NationStates

Seangoli wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:If only Scalia had the decency to not die during an election year...

Its also a complete load of horseshit. There is no such lomg standing tradition at all. Kenedy himself was appointed in 1988, which was an election year. Numerous justices in the past 100 uears or so were appointed during election years.

It is true that its rare for a Justice to be appointed during an election year, butnthats because its rare to appoint a justice ever. You might as well say that its a long standing tradtion to not appoint a Justice in your first year in office, because there have been about as many of these in the past 100 years as there have been election year appoints.


The Republicans are absolutely the ones who turned the Supreme Court process political woth their bullshit with Garland, and fabricatong some sort of nonsensical nonexistent "tradition" to explain it away is bull. They have zero right to claim the Democrats are tryong to politicoze the process, because that is exactly what they did and frankly they started it.

The Supreme Court has been politicized long before anyone in this Senate was even born... At worst we're looking at an escalation of such.

Telconi wrote:

Seangoli wrote:
Its also a complete load of horseshit. There is no such lomg standing tradition at all. Kenedy himself was appointed in 1988, which was an election year. Numerous justices in the past 100 uears or so were appointed during election years.

It is true that its rare for a Justice to be appointed during an election year, butnthats because its rare to appoint a justice ever. You might as well say that its a long standing tradtion to not appoint a Justice in your first year in office, because there have been about as many of these in the past 100 years as there have been election year appoints.


The Republicans are absolutely the ones who turned the Supreme Court process political woth their bullshit with Garland, and fabricatong some sort of nonsensical nonexistent "tradition" to explain it away is bull. They have zero right to claim the Democrats are tryong to politicoze the process, because that is exactly what they did and frankly they started it.

The Supreme Court has been politicized long before anyone in this Senate was even born... At worst we're looking at an escalation of such.

While marginally true, we had a good 2-3 decades where it was far less so thay current. And the bullshit that the Republicans pulled in 2016 is pretty much unprecedented levels of political chicanery. While they are technically in their power to abstain from a confirmation hearing, such a thing as far as I am aware has never been done before,
particularly gicen that they flat out stated it was politically motivated. While politics always play out with SC justices to a degree, flat out using it as a platform flies in the entire face of what the SC is supposed to be.

Seangoli wrote:

Telconi wrote:The Supreme Court has been politicized long before anyone in this Senate was even born... At worst we're looking at an escalation of such.

While marginally true, we had a good 2-3 decades where it was far less so thay current. And the bullshit that the Republicans pulled in 2016 is pretty much unprecedented levels of political chicanery. While they are technically in their power to abstain from a confirmation hearing, such a thing as far as I am aware has never been done before,
particularly gicen that they flat out stated it was politically motivated. While politics always play out with SC justices to a degree, flat out using it as a platform flies in the entire face of what the SC is supposed to be.

I dunno, the whole mess of the Midnight Judges 200 years ago, when John Adams left an entire court of judges in the wake of Jefferson’s presidency? Imagine someone leaving over a dozen justices on the SC.

Luminesa wrote:

Seangoli wrote:
While marginally true, we had a good 2-3 decades where it was far less so thay current. And the bullshit that the Republicans pulled in 2016 is pretty much unprecedented levels of political chicanery. While they are technically in their power to abstain from a confirmation hearing, such a thing as far as I am aware has never been done before,
particularly gicen that they flat out stated it was politically motivated. While politics always play out with SC justices to a degree, flat out using it as a platform flies in the entire face of what the SC is supposed to be.

I dunno, the whole mess of the Midnight Judges 200 years ago, when John Adams left an entire court of judges behind in the wake of Jefferson’s presidency? Imagine someone leaving over a dozen justices on the SC.

Sure, but I temd not to concern myself with the politics from 200 years ago. Over the past many decades, the SC appointment process while not free from politicization, was at least not consumed by it.

Still, there is virtually no precedent for how the Republicans acted in 2016, and to claim some sort of adherence to "tradition" is laughable whem they themselves were the ones who broke with over 200 years of tradition on the subject.

Hakons wrote:

Ngelmish wrote:
Yeah, you're leaning harder into your (soft) partisan identity because you didn't like that aspect of the process. What I want to know is, does it weigh on you at all that the GOP tried to ram Kavanaugh through committee while refusing to release something like 90% of his records from the Bush administration? Does it weigh on you at all that he gave evasive and/or misleading answers to questions ranging from his role in various Bush administration activities to his adolescent behavior? I won't call any of it perjury at this time (pretty hard to do so when the relevant evasions have not been publicly examined), but it certainly contravenes the idea that a member of the judiciary should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth while under oath.

