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

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

If so, there would be no need to hide and suppress his records. This isn't a strategy for the GOP, it's complicity.

The Dems want more more more so they can delay the vote until after the election when there is a chance the GOP wont be in control.  It's a political move.  

[Hersh]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Watching the hearing and getting tired of the grandstanding. Your point has been made.  If you want to keep repeating it, go talk to the press.  Let's get on with the hearing. 

 

The longer they delay things, the more their staffs can get through the document dump from last night. Plus what @visionary said about pressure from the left is spot on. I'm really happy with what the Dems are doing. 

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

There’s a lot of pressure from the left and even the middle to hold this up as long as possible and at least look like they did everything they could to stop it.

Yes.  This.  This is exactly what they are trying to do.

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

The longer they delay things, the more their staffs can get through the document dump from last night. Plus what @visionary said about pressure from the left is spot on. I'm really happy with what the Dems are doing. 

Many on the left were happy when they got rid of the filibuster too.  Be careful what you wish for.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

The numbers just keep going up.

 

Edit: These people are actually lionizing Bork? Dude got voted down by Republicans too.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well they clearly are trying to cause a disruption, so that’s not completely accurate.  (Whether or not they have a good reason for it, or if it’s the right thing to do is a different issue.)

Edited September 4, 2018 by visionary

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, visionary said:

There’s a lot of pressure from the left and even the middle to hold this up as long as possible and at least look like they did everything they could to stop it.

I get that.  And as someone slightly right of center, it is bothering to me.  And I would be saying the same if it were the GOP doing it.  In the end, they know that cant stop it long enough to matter so now it is just wasting time. And as someone who will NOT vote trump in 2020, if one of the Dems here gets the nomination (Booker?) This will not help their case with me.  What they are doing now gives creadence to claims of bothsiderism. 

[Kilmer17]

11 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

The numbers just keep going up.

 

Edit: These people are actually lionizing Bork? Dude got voted down by Republicans too.

And supported by some Dems.  The good ol' days.....

[redskinss]

19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The Dems want more more more so they can delay the vote until after the election when there is a chance the GOP wont be in control.  It's a political move.  

God knows the GOP would never use that strategy. 

[The Evil Genius]

Meanwhile what we learn when we learn is disturbing.

 

 

[visionary]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I get that.  And as someone slightly right of center, it is bothering to me.  And I would be saying the same if it were the GOP doing it.  In the end, they know that cant stop it long enough to matter so now it is just wasting time. And as someone who will NOT vote trump in 2020, if one of the Dems here gets the nomination (Booker?) This will not help their case with me.  What they are doing now gives creadence to claims of bothsiderism. 

If the Dems were in control they would probably still have had a hearing though (unlike with Garland), and he would either be voted in or not, as usual.  In the end it will come down to a vote and he will likely pass unless something shocking comes out at the last minute, and likely even then.

Edited September 4, 2018 by visionary

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

God knows the GOP would never use that strategy. 

Careful.  Botherism etc.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[redskinss]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Careful.  Botherism etc.

I guess I don't fully follow you. 

Are you suggesting that the GOP blocking garland was different than what the democrats are doing now or are you suggesting two wrongs don't make a right? 

the GOP keeps changing the rules,  first it was "we can't vote in a supreme court justice in an election year the people need a voice"

Now its " this isn't a presidential election year"

If ginsburg should retire or heaven forbid pass in 2019 I'd bet both my arms the rules will change again. 

Unless of course the gop doesn't have full control anymore then they couldn't change the rules. 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

the GOP keeps changing the rules,  first it was "we can't vote in a supreme court justice in an election year the people need a voice"

Now its " this isn't a presidential election year"

If ginsburg should retire or heaven forbid pass in 2019 I'd bet both my arms the rules will change again. 

Unless of course the gop doesn't have full control anymore then they couldn't change the rules. 

And the Dems that claimed the GOP was wrong to prevent a vote that are now claiming we should wait are following the rules?

