SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Kilmer17]

Did we get the same document dump from the current Justices?  

 

I dont believe the left is genuine in their demand to see Kavanagh’s docs.  I think it’s nothing more than a political exercise attempting to derail his nomination.  All fair game I suppose.  But it’s also why I don’t care that Kavanaugh and the GOP are essentially ignoring them. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/kagan-documents-to-go-online-038126

 

[DogofWar1]

Don't hack too hard Kilmer, you might accidentally cause the tree to fall on yourself.

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont believe the left is genuine in their demand to see Kavanagh’s docs.  I think it’s nothing more than a political exercise attempting to derail his nomination. 

 

I assume you're right.  

 

Just like the Republicans demanding Hillary's emails.  

 

My point is that the one who handed over the goods is still subjected to chants of :Lock Her Up", by people who believe that she got rid of a bunch.  And those same people will just as loudly announce that it is completely unreasonable to ask for similar disclosure from someone on their side.  

[Kilmer17]

15 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Don't hack too hard Kilmer, you might accidentally cause the tree to fall on yourself.

Personal attacks becoming more and more prevalent.  Knock yourself out.  It’s easier than refuting my arguments. 

[Kilmer17]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I assume you're right.  

 

Just like the Republicans demanding Hillary's emails.  

 

My point is that the one who handed over the goods is still subjected to chants of :Lock Her Up", by people who believe that she got rid of a bunch.  And those same people will just as loudly announce that it is completely unreasonable to ask for similar disclosure from someone on their side.  

 

I agree with you. But how does that relate to Kavanaughs qualification?   Why should rabid republican attacks on Hillary be a reason to oppose Kavanaugh?

[bearrock]

The only concern I would have in the staff secretary records would be if the records show that he was clearly not an honest broker and repeatedly pushed some dogmatic agenda (I sincerely doubt this) or if there is a particular position for which his position is on record and such position is totally whacko (I doubt this too.  But I would like to see his role and position on torture and executive power).  

 

If you are distinguished enough to be nominated for SCOTUS, you are usually going to have sufficient qualifications for the job (maybe not Harriet Miers).  Much of the advise and consent process naturally will center around checking to see if there is anything that would disqualify you from the job.  In that sense, I don't think the Dems are being unreasonable in asking for the staff secretary records.

[Larry]

27 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I agree with you. But how does that relate to Kavanaughs qualification?   Why should rabid republican attacks on Hillary be a reason to oppose Kavanaugh?

 

Oh, I don't know of any reason to oppose him.  

 

Although that rather bothers me, too.  I'm firmly convinced that, to be a Republican SC nominee, one must have spent 20 years proclaiming one's loyalty to the Party, when in Party-only settings, while being incredibly careful to never ever reveal it in front of any non-Party witnesses.  

 

(I figure it's likely that the Dems do the same thing.  I'm just not as certain of it.  They don't seem to have put in the effort to be as professionally dishonest as the R's.)  

 

I recall when W nominated his secretary to the SC.  The Party howled because he wasn't nominating somebody from one of the Republican-pedigree-issuing agencies.  W's response, in public, was "Hey, people, trust me.  She's worked for me for 30 years.  I know how she feels about abortion."  

 

[DogofWar1]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Personal attacks becoming more and more prevalent.  Knock yourself out.  It’s easier than refuting my arguments. 

 

Benning already did that. 

 

You're playing games and then excusing playing games by arguing the other side is playing games.  It's your MO these days.  You always analyze just deep enough to *maybe* make the point you want to (some twisting required), and then ignore everyone and everything else.

 

This whole situation is stupid, and Republicans have made it stupid.  They want to ram Brett through before midterms, because reasons, but they can't actually pull that off while also getting all the documents, which is a fairly standard procedure (it *looks* like the time before this any significant amount of documentation was withheld before hearings was Alito), so they, and you, attack the document release procedures.

 

If the GOP wasn't so dead set on rushing him through, everything could be released, as it ought to be, and as is the usual procedure, and guess what?  Any minor problems that are just things for the left to hyperventilate over they could just wait out and after everyone calms down about it, continue moving forward.

 

But they can't do that, oh no.  They need to get Brett through, and need to do it early enough and with sufficiently little information released so that there aren't any October surprises on Brett.  Because if it comes out in mid-October he once wrote something really bad, that might hurt GOP chances and boy oh boy we can't have that.

 

 

Seriously, from top to bottom this whole thing is garbage.

 

From the almost certain backroom chicanery regarding Kennedy leaving when he did, do the fact that they picked the ONE guy who has hinted he believes in a President above legal reproach while President, to the ramming through of him without following documentation procedures, this whole thing has been one giant con executed on the American people, with the GOP and Trump moving in concert to achieve both of their goals (the former wanting a long-time Scalia-clone, and the latter wanting someone who will rule in his favor when the inevitable cases come at him).

 

And they know they can't achieve both of those with someone else most likely (seeing as many of the others are one of 1) too moderate for the GOP's liking, 2) too opposed to an imperial presidency for Trump's liking, or 3) isn't distinguished enough, like they graduated from Mason or something), and can't achieve Brett if they follow normal procedures, so hot diggity damn we gotsta play the system and ram ram RAM like Trump at an Epstein party.

[DogofWar1]

Also the notion his writings aren't relevant is some dumb political sloganeering.

 

If the guy was some rabid communist in college I feel like that might be relevant.  If he wrote before he was on the bench that Brown v. Board was wrongly decided, that's kinda relevant.  Or imagine if he wrote a bunch of stuff directly contradicting SCOTUS' recent gay marriage back well before that decision was handed down?  Isn't it relevant to learn that?