Because otherwise this whole thing is just an excuse for people on both sides to complain about, "But the process!" There's blame to go around. Democrats wanted a serious investigation far before the "circus." Republicans wanted Kavanaugh confirmed as quickly as possible with a cursory investigation at best.

That said, I do think this has the ability to move things back in favor of the Republicans, at least to a point, but I would want to wait to see what the next couple of weeks brings forward before I'd be absolutely sure of it.

The nomination wasn't particularly rushed, it was about average. Anything concluding before the midterms would have been called "rushed." Kavanaugh released around one million documents (far, far greater than any previous nominee) I'm not sure how many more are needed. Kavanaugh's behavior was an appropriate response to the vicious uncilivity of his questioners.

"The process" isn't a partisan point, it's a deathly real issue. The Democrats behaved horrendously as they every means of stopping a nomination while they were in the minority. I support due process and basic human decency, and it is quite clear the top Democrats support neither.

No, you're picking certain points in the process to be outraged about. Over 90% of Kavanaugh's Bush era records weren't released. That's a fact, not a conjecture. Records that would have indicated his role in the torture and rendition programs. Records that would have elaborated whether or not he was being misleading about his role in coaching Bush era judicial nominees that he point blank said he was not involved in. As for one million documents, the number is less important than the proportion. Republicans made no serious effort to address any of those concerns.

But since I know the real outrage is the more salacious stories that followed, let's go over that again. Fundamentally the issue is not about believing an accuser out of hand, it's, we should at least take a serious look at it. As for the underlying question of due process and which side was or was not appropriate: How thorough should an investigation be before due process can be declared? Kavanaugh was asked some embarrassing questions due to the nature of the allegations involved: None of those allegations were investigated in depth. If you want to claim they shouldn't have been because there's not a high enough evidentiary standard after the elapse of time, do so, but don't pretend that's due process. Due process would involve examining the claims of both accuser and accusee and their contemporaries who knew both of them to see which account was most internally consistent. Oh, and as for basic human decency, Kavanaugh wanted Bill Clinton to be asked specific questions like, "How many times did you ejaculate into Monica Lewinsky's mouth?" About the worst he was asked was, "Are these sexual references?" or, "Have you ever blacked out drinking?"

Condemning Democratic inquiries out of hand because they didn't want to confirm him in the first place is of course your prerogative, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate that their concerns were only, or even, political.

Ngelmish wrote:

Hakons wrote:
The nomination wasn't particularly rushed, it was about average. Anything concluding before the midterms would have been called "rushed." Kavanaugh released around one million documents (far, far greater than any previous nominee) I'm not sure how many more are needed. Kavanaugh's behavior was an appropriate response to the vicious uncilivity of his questioners.

"The process" isn't a partisan point, it's a deathly real issue. The Democrats behaved horrendously as they every means of stopping a nomination while they were in the minority. I support due process and basic human decency, and it is quite clear the top Democrats support neither.

No, you're picking certain points in the process to be outraged about. Over 90% of Kavanaugh's Bush era records weren't released. That's a fact, not a conjecture. Records that would have indicated his role in the torture and rendition programs. Records that would have elaborated whether or not he was being misleading about his role in coaching Bush era judicial nominees that he point blank said he was not involved in. As for one million documents, the number is less important than the proportion. Republicans made no serious effort to address any of those concerns.

And why should they when the people raising the issue as a concern are the very same people who declared before Kavanaugh was named as a nominee that they would oppose any nominee Trump offered?

Are you under the assumption that the Democrats were open to being convinced he was a worthy Justice?

But since I know the real outrage is the more salacious stories that followed, let's go over that again. Fundamentally the issue is not about believing an accuser out of hand, it's, we should at least take a serious look at it. As for the underlying question of due process and which side was or was not appropriate: How thorough should an investigation be before due process can be declared? Kavanaugh was asked some embarrassing questions due to the nature of the allegations involved: None of those allegations were investigated in depth. If you want to claim they shouldn't have been because there's not a high enough evidentiary standard after the elapse of time, do so, but don't pretend that's due process. Due process would involve examining the claims of both accuser and accusee and their contemporaries who knew both of them to see which account was most internally consistent. Oh, and as for basic human decency, Kavanaugh wanted Bill Clinton to be asked specific questions like, "How many times did you ejaculate into Monica Lewinsky's mouth?" About the worst he was asked was, "Are these sexual references?" or, "Have you ever blacked out drinking?"

