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

[The Evil Genius]

 

[twa]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

You positive about that? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I am, your effort to limit it to executive privilege is noted though.?

 

Quote

 

The Obama Administration produced no documents—none—from Justice Kagan’s years in the Solicitor General’s office because they were said to relate to executive-branch deliberations on legal issues. The staff secretary’s documents are much less relevant to legal matters than those from the SG’s office.

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

 

 

and some records from her WH time were withheld

[Hersh]

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

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.

 

You are laughably full of ****. Seriously. You blame a group for reacting to a bad situation. You are doing it with the protesters and you are doing it now. You refuse to examine why something was done. It reminds me of the utter stupidity by some when they say "the left preaches being tolerant except they don't tolerate racist people. Such hypocrites." 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Hersh

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Careful.  Botherism etc.

 

Its always entertaining to me when one of the sides goes out of their way to be hypocrites about things in a situation they can’t win anyways. Guess they get to rile up the base. 

 

3 minutes ago, twa said:

and some records from her WH time were withheld

... but the tweet said 100% of the documents were released 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

You are laughably full of ****. Seriously. You blame a group for reacting to a bad situation. You are doing it with the protesters and you are doing it now. You refuse to examine why something was done. It reminds me of the utterly stupidity by some when they say "the left preaches being tolerant except they don't tolerate racist people. Such hypocrites." 

 

So it's the GOPs fault that they didnt bow to the desires of the Dems when they were in the minority, forcing the Dems to change the rules?  And then once the rules were changed, it was also the GOPs fault for not bowing to the Dems who were THEN in the minority forcing the Dems to now complain that the rules can be changed?

[The Evil Genius]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Yes I am, your effort to limit it to executive privilege is noted though.?

 

 

Did you even read the original post? That was the actual question.

 

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

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

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

So it's the GOPs fault that they didnt bow to the desires of the Dems when they were in the minority, forcing the Dems to change the rules?  And then once the rules were changed, it was also the GOPs fault for not bowing to the Dems who were THEN in the minority forcing the Dems to now complain that the rules can be changed?

 

You proved my point. You don't look at the reason the rules were changed. It had nothing to do with the GOP not bowing to the Dems desires. 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

You proved my point. You don't look at the reason the rules were changed. It had nothing to do with the GOP not bowing to the Dems desires. 

It had everything to do with it.  The GOP did what they could under the rules to prevent Dem nominees from being confirmed.  So the Dems changed the rules.  Which is allowed.  Then the GOP changed the rules, which is also allowed.  And the Dems have lost their ****ing minds about it.

[DogofWar1]

29 minutes ago, twa said:

Grassley is following the precedents set by Democrats on Kagan.

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

That article is about as twisted as can be.  They are not following the same path.  They are withholding way more and no WSJ op-ed can change that.

 

Kilmer and I literally discussed that article a couple weeks ago.  It's trash analysis.

[Hersh]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

It had everything to do with it.  The GOP did what they could under the rules to prevent Dem nominees from being confirmed.  So the Dems changed the rules.  Which is allowed.  Then the GOP changed the rules, which is also allowed.  And the Dems have lost their ****ing minds about it.

 

The GOP changed the normal order of judicial nominees on lower courts getting confirmed in a reasonable amount of time. That's the actual answer and the reason everything else happened. 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

The GOP changed the normal order of judicial nominees on lower courts getting confirmed in a reasonable amount of time. That's the actual answer and the reason everything else happened. 

"As they were allowed to do under Senate rules." is the end of the answer.

[DogofWar1]

So everyone is doing everything within the rules.

 

Cool.

 

Now can we move onto the fact that there is no way to reasonably equate Dems and the GOP on morals and good governance?

[tshile]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

Now can we move onto the fact that there is no way to reasonably equate Dems and the GOP on morals and good governance?

You’re right. One is sinister. The other is incompetent. 

[twa]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Did you even read the original post? That was the actual question.

 

 

Did you read my post you quoted? ?

 

Kagans records as SG were considered protected by executive privilege and not released AS WELL as some of her WH records withheld.

 

we can quibble over the method or just accept the reality they were withheld.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-07-27 CEG to Durbin - Kavanaugh Records.pdf

 

 

 

[visionary]

Kyl gets his kickback.

 

 

[LD0506]

Damn, Ted Cruz is so full of **** he has to pay two other people to handle the overflow..............

 

[Hersh]

20 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

"As they were allowed to do under Senate rules." is the end of the answer.

 

And if it’s within the rules and can’t possibly be bad for the country or cause anything negative. Talk about being obtuse.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Hersh said:

 

And if it’s within the rules and can’t possibly be bad for the country or cause anything negative. Talk about being obtuse.

It certainly CAN be bad.  The question should be was reducing the number of left wing judges being confirmed good or bad?  Or were the moves made by Dems to prevent GOP nominees prior to that good or bad?

[Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It certainly CAN be bad.  The question should be was reducing the number of left wing judges being confirmed good or bad?  Or were the moves made by Dems to prevent GOP nominees prior to that good or bad?

 

No, that should not be the question. Preventing a nominee here or there is how the system worked and it had worked well for the most part. Preventing as many judicial nominees from filling vacant seats as one side can is not how the system has worked nor should it have devolved to that. Mitch McConnell is 100% responsible for what has happened.

[Kilmer17]

So it IS ok to prevent a nominee, you just didnt like the percent the GOP prevented?  What percent is acceptable?

Edited September 4, 2018 by Kilmer17

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[twa]

That tweet is wrong

[Hersh]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

So it IS ok to prevent a nominee, you just didnt like the percent the GOP prevented?  What percent is acceptable?

 

I’m tired of your bs. No one ever said all nominees have to be approved. That has never been the issue with regard to the obstruction McConnell did. If you don’t understand or don’t care that’s on you. You are obviously okay with negative impacts on the country so long as it’s your party in control. I don’t respect that position at all.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I’m tired of your bs. No one ever said all nominees have to be approved. That has never been the issue with regard to the obstruction McConnell did. If you don’t understand or don’t care that’s on you. You are obviously okay with negative impacts on the country so long as it’s your party in control. I don’t respect that position at all.

And I dont respect hypocrital posts.  Either it's wrong to obstruct for political reasons or it is not.  The percentage is irrelevant.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Kilmer17

[DogofWar1]

10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

And I dont respect hypocrital posts.  Either it's wrong to obstruct for political reasons or it is not.  The percentage is irrelevant.

The above isn't being said in the context of being relevant to Brett, right?

 

He made 200k in debt disappear and is not a magician by trade.

 

Something's fishy.  Investigating that isn't politics.