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, visionary said:

If the Dems were in control they would probably still have had a hearing though (unlike with Garland), and he would either be voted in or not, as usual.  In the end it will come down to a vote and he will likely pass unless something shocking comes out at the last minute, and likely even then.

Well I dont like to deal in what a group would "probably" do.  And I have said repeatedly I disapproved of what happened with Garland.

 

Like I said, the Left is losing points with me here.  Get your objection on the record and move on.  I want to see them start grilling Kavenaugh.

[twa]

54 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Has a President ever enacted executive privilege to hide records of a SCOTUS nominee before?

 

There have been many executive records withheld , Kagan was the last one

[visionary]

14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

And the Dems that claimed the GOP was wrong to prevent a vote that are now claiming we should wait are following the rules?

I think there is a difference between not having a vote and delaying a vote.  I don’t really see a big deal with delaying the process, though of course people are free to disagree.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

I think there is a difference between not having a vote and delaying a vote.  I don’t really see a big deal with delaying the process, though of course people are free to disagree.

The end results are the same.  Technically the GOP was just delaying the vote too until they won the WH.

 

Either way, one party was attempting to prevent the other parties nominee.

[redskinss]

19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

And the Dems that claimed the GOP was wrong to prevent a vote that are now claiming we should wait are following the rules?

So you're using the two wrongs don't make a right argument. 

Yes you're correct in that assessment but one of the reasons the gop wins so much is they don't play by the rules. 

The dems said it wasn't right to withold garlands nomination and the republicans said **** you. 

The dems are now trying to return the favor. 

I don't think it is right on either occasion but the gop did set the precedent with garland. 

[Kilmer17]

4 minutes ago, redskinss said:

So you're using the two wrongs don't make a right argument. 

Yes you're correct in that assessment but one of the reasons the gop wins so much is they don't play by the rules. 

The dems said it wasn't right to withold garlands nomination and the republicans said **** you. 

The dems are now trying to return the favor. 

I don't think it is right on either occasion but the gop did set the precedent with garland. 

I actually think both sides ARE playing by the rules.  But in both instances, the GOP had the votes to win.  Doesnt make it right, just legal.

[DogofWar1]

Oh my gawd this is stupid.

 

This is all a self inflicted wound by the GOP.  They could have waited until the docs came out.

 

Shoot, if the timetable was the problem they probably could have given some additional funding to the archives to get the review done faster.

 

They didn't.  They want to hide **** and get Brett confirmed before the stuff they hid comes out.

 

That is why they have released a mere 30% of documents while every other recent candidate has had 98%+ released, and yet are charging ahead.  Its why they have to draw a bunch of false equivalencies between Brett and Kagan despite Obama not asserting executive privilege on Kagan and something like 99% of her documents coming out.

 

Its nonsense.  Any amount, ANY amount of critical analysis will demonstrate this is a rush job by the GOP to get ahead of bad news in his documents.

[twa]

Grassley is following the precedents set by Democrats on Kagan.

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

[The Evil Genius]

36 minutes ago, twa said:

 

There have been many executive records withheld , Kagan was the last one

 

You positive about that? 

 

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/executive-privilege-cited-in-withholding-100-000-pages-of-kavanaugh-s-white-house-records-1.545519

 

Quote

 

President Barack Obama did not claim privilege on any of the documents involving now-Justice Elena Kagan, the last Supreme Court nominee to have served in a White House, according to Christopher Kang, who was a deputy counsel under Obama.

 

 

 

 

Quote

A senior Senate Democratic aide said Democrats believe this is the first time a sitting president exerted privilege under the records law to prevent disclosure of presidential documents to Congress, citing their conversations with National Archives officials.

Edited September 4, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Yes.  This.  This is exactly what they are trying to do.

Many on the left were happy when they got rid of the filibuster too.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

After unprecedented obstruction to filling vacant seats. You, and others on the right, always leave out that fact. 

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

After unprecedented obstruction to filling vacant seats. You, and others on the right, always leave out that fact. 

All within the rules.  The Dems are the ones who changed them.  Again, that's within the larger rules too.  Once changed though, the Dems then claimed that changing them was a bad thing.