Condemning Democratic inquiries out of hand because they didn't want to confirm him in the first place is of course your prerogative, but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate that their concerns were only, or even, political.

Nonsense. You are being ridiculous. Any investigation into these allegations could have been handled from the start. All Feinstein had to do was request an inquiry on the basis of information she had received anonymously the day she received Fords letter. Instead, she sat on the allegations for weeks.

Then, Senate Republicans offered to start a Senate Investigation the day after Feinstein went public. She rebuffed them.

Then, 2 days after that offer, Ford went public - to the media rather than to the Senate or the authorities. Senate Republicans offered her an opportunity to speak in public, in private, in DC, or at a place of her choosing that day.

Instead, Ford waffled and squawked and obviated about being unavailable to travel, expressed fear of confronting the man who allegedly assaulted her, insisted that he defend himself before she would testify, demanded a female to speak to her, etc etc etc. Blah blah blah.

And then, Senator Flake got them an FBI investigation.

Thing is, the FBI investigates federal crimes. Ford made a misdemeanor allegation. From 36 years ago. Without evidence, corroboration, witnesses, a criminal report, or a crime scene. So in order for the FBI to investigate, they have to be grant greater authority in a limited scope lest they violate their constitutional limitations.

You wouldn't want #literallyhitler to exceed his constitutional authority would you?

Thus, the ONLY way the FBI could investigate properly was to speak to witnesses, analyze a crime scene, consult historical records, etc etc. Since they couldn't (because, you know, Ford offered nothing except people who rebuked her allegations), they were reduced to asking questions of the same people who had already offered sworn testimony to the Senate Committee. Further, the Senate Investigators have greater authority than the FBI does for precisely this reason. If the Senate Dems were really interested in "the truth", they could have just asked Kavanaugh questions. To his face. As he sat in front of them. Since they did... what could the FBI do?

Travel back in time?

All in all, the Dems had 87 days to review Kavanaugh. 87 days. 45 days since Feinstein unveiled the note. "How thorough should an investigation be before due process can be declared?" That's something you should ask the Democrat scum on that committee.

This was a political hit. Period.

Distruzio wrote:-snip-

I'm rather irritated at the conservative insistence that they have a monopoly on being "constitutional" given their penchant for ignoring the first, fifth, sixth, and arguably the seventh amendments, just as frequent abuse of executive power, and in many cases desire to disregard or eliminate the fourteenth amendment.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Yes the GOP are hypocrites. So are the Dems.

"I-I don't like either side, t-they're both flawed" - people who invariably clearly support one side but want to give themselves asspats for being independent.

Apparently, one cannot find positive and negative points in both parties without being branded an "X in denial".

Your attitude is the reason why America is now stuck in this Democratic-Republican deadlock hellhole, because anybody that isn't some rabid rabies-infected dog for their party (i.e. those with moderate leanings, centrists, or Third Way proponents) is instantly slammed as a "coward", "X in denial", "traitor", "pussy", "attention whore", etc...

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Thuzbekistan wrote:Are you suggesting that it is better to have an incompetent president than a competent president if that president happens to be of a different party?

Frankly, opponents of Trump would probably elect bloody Stalin if he ran against Trump, so I'm not even surprised.

Nowadays, even the sh*ttiest candidates are considered if they are anti-Trump, and almost none actually consider said candidates' platforms.

Not really. Many people preferred Clinton because they preferred her intentions. Also many trump supporters justified their support for him by citing their hatred of Clinton so you're literally accusing Trump opponents of what Trump supporters admit to doing.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Actually, about the dems dirty tactics.

People didn't seem to be mad at the dirty tactics used by the GOP to block Garland, and that was actively happening during the election.

I think republicans have an ideological opposition to accusations of sexual assault being taken seriously. They generally prefer tradition which would include gender roles so it's likely they view what Ford accused Kavanaugh of as 'normal' behaviour and the democratic reaction to it abnormal.

Tobleste wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Frankly, opponents of Trump would probably elect bloody Stalin if he ran against Trump, so I'm not even surprised.

Nowadays, even the sh*ttiest candidates are considered if they are anti-Trump, and almost none actually consider said candidates' platforms.