 

I'm not interested in crucifying him for believing things that were once not ruled on by SCOTUS at the time of the writing but have been since ruled on.  I AM interested in if he's going to stick to those guns despite changes in SCOTUS rulings and try to overturn precedent after precedent.

 

And we can't know about that unless we ask.  And we can't know if we need to ask unless we see the docs.

 

So maybe we should follow usual procedures instead of trying to beat election day and release and evaluate all the documents.

 

If he's the lovely little angel the GOP keeps saying he is, there shouldn't be any problems.

 

 

 

And here's the thing, the vast majority of docs could get out AND hearings could still happen before election day, and definitely before the new Congress is sworn in, so the GOP could have their cake and eat ours too, but they are so scared about what's in those writings and the impact they might have on the elections that they aren't even contemplating letting them come out.

 

Bunch of political cowardice.

[Kilmer17]

Of course the GOP wants him confirmed before the midterms.  That shouldn’t be a shock or surprise to anyone. 

 

Why should they wait and take the chance of not maintaining their majority to confirm?

 

 

[DogofWar1]

8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Of course the GOP wants him confirmed before the midterms.  That shouldn’t be a shock or surprise to anyone. 

 

Why should they wait and take the chance of not maintaining their majority to confirm?

That's the thing, they could confirm him before the midterms and still let the docs come out, the review and release could be finished by the end of October.

 

It's not like they need 60 votes.  They could do the hearings near the end of October and vote in early November.

 

But that could cost them seats.  So of course they cut corners.

 

And the funny thing is, it's likely anyone but Brett wouldn't be a problem, or at least anywhere near as much of a problem, with regards to forcing through in early November.  Force a guy through right at the deadline who isn't Brett?  Probably fine.

 

Brett is only a problem because he has talked so much about Presidential power in the fact of law enforcement investigations, and hinted towards opposing Presidents being subject to criminal justice proceedings while President.

 

Nobody else probably has that kind of bomb hiding in their documents.  Brett might.  If that goes off on, say, November 2nd, sure, they can still get him through, but boy oh boy that'd really be an electoral problem.

Edited August 11, 2018 by DogofWar1

[skinsmarydu]

And then there's everything the Kochs are up to. I can't remember where I saw it (Vice or Democracy Now, I think). Very scary. 

[nonniey]

3 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

And then there's everything the Kochs are up to. I can't remember where I saw it (Vice or Democracy Now, I think). Very scary. 

Never seen Vice but no one should let anything presented by Democracy Now scare them. It essentially the same as Alex Jones Infowars but from the other side of the coin.

[skinsmarydu]

It's nothing of the sort. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

10 hours ago, nonniey said:

Never seen Vice but no one should let anything presented by Democracy Now scare them. It essentially the same as Alex Jones Infowars but from the other side of the coin.

What a nonsense filled post

[bearrock]

10 hours ago, nonniey said:

Never seen Vice but no one should let anything presented by Democracy Now scare them. It essentially the same as Alex Jones Infowars but from the other side of the coin.

Oh good, I was looking for a new source for my latest gay frog chemical updates 

[TradeTheBeal!]

10 hours ago, nonniey said:

Never seen Vice but no one should let anything presented by Democracy Now scare them. It essentially the same as Alex Jones Infowars but from the other side of the coin.

 

THERE’S A WAR FOR YOUR MIND!*

 

 

*In your case, it was just a mild skirmish followed by a hasty surrender.

[DogofWar1]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone from Democracy Now rip off their shirt and chase someone down a street.

 

Just sayin'.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

I don't think I've ever seen anyone from Democracy Now rip off their shirt and chase someone down a street.

 

Just sayin'.

Amy Goodman isn’t pimping out anthroplex either.

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Amy Goodman isn’t pimping out anthroplex either.

The difference between the two is in style only. When it comes to substance just the opposite side of the same coin.

Edited August 12, 2018 by nonniey

[Fresh8686]

19 minutes ago, nonniey said:

The difference between the two is in style only. When it comes to substance just the opposite side of the same coin.

 

Never mind, this nonsense is a waste of my time. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by Fresh8686

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Never mind, this nonsense is a waste of my time. 

So it's got to the point on this board that several posters here use and defend the radical or alt-left huh? Because there is no real disputing that is what Amy Goodman and Democracy are.  BTW why did you change your original post? Did you get smacked over it (and no I didn't report it)?

Edited August 12, 2018 by nonniey

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So it's got to the point on this board that several posters here use and defend the radical or alt-left huh? Because there is no real disputing that is what Amy Goodman and Democracy are.  BTW why did you change your original post? Did you get smacked over it (and no I didn't report it)?

 

If you call that defending the alt-left then I think its equally fair to say you defend the alt-right. You get on both knees for them FAR more than anyone here does for Goodman. That shouldn't be argued. Is that really where you wanna go with this? 

 

You try to play this game all the time. It's funny, but annoying. 

[Fresh8686]

1 minute ago, nonniey said:

So it's got to the point on this board that several posters here use and defend the radical or alt-left huh? Because there is no real disputing that is what Amy Goodman and Democracy are.  BTW why did you change your original post did you get smacked over it (and no I didn't report it).

Nope, no one said anything to me. It's a waste of my time to argue with people who are intellectually dishonest. So I policed myself and kept my review of your mental faculties to the back pages of my mental space