Discussion in 'GC Hall of Fame' started by ursidman, Sep 4, 2018.
The perfect trifecta Saturday. Enjoy your time off Louisville, you've earned it!
Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh.
We're resting much better now, thank you.
My take on Kavanaugh nomination.
First, it was a done deal from the moment that Trump announced the nomination. Republicans have more party discipline than Democrats and virtually always march in lockstep. Despite the charade of the hearings and reopened FBI background investigation Flake and Collins were always going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump primarily for one reason, his views on the limits, or more accurately the lack thereof, on executive power. Although the it was an 8-0 decision Kavanaugh expressed the opinion that the Nixon tapes decision was improperly decided and expressed other opinions that could be construed that not only is a sitting president immune from indictment he may even be immune from investigation and process, including (implicitly) a grand jury subpoena. Trump could have withdrawn Kavanaugh's nomination early on and nominated another prospective nominee equally qualified and equally conservative (or even more conservative in the case of Amy Coney Barrett) on social issues, specifically abortion and Roe v. Wade. He insisted on sticking with Kavanaugh, because anything less wouldn't be "winning" and he really wanted (or perhaps needed) his lapdog on the court. In my humble opinion Kavanaugh's perjury regarding his role in the Bush White House during his hearings when he was nominated for the Circuit Court of Appeals would have been more of a disqualifying factor than the recent and much more highly publicized allegations of sexual assault. The Democrats probably couldn't have raised the older misstatements by Kavanaugh because they ignored the statements the first time around and raising the issue again would make them appear to be hypocrites. Although very few if any of the Republican politicians (although not so with some conservative commentators) said it, a good part of their rationale for ignoring Blasey Ford was the notion that Kavanaugh deserved a pass for a youthful discretion when he was 17. While the liberals pushed for it, Blasey Ford's testimony was essentially political theater. Although she may have told the truth, it was essentially a case of he said/she said with the Republicans on the Committee and in the full Senate for that matter using the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Pubs have made a big deal over the lack of corroborating witnesses. While true, it would have been extremely unlikely that high school contemporaries of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford would been able to recall the details of one out of literally dozens of parties that they may have attended back in 1982. And having no recollection of an event doesn't mean that event never happened although that has been the narrative of Kavanaugh's supporters. As far as the reopened FBI investigation is concerned it was so limited in both time and scope by Don McGhan on behalf of Trump that the chances of uncovering any corroboration were extremely slim.
Just my 2 cents. Trump now has his stooge (not in terms of competence or intellect since Kavanaugh does possess those qualities, but in willingness to protect the Dear Leader) on the court and the Republicans now have their victory.
It was a hit job but I don't blame Ford.
No, she couldn't give any specifics...which make it impossible left to prove did or didn't happen. And makes it impossible for Cavanaugh to defense himself.
However, none of this was ever supposed to be a public affair. It was written and sent in confidence that it would remain confidential and that she would remain anonymous.
It could have very easily been I investigated under those terms. Nothing would have come of that I investigation however due to the lack of details and evidence.
So what happens. Difi holds the info until she can make the most political hay with it. And then...conveniently it gets "leaked".
Now Ford has no real option to remain anonymous.
Now Ford and Kavanaugh are made a spectacle. Dragged through the mud and sewer by both sides of our political spectrum. Each side dug in. Each side said some terrible things. People on this board.
Some call Kavanaugh "raped" with no evidence or deltas to support it. "It's not a criminal case so he doesn't have to be innocent u til proven guilty."
Others call Ford a liar and then claim no one would have wanted to rape her the way she looked.
All embarrassing. Not just foe the party they represent but for Americans and humanity.
And all because certain politicians wanted to make a political scene.
Hahaha - Gotta love all the sour grapes on this board!
It's called MAGA people!
The real reasons BK should not be on the SC. Its not because of the circus.
It won't load need to go to the link
MAGA (Making America Great Again) will happen in 2020 when Trump goes down to defeat in his bid for reelection.
You know you're on the wrong side when RBG is disgusted.
Here's an actual reasonable analysis of Kavanaugh done by someone that knows what they are talking about, not a pretty video made by a Pizzagate advocate.
Judge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment - SCOTUSblog
And this is why I referred to Kavanaugh as Trump's lapdog.
Kavanaugh’s first vote could be in Trump executive power fight
Brett Kavanaugh’s Radical View of Executive Power
Kavanaugh on presidential power: Law-review article on investigations of sitting presidents (UPDATED) - SCOTUSblog
Where does Brett Kavanaugh see the limits of executive power?
Brett Kavanaugh questioned U.S. v. Nixon ruling on Watergate tapes
Kavanaugh Declines to Say Whether Presidents Must Comply With a Subpoena
Kavanaugh did say that a president should be required to respond to a subpoena . . .over 20 years ago . . . when the president was Bill Clinton and Kavanaugh was working for Ken Starr.
Your summation is worth a great deal more than 2 cents. Well done, VA.
That guy is really sad.
Just a question for @philobeddoe why the "Come On Man" given that the linked articles indicate that Brett Kavanaough's history and writings illustrate a strong propensity to defer to and protect the president, especially given that the current POTUS is under investigation and may be subpoenaed by special counsel? Also, if the House does flip to the Democrats Kavanaugh is very likely to uphold claims of executive privilege with respect to any request for documents by the House (most likely the Judiciary Committee or Intelligence Committee) given his expressed criticism of the 8-0 decision in US v. Nixon. By way, in a one sentence summary the court in the Nixon tapes case held that executive privilege cannot be used to conceal documents in an investigation of the president for potential criminal/impeachable activity.
And what was your feelings on Kagan and Sotomayor? Where they not lapdogs. Where they clearly qualified or did they get their nominations due to some other reason?
"RIP the left."
Fixed it for you...
The difference is that Trump is currently under investigation by a special counsel and if the Dems regain control of the House, very likely by Committees of the House of Representatives which could possibly lead to impeachment. Kavanaugh has the potential to limit the scope of those investigations. As my links indicated Kavanaugh has expressed opinions indicating that the authority to conduct of investigations of the president by both Congress and a special counsel should be limited. Not the case of Kagan and Sotomayor for two reasons. First, Obama was never under investigation and secondly, neither of his nominees expressed the opinion that investigations of the president should be subject to limitations. Kavanaugh could (not saying that he will, but it's likely) become the personal protector of the president on the court. Obama may have had concerns regarding SCOTUS decisions affecting his legislative agenda or executive orders, but he was never under investigation personally unlike Trump.
Seriously, though Kagan is actually pretty good. Anybody that tells you they know for certain what a justice is going to do on any particular issue or what they are going to be like over time basically is saying they are smarter than all the people who work for the administration and top legal think tanks that have been wrong on many occasions in the past. All that because some article they read in Vox says the dude is going to be a fascist or the one in Breitbart says they are going to be a socialist. Based on that graph shown earlier they pretty much all tend to drift over time and often don't end up the way you expect on any given issue.
Well done sir, I don't agree with all of you said (particularly the last paragraph) but you said it well. Appreciate your opinion and it is worth more than 2 cents.
Just to be clear
You feel that both Kagan and Sotomayor were selected and confirmed based on their strong judicial qualifications and not based upon how they might further the help the president or his political identification in some way. Because unless we cutting the hairs mighty thin if they were selected for one of those reasons they would and could be considered lapdog not picked for their qualifications as a judge but for political purposes.