Not really. Many people preferred Clinton because they preferred her intentions. Also many trump supporters justified their support for him by citing their hatred of Clinton so you're literally accusing Trump opponents of what Trump supporters admit to doing.

and you also have people voting Republican because they want to make the liberals cry or voting Republican is all I know and I'll never change. I've seen it in areas of my state.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:"I-I don't like either side, t-they're both flawed" - people who invariably clearly support one side but want to give themselves asspats for being independent.

Apparently, one cannot find positive and negative points in both parties without being branded an "X in denial".

Your attitude is the reason why America is now stuck in this Democratic-Republican deadlock hellhole, because anybody that isn't some rabid rabies-infected dog for their party (i.e. those with moderate leanings, centrists, or Third Way proponents) is instantly slammed as a "coward", "X in denial", "traitor", "pussy", "attention whore", etc...

I mean, its one thing to be legit an independent, its another entirely to call oneself an independent while repeatedly only bashing one group of people. Its not as bad as saying "I'm not a racist, but...", however, it is rather irritating, unless of course one clearly states their positions. If one does not state that they actively stand for something, then it is not unreasonable to assume that they stand with the group opposite the one they're attacking. That being said coward is kinda ridiculous, though I have far worse terms for some people who subscribe to the "third position" given that third positionism is literally another term used to describe fascism, and it would logical to conclude that someone who is a third positionist on this forum knows exactly that.

Post War America wrote:

Distruzio wrote:-snip-

I'm rather irritated at the conservative insistence that they have a monopoly on being "constitutional" given their penchant for ignoring the first, fifth, sixth, and arguably the seventh amendments, just as frequent abuse of executive power, and in many cases desire to disregard or eliminate the fourteenth amendment.

Silly boy, the Constitution has only one amendment -- the Second.

Thuzbekistan wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So when did Garland get his due process? Or does it not count when the Republicans completely throw it out for the sake of obstructionism?

Why cant both parties just start punishing this behavior? This partisan bs. Ideally they would be punished in the polls.

Because people don't vote for parties based on their competence or morality, they vote based on their beliefs and culture. That's the genius of McConnell and trump. They both understood that republicans are ok with obstruction and bullying if it's done to the 'others' (democrats).

Maineiacs wrote:

Post War America wrote:
I'm rather irritated at the conservative insistence that they have a monopoly on being "constitutional" given their penchant for ignoring the first, fifth, sixth, and arguably the seventh amendments, just as frequent abuse of executive power, and in many cases desire to disregard or eliminate the fourteenth amendment.

Silly boy, the Constitution has only one amendment -- the Second.

You forgot the first, but only when protecting the right of Christians to act like discriminatory dicks, and "alternative race identitarians" to have a platform anywhere they want one without being called out.

Hakons wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If Republicans could do it in 2016 why cant democrats do the same in 2020?

Yes, if they take the senate, they would do the same. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Senate checking the Presidency, just at some point we have to find a compromise where nominations get through in times of split government.

Well republicans said the way to do that was to nominate a moderate like Garland. Unfortunately McConnell knew that any Obama appointment had to be stopped. Now after the anger liberals feel over Kavanaugh, any democrat senate will be under pressure to never vote for any republican nominee and to steal back the Garland/Gorsuch seat.

Post War America wrote:

Distruzio wrote:-snip-

I'm rather irritated at the conservative insistence that they have a monopoly on being "constitutional" given their penchant for ignoring the first, fifth, sixth, and arguably the seventh amendments, just as frequent abuse of executive power, and in many cases desire to disregard or eliminate the fourteenth amendment.

To be fair, this is both sides...

Post War America wrote:

Distruzio wrote:-snip-

I'm rather irritated at the conservative insistence that they have a monopoly on being "constitutional" given their penchant for ignoring the first, fifth, sixth, and arguably the seventh amendments, just as frequent abuse of executive power, and in many cases desire to disregard or eliminate the fourteenth amendment.

The conservative conception of what the Constitution means is closer to the original. The Alien and Sedition Acts for example got approved by Congress, the Senate, the Executive and SCOTUS (whose Chief Justice was appointed by George Washington). Liberals today would say this is a gross violation of the Constitution if conservatives did something similar, but it's really not, it's just a gross violation of the retconned conception of the Constitution cultivated by progressives.

Tobleste wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Yes, if they take the senate, they would do the same. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Senate checking the Presidency, just at some point we have to find a compromise where nominations get through in times of split government.

