Burgold

Anthony Kennedy announces intention to retire from SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-document-fight-1534202892

The Kavanaugh Document Fight

Grassley is following the precedents set by Democrats on Kagan.

 

"In any event, Democrats are the ones demanding the unprecedented. Their latest complaint is that documents from Mr. Kavanaugh’s years in the White House counsel’s office are being vetted for release by William Burck, a former colleague in the George W. Bush White House. “Unless it was produced by the National Archives, every document you see from Judge Kavanaugh’s White House tenure was selectively chosen for release by his former deputy, Bill Burck. This is not an objective process,” said Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin.

But this is following the precedent set during the 2010 nomination of Elena Kagan. Document production from her years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan’s. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his Presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. Some documents related to Ms. Kagan’s White House tenure didn’t become public until 2014."

 

I think Grassley is getting his rocks off taunting Democrats with this stuff.

 

Edited by Kilmer17
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-sues-colorado-over-new-discrimination-allegation

Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado Over New Discrimination Allegation

 

"In the latest case, Phillips declined to make a cake for transgender woman Autumn Scardina in June. She requested a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to reflect her male-to-female transition, as she was coming out as transgender on her birthday. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission argued that Scardina was denied “equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation.” Attorney Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Phillips said, “The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs.”"

 

Wow.  Just dumb****ery all around.

 

This seems like the right place to post this.  Mods feel free to move if another thread is better.

Edited by Kilmer17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bearrock said:

FFS, is there only one ****ing baker in all of Colorado?

No ****.   And I’m certain the baker knew it was coming as well.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-document-fight-1534202892

The Kavanaugh Document Fight

Grassley is following the precedents set by Democrats on Kagan.

 

"In any event, Democrats are the ones demanding the unprecedented. Their latest complaint is that documents from Mr. Kavanaugh’s years in the White House counsel’s office are being vetted for release by William Burck, a former colleague in the George W. Bush White House. “Unless it was produced by the National Archives, every document you see from Judge Kavanaugh’s White House tenure was selectively chosen for release by his former deputy, Bill Burck. This is not an objective process,” said Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin.

But this is following the precedent set during the 2010 nomination of Elena Kagan. Document production from her years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan’s. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his Presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. Some documents related to Ms. Kagan’s White House tenure didn’t become public until 2014."

 

I think Grassley is getting his rocks off taunting Democrats with this stuff.

 

 

Once again, some small thing from the past is dug up specifically for the purpose of performing a much larger act of bull****tery in the present.

 

At the end of the day on Kagan, only about 2,000 of 170,000 documents were withheld.

 

From a SCOTUSBlog pdf on the topic:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yMGtJ7uZReMJ:www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Kagan-issues_privilege-June-301.pdf+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

Most pertinent part:

 

Quote
Under the PRA, roughly two thousand documents from the Clinton Administration have
been withheld from the public and deemed “Committee Confidential,” under the PRA
statutory restrictions related to privacy. In multiple letters detailing each release of
selected documents, Gary Stern, General Counsel for the National Archives, wrote that
the privacy restrictions applied in each instance are “consistent with . . . the records
provided in Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation.” In addition, Stern wrote that “we have
made every effort to withhold as little as possible and to provide portions of documents
where possible, rather than withholding an entire document.”

 

Setting aside that it appears someone besides Lindsey looked at these things, (Gary Stern the General Counsel for the National Archives) since trying to evaluate procedural involvement is hard from random articles, the end results are wildly different.

 

Grassley is trying to withhold 33% of documents.  Approximately 1.17% of Kagan's documents were withheld once all was said and done.

 

 

The primary problem isn't who is deciding what to withhold, as the WSJ opinion piece is talking about, it's how much those people are deciding to withhold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your concern is the difference in percentages?   

 

What SHOULD be an acceptable line to draw for the percent of docs made available to the public at large?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

So your concern is the difference in percentages?   

