds of coercion that should not be there.

And I could not see the general philosophical principle here that justified this coercion. I also saw - I also could not see a general philosophical principal that would justify segregation by law. I was leaning on the side of individual freedom. The Edmund Burke Approach

I think that was wrong because I don't think any general principle is available. I now take what I would call - at least what Bickel described as the Edmund Burke approach, which is you look at each measure -this is a political matter, not a judicial matter - you look at each measure and ask whether it will do more good than harm. Had I looked at the civil rights proposals in that way, I would have, as I later came to, that they do much more good. In fact, they make everybody much happier and they help bring the nation together in a way that otherwise would not have occurred.

[LWYRUP]

At the same time, Republicans did not hold a fair investigation into the matter.  They explicitly prevented the FBI from investigating the claims fully.  If the man is a stellar member of society and the allegations ridiculous, taking that action makes no sense at all.

That behaviour was a really big red flag in my viewpoint, and should give anyone interested in the matter some pause.  Usually innocent people are eager to prove their innocence.  They don't want to hide and obstruct the truth from coming out.

Many people felt that the real purpose of wanting to do an FBI investigation was to delay the nomination past the election, in hopes the Democrats would take back the Senate, and that in any other case other than the moment before a Supreme Court nomination, there was not enough actual evidence to justify further investigations. 

Perhaps if the issue had been handled more fairly from the start, some moderate Republicans could have been convinced to continue to let the process play out.  But since it was turning into a sham trial and the NYT was devolving into National Enquirer level fact checking, it was the right move to stop the charade and call an up-or-down vote. 

[bacchi]

The Kavanaugh thing is something I feel strongly about because I don't know him personally but I know a lot of people that do know him.  Regardless of what you thought of his politics, within the community (both the legal community, and the local community of which he was part), he had a sterling reputation as someone who treated everyone as fairness and respect, and there were approximately zero people who thought or suspected he was some sort of serial sexual predator until... right about when he was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.  Unlike most people in the political scene, Kavanaugh was a local so there are LOT of people that know him across many decades. 

Interesting. The ABA brought up his temperament when he was being considered for federal court in 2006. The committee was concerned about his ability to be "balanced and fair." He was rated "qualified" but not "well qualified" that year.

But people change and maybe Kavanaugh did in the next 10 years. (Though, given his tantrum in the Senate, he still has a temperament problem.)

His behavior in the Senate was not great, though the circumstances were quite extenuating.

You are assuming that the ABA is an impartial organization made up of people who have pretty much no interest in politics.  I am going to go out on a limb and say you should reconsider those assumptions.

No, I'm assuming that the ABA is made up of people within the legal community, which contradicts your claim that "within the community [...], he had a sterling reputation." He obviously didn't impress everyone and it was enough of a question to drop his rating to "qualified."

[ctuser1]

I'm not old enough and hence curious - what was so special about Bork being Bork'ed as opposed to all other unsuccessful nominees to the court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

From the list it sounds like a routine thing to me, isn't it?

It's a couple of things.  In 1984 Reagan won in a landslide.  He won 59% of the popular vote and won over 525 electoral votes.  He actually did have a mandate.  For context, Scalia was appointed shortly beforehand and was confirmed 98-0 in 1986.  Roe was fresh in the mind of Republicans and Reagan was the first Republican president after the decision came down.   When Bork was nominated, it was assumed that he would be confirmed.    Bork was the first of the modern-day contentious confirmation hearings.  Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor and basically equated the conservative view of constitutional interpretation to sexism and racism (back alley abortions and segregated lunch counters, etc.).  It was seen as a hit job on an otherwise qualified candidate.  It was the nature of the attack - not just that he wasn't confirmed.  After Bork's nomination failed, Kennedy was nominated.  Kennedy was the deciding vote in the same-sex litigation and also the deciding vote in the attacks on Roe.  Republicans have felt cheated because Bork would have been a more reliable vote.  This is viewed in the context of other justices appointed by Republicans moderating over the course of their tenure - see Souter, David and now Roberts, John. 

When you see what happened to Bork, there are parallels to what happened to Thomas and also Kavanaugh.  There is a recent history of Democrats blindsiding Republican nominees with allegations that are incapable of being proved one way or another creating very chaotic political theater.  It's why so many Republicans are wiling to fill the current vacancy no matter what.

Thank you for the explanations.

Pardon me, but that still seems too sensitive by half, and snowflake'ish to me. The social conservative position has generally been immoral more often than not (consider all the social conservatives who supported slavery), and there is some sort of a problem in pointing out the potential immorality in those positions and opinions today??!!