Well republicans said the way to do that was to nominate a moderate like Garland. Unfortunately McConnell knew that any Obama appointment had to be stopped. Now after the anger liberals feel over Kavanaugh, any democrat senate will be under pressure to never vote for any republican nominee and to steal back the Garland/Gorsuch seat.

""""Moderate""", like Garland" he says...

So, pray tell, what positions was Garland moderate on? or what conservative positions did he hold to balance his liberal ones?

Mardla wrote:

Post War America wrote:
I'm rather irritated at the conservative insistence that they have a monopoly on being "constitutional" given their penchant for ignoring the first, fifth, sixth, and arguably the seventh amendments, just as frequent abuse of executive power, and in many cases desire to disregard or eliminate the fourteenth amendment.

The conservative conception of what the Constitution means is closer to the original. The Alien and Sedition Acts for example got approved by Congress, the Senate, the Executive and SCOTUS (whose Chief Justice was appointed by George Washington). Liberals today would say this is a gross violation of the Constitution if conservatives did something similar, but it's really not, it's just a gross violation of the retconned conception of the Constitution cultivated by progressives.

But the Sedition Act did violate the First Amendment? It was only allowed to stay because Federalists controlled all three branches? You'd have a better narrative if you said that Progressive are the modern descendants of Federalists.

Valrifell wrote:

Mardla wrote:The conservative conception of what the Constitution means is closer to the original. The Alien and Sedition Acts for example got approved by Congress, the Senate, the Executive and SCOTUS (whose Chief Justice was appointed by George Washington). Liberals today would say this is a gross violation of the Constitution if conservatives did something similar, but it's really not, it's just a gross violation of the retconned conception of the Constitution cultivated by progressives.

But the Sedition Act did violate the First Amendment? It was only allowed to stay because Federalists controlled all three branches? You'd have a better narrative if you said that Progressive are the modern descendants of Federalists.

The Federalists were the ones who wrote and advocated the Constitution, lol

Mardla wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
But the Sedition Act did violate the First Amendment? It was only allowed to stay because Federalists controlled all three branches? You'd have a better narrative if you said that Progressive are the modern descendants of Federalists.

The Federalists were the ones who wrote and advocated the Constitution, lol

Partially correct. They were advocates and half-authors with the Jeffersonians in opposition to them, also partially comprised of authors and framers of the Constitution.

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If Republicans could do it in 2016 why cant democrats do the same in 2020?

They can, and any of y'all who cried about Garland and support it would also be hypocrites...

I get that as a conservative the concept of personal responsibility is alien to you, but when you throw the first, second, third and fourth punches, when the other guy punches back you don't get to wail "OH! Oh! I thought he said he didn't want to fight! What a hypocrite! That totally proves he's just as bad as me!"

There was no precedent for Republicans simply declaring in 2016 that they would no longer even entertain nominees from a sitting Democratic President, and no Joe Biden talking about possibly refusing to confirm a hypothetical nominee for a vacancy that never existed 30 years ago doesn't qualify, and your venal self-serving attempts to claim that if Democrats do anything but roll over and accept Republicans constantly being power-grasping scumbags it would be hypocrisy retroactively justifying Republicans being power-grasping scumbags is BS.

Myrensis wrote:

Telconi wrote:
They can, and any of y'all who cried about Garland and support it would also be hypocrites...

I get that as a conservative the concept of personal responsibility is alien to you, but when you throw the first, second, third and fourth punches, when the other guy punches back you don't get to wail "OH! Oh! I thought he said he didn't want to fight! What a hypocrite! That totally proves he's just as bad as me!"

There was no precedent for Republicans simply declaring in 2016 that they would no longer even entertain nominees from a sitting Democratic President, and no Joe Biden talking about possibly refusing to confirm a hypothetical nominee for a vacancy that never existed 30 years ago doesn't qualify, and your venal self-serving attempts to claim that if Democrats do anything but roll over and accept Republicans constantly being power-grasping scumbags it would be hypocrisy retroactively justifying Republicans being power-grasping scumbags is BS.

Comes with being a shameless partisan hack who's fine with Democratic nominees being blocked while getting outraged if a Republican nominee ever is.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Apparently, one cannot find positive and negative points in both parties without being branded an "X in denial".

One certainly can. But token "T-the other side too" bull when one is quite consistent in who they side with isn't enough to save you from such accusations.