US Politics: Judge Dread

[Morpheus]

The SC is a motivator for Republcans in a way it isn’t for Dems. If there is an opening, I think they would rather try again with Republicans rather than risk Dems blocking anti-abortion candidates or just outright refusing to let Trump pick as long as he is under investigation.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Democrats find their answer to the Koch brothers
Democratic House candidates raised nearly $36 million online in August, giving many the resources to air early TV ads.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/democrats-midterms-money-donors-small-853856

 

Maybe there are large numbers of donors like this household who are doing small monthly automatic donations to certain campaigns?  What I mean is where it matters and would do good, as for Beto O'Rourke in Texas, though not to far too many Dems for the state assumbly 

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

There are no structural barriers. Only time barriers and they have plenty of time. (it's about 50 days) There is the outside chance that they would nominate someone else who would turn out to be somehow unfit, but the chance seems exceedingly small.

The reason they might feel that Republican voters won't respond well if the seat is left open is that Republican voters are constantly paranoid about being betrayed by their politicians. And it's compounded by many betrayals as they see it regarding the SC. There is a very real chance that the seat being left open would drive down Republican base turnout in the midterms out of sheer anger, either at incompetence, or a sense of betrayal.

To the first point, then I don’t get why they don’t simply nominate someone else asap.    I’ve seen various articles saying that appointing someone would be “more difficult” during a lame duck period, but I’m unclear as to what those additional difficulties would be.  And from what you’re saying, it sounds like there really wouldn’t be a practical impediment.

And on the second point, I think that would make more sense if this was happening before primaries.  I totally get that the GOP punishes its politicians, but isn’t that what they use primary season for?   I’m with Morpheus on this— it’s inconceivable to me that they’d purposely cede an open seat and let Dems take over as a form of punishment to their leaders.   I’d think they’d fall in line and make more of a point to get to the polls if the seat is still open.

I guess the best explanation I can think of for not pulling this guy is that the GOP can’t figure out a way to do so while saving face.   My (admittedly non-expert) read on this is that pushing him through prior to the election might make a Dem Senate takeover more likely, and perhaps inspire an even more mobilized 2020 Dem base.  And it sounds like they totally could get a less divisive figure on the court regardless of which side takes the Senate.  So are they basically just afraid of looking stupid if they back down?

[illrede]

24 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

To the first point, then I don’t get why they don’t simply nominate someone else asap.

 

Don't Beg The Question, and approach it from assuming innocence. In that situation, a prospect selected largely for good character and professional performance is personally ruined until their dying day through the application of pristine conviction in accusation (something uncontrollable) and ultimately, nothing else of substance. This will truncate your future pool of nominees  of good character and professional competence greatly. They have to fight this one out for the sake of precedent.

[Zorral]

The SCOTUS can now sell beer endorsements to the highest beer bidders!

[Morpheus]

His good character is an illusion. He has commited perjury and in general just lies every time he open his mouth. Classmates have come out since thursday saying he is lying about his drinking and behavior in high school and college. He is a partisan hack who puts his beliefs above the law as he did last year when he blocked an abortion without good legal standing.  A character based defence of Kavanaugh doesn’t hold up to facts.

[illrede]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

His good character is an illusion. He has commited perjury and in general just lies every time he open his mouth. Classmates have come out since thursday saying he is lying about his drinking and behavior in high school and college. He is a partisan hack who puts his beliefs above the law as he did last year when he blocked an abortion without good legal standing.  A character based defence of Kavanaugh doesn’t hold up to facts.

 

Again, reason after having assumed innocence. A person holding this belief (of which there appear to be triple-digit millions), were the path of least resistance taken in this specific matter, would be incentivized to have nothing to do with the current administration (as a nominee prospect, (when one such whose personal character was used as an asset by the administration was then not defended against destruction when this drew the interest of that administration's enemies for reason of their political convenience) or a bystander (who sees the situation as such)). Given the circumstance, there could only have been a fight.