It's possible I am biased. But then I recall my own experience of when I started working as a consultant. I had very poor people skills (I was primarily hired in the nerd quota). The first few projects I was thrown into was amazingly nasty (a typical midwestern corporation generally only hires a high priced consultant from one of the big name firms when something has really gone bad - not, generally, to fix things but to save their a*ses and have a scapegoat who won't be present to defend himself).

So I am a little less than convinced by the whole "they said nasty things" logic that I hear time and again trotted out by the right. A college kid hired by big-4 or MBB is expected to be able to handle nasty politics, and you are telling me that is too much for rightwing politicians and a supreme court judge??!!

To me that is in a fundamentally different category compared to opposing basic human rights like telling women they don't own their body or that gay people can't marry who they please.

[GuitarStv]

At the same time, Republicans did not hold a fair investigation into the matter.  They explicitly prevented the FBI from investigating the claims fully.  If the man is a stellar member of society and the allegations ridiculous, taking that action makes no sense at all.

That behaviour was a really big red flag in my viewpoint, and should give anyone interested in the matter some pause.  Usually innocent people are eager to prove their innocence.  They don't want to hide and obstruct the truth from coming out.

Many people felt that the real purpose of wanting to do an FBI investigation was to delay the nomination past the election, in hopes the Democrats would take back the Senate, and that in any other case other than the moment before a Supreme Court nomination, there was not enough actual evidence to justify further investigations. 

Perhaps if the issue had been handled more fairly from the start, some moderate Republicans could have been convinced to continue to let the process play out.  But since it was turning into a sham trial and the NYT was devolving into National Enquirer level fact checking, it was the right move to stop the charade and call an up-or-down vote.

If that was the concern, then the Republicans could have simply given a time limit for the FBI investigation.

They did not.

Republicans told the FBI which records they could and could not read and which people they could and could not talk to.  The Republican in charge of guiding Kavanaugh's confirmation process (Don McGahn) was also directing the FBI on what they could investigate.  By explicitly obstructing any kind of fair investigation into the matter, Republicans certainly acted as though they believed that Kavanaugh was guilty and needed to hide his past.

[LWYRUP]

The Kavanaugh thing is something I feel strongly about because I don't know him personally but I know a lot of people that do know him.  Regardless of what you thought of his politics, within the community (both the legal community, and the local community of which he was part), he had a sterling reputation as someone who treated everyone as fairness and respect, and there were approximately zero people who thought or suspected he was some sort of serial sexual predator until... right about when he was about to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.  Unlike most people in the political scene, Kavanaugh was a local so there are LOT of people that know him across many decades. 

Interesting. The ABA brought up his temperament when he was being considered for federal court in 2006. The committee was concerned about his ability to be "balanced and fair." He was rated "qualified" but not "well qualified" that year.

But people change and maybe Kavanaugh did in the next 10 years. (Though, given his tantrum in the Senate, he still has a temperament problem.)

His behavior in the Senate was not great, though the circumstances were quite extenuating.

You are assuming that the ABA is an impartial organization made up of people who have pretty much no interest in politics.  I am going to go out on a limb and say you should reconsider those assumptions.

No, I'm assuming that the ABA is made up of people within the legal community, which contradicts your claim that "within the community [...], he had a sterling reputation." He obviously didn't impress everyone and it was enough of a question to drop his rating to "qualified."

Right, and I can tell you from being in these circles (though of course not nearly at the same level), that there will be a fair amount of people in DC who will never ever be impressed by anything that anyone with an R next to their name does, for any reason, no matter what, and that some of those people occasionally sit on ABA panels, and that you should consider that context.

None of the confirmation kerfuffle had anything to do with whether or not he would be impartial anyways, so I am not sure what your point is.  The fair and balanced issue, even if taken at face value, was "he won't be fair and balanced because we think he'll be too conservative" not "he won't be fair and balanced because of all the allegations we've heard about him sexually harassing people."  And like 0% of the hearing was dedicated to any sort of substantive allegation of judicial bias.  He had twelve years of rulings on public record, so it was open for discussion. 

My personal view of this, and yes clouded based on discussions with people who know him personally, was that this entire serial sexual predator thing was just a political strategy concocted by unethical people to try to block the appointment of someone who they didn't like for political reasons.  If it wasn't for the political situation swirling in the background, the complaint would have been marked as "inconsistent testimony, no corroborating witnesses, no evidence, no other allegations in decades, asterik for the file in case something more actually comes up later, proceed."  That political situation explains both the "qualified" rating (despite all evidence to the contrary) that you are bringing up and the whole political circus that followed. 