 

What SHOULD be an acceptable line to draw for the percent of docs made available to the public at large?

 

In a sense, yes.

 

It's vastly more likely that the procedure which resulted in 1.17% of 170,000 pages being withheld was done in a careful and thorough manner, utilizing withholding only where needed, whereas having 33% of documents withheld (and that, I suspect, is on a much smaller number of documents than actually exists, seeing as as of September 4, only about 300,000 of about 900,000 pages will have been prepped by the National Archives) suggests blanket withholding.

 

Simply put, the massive difference suggests the standards of release are completely different.

 

The burden falls squarely on Grassley to explain why such a huge number of documents being withheld is substantively similar to the much smaller withholding under any other nominee (and it should be noted that Roberts appears to have had a larger, but otherwise similarly small, % of documents withheld when compared to Kagan).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

In a sense, yes.

 

It's vastly more likely that the procedure which resulted in 1.17% of 170,000 pages being withheld was done in a careful and thorough manner, utilizing withholding only where needed, whereas having 33% of documents withheld (and that, I suspect, is on a much smaller number of documents than actually exists, seeing as as of September 4, only about 300,000 of about 900,000 pages will have been prepped by the National Archives) suggests blanket withholding.

 

Simply put, the massive difference suggests the standards of release are completely different.

 

The burden falls squarely on Grassley to explain why such a huge number of documents being withheld is substantively similar to the much smaller withholding under any other nominee (and it should be noted that Roberts appears to have had a larger, but otherwise similarly small, % of documents withheld when compared to Kagan).

Actually.  No he doesn’t.  That’s kind of what I’m saying. I think he’s just pushing liberal buttons for sport 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Actually.  No he doesn’t.  That’s kind of what I’m saying. I think he’s just pushing liberal buttons for sport 

 

Doubtful it's for sport, unless he decides to actually get in line with what happened for past nominees in terms of release.  If so then he could say he was trollin' the libs.

 

Of course, that would require delaying until the end of October at the earliest and there is basically a zero percent chance of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh is dangerous. He's a KOCH approved judge to advance an agenda of the destruction of our Union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

Kavanaugh is dangerous. He's a KOCH approved judge to advance an agenda of the destruction of our Union. 

That’s even too much hyperbole for you. 

 

Every judge on the heritage list list is probably Koch approved. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, I mean the idea that Kavanaugh is working on an agenda to destroy the union.  He's not Gru from Despicable me.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Every judge on the heritage list list is probably Koch approved. 

 

That's probably true. Which doesn't invalidate his point. 

19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

To clarify, I mean the idea that Kavanaugh is working on an agenda to destroy the union.  He's not Gru from Despicable me.

 

Just pointing out, the difference between "Gru from Despicable Me" and "every single Republican" is getting pretty hard to tell, over the last decade or two. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I think I'd be willing to accept Gru. Is he on the short list?

Nah.  Too jewish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Nah.  Too jewish.

 

 

But they let the Irish in. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

To clarify, I mean the idea that Kavanaugh is working on an agenda to destroy the union.  He's not Gru from Despicable me.

Wrong GRU.

 

*Ba dum tish*

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The polls numbers arent surprising.  But probably more of a reflection of Trump than him.  And irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The polls numbers arent surprising.  But probably more of a reflection of Trump than him.  And irrelevant.

 

If you are running for re-election though and blindly vote him in..does it hurt or help you more? The polling suggests one thing but obviously it would have to be examined at the micro level.

 

What's the rush though? Is it because they fear losing control of part or all of Congress?

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

If you are running for re-election though and blindly vote him in..does hurt or help you more? The polling suggests one thing but obviously it would have to be examined at the micro level.

Im sure there is a GOP Senator that this will hurt.  Just as I am sure that there is a Dem Senator that voting against him will also hurt.

 

Overall, I doubt it means a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does he differ from Gorsuch as far as qualifications and such?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.