[butterbumps!]

13 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

His good character is an illusion. He has commited perjury and in general just lies every time he open his mouth. Classmates have come out since thursday saying he is lying about his drinking and behavior in high school and college. He is a partisan hack who puts his beliefs above the law as he did last year when he blocked an abortion without good legal standing.  A character based defence of Kavanaugh doesn’t hold up to facts.

Yea, this is exactly what I’m talking about.  This guy has a ton of baggage, not least of which is being caught in a ton of lies.   He just seems super toxic, even for the GOP (not to mention in terms of credibility and esteem for the court itself).   Why is this asshole still worth fighting for?   Precedent doesn’t make a satisfying explanation; Harriet Miers was previously pulled for unsuitability.   

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, illrede said:

 

Again, reason after having assumed innocence. A person holding this belief (of which there appear to be triple-digit millions), were the path of least resistance taken in this specific matter, would be incentivized to have nothing to do with the current administration (as a nominee prospect, when one such whose personal character was used as an asset by the administration was then not defended against destruction when this drew the interest of that administration's enemies for reason of their political convenience) or a bystander (who sees the situation as such). Given the circumstance, there could only have been a fight.

Word salad-y?  Coz I've re-read this three times and still have no idea what it says.

[OldGimletEye]

59 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 Why is this asshole still worth fighting for?      

1. To own the libs. If liberals are against something, then conservatives must be for it.

2. Conservatives have been waiting for this chance to control the Supreme Court for generations and now they are so close, I guess they don't want to wait a second longer.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

To the first point, then I don’t get why they don’t simply nominate someone else asap.    I’ve seen various articles saying that appointing someone would be “more difficult” during a lame duck period, but I’m unclear as to what those additional difficulties would be.  And from what you’re saying, it sounds like there really wouldn’t be a practical impediment.

And on the second point, I think that would make more sense if this was happening before primaries.  I totally get that the GOP punishes its politicians, but isn’t that what they use primary season for?   I’m with Morpheus on this— it’s inconceivable to me that they’d purposely cede an open seat and let Dems take over as a form of punishment to their leaders.   I’d think they’d fall in line and make more of a point to get to the polls if the seat is still open.

I guess the best explanation I can think of for not pulling this guy is that the GOP can’t figure out a way to do so while saving face.   My (admittedly non-expert) read on this is that pushing him through prior to the election might make a Dem Senate takeover more likely, and perhaps inspire an even more mobilized 2020 Dem base.  And it sounds like they totally could get a less divisive figure on the court regardless of which side takes the Senate.  So are they basically just afraid of looking stupid if they back down?

I share some of your confusion as to why they haven't pulled him. It would seem to be the rational move. I guess they do have some time though, to attempt to push him through, and if that fails they can still drop him later if necessary. It seems like it will be politically costly, however, regardless of outcome. 

I heard David Weigel, a reporter for the Washington Post on the radio last week and he said something that may provide a clue. He said that any other Republican President would have already dropped Kavanaugh. My suspicion is that Trump is strongly driving this. And Trump was Kavanaugh's main audience when he had his big tantrum. Trump want to win at all cost. He likely also loves the idea of placing a sexual abuser on the SC for decades.

And Trump isn't thinking long term like John Roberts is, thinking about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. This will likely destroy it if Kavanaugh gets on.

[OldGimletEye]

11 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I heard David Weigel, a reporter for the Washington Post on the radio last week and he said something that may provide a clue. He said that any other Republican President would have already dropped Kavanaugh. My suspicion is that Trump is strongly driving this. And Trump was Kavanaugh's main audience when he had his big tantrum. Trump want to win at all cost. He likely also loves the idea of placing a sexual abuser on the SC for decades.

I could be wrong about this.
But, I'm not too sure this is the only explanation. It maybe a partial one.
I think Republican politicians are scared of the base more than anything else and the base very much wants Kavanaugh confirmed.
Republican politicians/elites were quite willing to create a monster in order to win elections. And now, they can't control the monster and it wants Kavanaugh confirmed. Anything else will look like backing down to the libs.