Anyways, that whole episode will definitely be in the minds of the Senate now as they consider whether or not to ram through Barrett on a party line vote right before an election.  Whether or not that is fair or just or reasonable given the facts is really in the eye of reader, so I won't fault you for not liking it. 

[GuitarStv]

That personal view doesn't explain why Republicans obstructed all investigation into the matter though.  If it was purely political circus, it would have made a lot more sense for them to hold a very thorough investigation that completely debunked the 'false' claims.  Would have been a resounding victory and proof of horrible partisanship on the side of Democrats.

Instead they covered up and hid.  Maybe they were covering up and hiding that Kavenaugh was innocent.  But it's very strange behaviour if so.

[former player]

Blasey Ford's testimony was considerably less inconsistent than Kavanaugh's - his evidence under oath directly contradicted the evidence in his own contemporaneous diaries.  And his demenour in the hearing was uninpressive compared to hers.

Can you understand that to have two out of seven male Supreme Court justices confirmed despite having credible accusations of sexual harassment/assault made against them tells a story to women that we hear far too often and which speaks to the continued demeaning of women's experiences at the hands of men?

[LWYRUP]

@GuitarStv, I don't know.  I'm pretty sure your knowledge of the details of these political maneuverings exceeds my own (and I only know about this case in so much detail because it personally interests me, I generally try to keep my head down do my job and save my paycheck and ignore the swirling machinations from the rest of the city) so I can't speak to any particular persons actions.

I can say that if I was leading the Senate, and I felt that my political opponents were trying to concoct a sham trial on flimsy evidence with a looming election deadline, I'd just do everything I could to make sure I didn't give them in an inch so they could take a mile, or open doors so they could walk right through it in order to purposefully derail the whole thing for political reasons.  I'd remember the whole scenario from the 80s how the Republicans got outmaneuvered and ended up with Kennedy, and I'd shut it down and get the win. 

You know, the Democrats could right now with their huge political war chest dedicate some money to doing their own internal investigation and then refer the matter over to the applicable criminal court.  Or Ford could bring a civil claim.  Or if that's all barred by the statute of limitations, they could go to the ABA and try to get him disbarred for lying under oath, or at least just write a big report explaining in detail with evidence how I am wrong and biased.  Which might be true.  Nobody is stopping them now from digging into whatever they like. 

It seems like once the political game was resolved, the matter dropped, almost as if nobody in power in Washington actually cared anymore and they were on to the next thing. 

EDIT:  Per wikipedia, it looks like Ford's friend was threatened by political operatives to corroborate her testimony.  Haven't read the book, though maybe I might now, but the quote is, "I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn't comply,' Keyser later said. 'So that's where the Monica McLean put pressure on me came from."

[redbirdfan]

That personal view doesn't explain why Republicans obstructed all investigation into the matter though.  If it was purely political circus, it would have made a lot more sense for them to hold a very thorough investigation that completely debunked the 'false' claims.  Would have been a resounding victory and proof of horrible partisanship on the side of Democrats.

I didn't think Kavanaugh was worth the baggage.  I thought his performance in the Senate was disqualifying and I wanted Barrett to take his place as the nominee.  The reason the Republicans didn't go full scale into an investigation was because they didn't really believe there was anything to investigate.  The FBI conducted background checks as part of his nomination to the Court of Appeals and as part of the vetting process.  Keep in mind the Blasey-Ford allegations were denied by all people who were supposed to be witnesses and that it occurred when Kavanaugh was in high school.  Ms. Blasey-Ford was a good witness and I believe public sentiment was on her side.  If it had just been the Blasey-Ford allegation, I think more people would have been on board with an investigation.  But Democrats tend to overplay their hand (as I think they are about to do now).  Michael Avenatti became a left-wing media darling and floated an easily refutable allegation against Kavanaugh. A later allegation surfaced about an incident at a party when Kavanaugh was at Yale.  That allegation seemed to have more credibility, but no witnesses came forward.  After the Avenatti stunt, public opinion quickly turned.   Allegations started coming out of the woodwork against Kavanaugh (there was something about a boat incident in Rhode Island that was quickly debunked).  It became a lot easier for the Republicans to just shut the whole thing down.  To the right, it had the familiar feeling of a last-minute hit job from the left. 

On a serious note, you really don't want to start the precedent that a last minute allegation will lead to an FBI investigation.  I don't know what the proper procedure should be, but I know it shouldn't be that.