[Chaircat Meow]

No one think that to someone without liberal priors Kavanaugh's statement seemed to be just how an innocent person would react to false accusations (I thought it was very convincing) and that therefore Republicans have every reason to push ahead with the confirmation because refusing to let a good man be injured by old and unverifiable allegations is the right thing to do. 

[illrede]

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Word salad-y?  Coz I've re-read this three times and still have no idea what it says.

Adjusted a parentheses. That should clear it up.

[illrede]

13 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No one think that to someone without liberal priors Kavanaugh's statement seemed to be just how an innocent person would react to false accusations (I thought it was very convincing) and that therefore Republicans have every reason to push ahead with the confirmation because refusing to let a good man be injured by old and unverifiable allegations is the right thing to do. 

I thought it was implied. If you can assume innocence or failing that assume that any other given person could (which you ought to be able to, as the point of contention is non-falsifiable- you're getting opinions here), there shouldn't be any confusion.

[Fragile Bird]

22 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No one think that to someone without liberal priors Kavanaugh's statement seemed to be just how an innocent person would react to false accusations (I thought it was very convincing) and that therefore Republicans have every reason to push ahead with the confirmation because refusing to let a good man be injured by old and unverifiable allegations is the right thing to do. 

Try reading some history. Many judges  have been turned down on accusations, and many have been turned down without accusations, just because they weren't liked. Guess what - the Presidents involved nominated other candidates that got appointed.

The Democrats don't like him because, among other things, of his judgements at his current job, because of his apparent lies, and now, because of the accusations. Why go out of the way to fight for this nomination? There are dozens of good candidates out there.

McConnell suggested Kavanaugh was "one of the greatest legal minds" in America. I looked at his record and I don't see any incredible judicial record of decisions there, mainly just partisan ones.

As for him being 'a good man', please tell us what standard of 'good' you used? The Republicans saying so? The partisan ads of women they lined up months ago and have been running in ads for months? Why have they been running ads with women saying what a great guy he is? Maybe because when Republicans did their vetting they came across stories about his conduct in high school, university and law school and there were worries about crossing this bridge, or Ford, as I said in the last thread?

Did you even watch the hearings? Who the hell wants a man with that temperament on the bench of their Supreme Court?

[butterbumps!]

So I suppose Hillary really needed a playbook of histrionics, outrageous compulsive lies, assorted pointless bullshitting, and of course foaming at the mouth attacks against her questioners during those Benghazi depositions.     Those without “liberal priors” would have found her very convincing it turns out.      

[Seli]

23 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No one think that to someone without liberal priors Kavanaugh's statement seemed to be just how an innocent person would react to false accusations (I thought it was very convincing) and that therefore Republicans have every reason to push ahead with the confirmation because refusing to let a good man be injured by old and unverifiable allegations is the right thing to do. 

No, he would have welcomed investigation in that case. And not lied in his conformation about the way he acted during his school years.

Of course the man is so ill suited the American Bar Association has voiced concerns for at least two of his nominations now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.37a1a7588645

[David Selig]

Most Republicans both in and outside Congress only care about results and winning, ethical concerns are completely irrelevant. They couldn't care less about  Cavanaugh's character, his lies under oath or whether he committed the sexual assault, they only care whether he'd vote in their favour when on the SC. 56% of the polled Republican supported even admitted this outright, and probably quite a few more where thinking it but were ashamed to admit even anonymously. 

[Chaircat Meow]

20 minutes ago, Seli said:

No, he would have welcomed investigation in that case. And not lied in his conformation about the way he acted during his school years.

Of course the man is so ill suited the American Bar Association has voiced concerns for at least two of his nominations now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.37a1a7588645

Source?

This isn't him just saying him saying he did not drink to excess and someone else calling him a 'sloppy drunk' is it?

If it is that's rather subjective.