McParadigm wrote:Any thoughts from our resident Court followers about the fact that this future Supreme Court Justice introduced himself to the public with a blatant lie whose only purpose was to sycophantically flatter the president’s ego?
Coming out of the gate with a propaganda-level falsehood on your way to the highest court in the land seems....not great?
Maybe it's just me, but the 300+ opinions he authored during his fifteen years on the appeals court seem more likely to be instructive about what to expect than anything uttered during an introductory exercise whose whole point is to flatter and wheedle and deliver exactly nothing of substance.
Maybe it’s just me, but they aren’t mutually exclusive, it is a revealing behavior, and we don’t have limited space to discuss.
This is like when some oily ESPN knob spends an entire segment analyzing the body language of a player or coach, convinced it reveals as much - or more! - about how that player or coach can be expected to perform as the weeks, months, and years of actual on-field performance that preceded this otherwise singularly oblique data point.
The noise of politics has completely consumed you.
Now, if you say the man is a swamp monster and serial ingratiator based on the entirety of his academic and professional experience, that's a different story.
But based on a single press conference? Pfft. That is pure noise.
--- wrote:Now, if you say the man is a swamp monster and serial ingratiator based on the entirety of his academic and professional experience, that's a different story.
But based on a single press conference? Pfft. That is pure noise.
Nobody said “swamp“ or “serial“ anything. Argue against what is.
And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office. To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.
It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.
McParadigm wrote:
And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.
This is totally different and completely fair.
McParadigm wrote:To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.
Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.
McParadigm wrote:It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.
McParadigm wrote:
And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.
This is totally different and completely fair.
McParadigm wrote:To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.
Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.
McParadigm wrote:It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.
And the thing is, I don’t disagree at all with your argument that his precedential work is more important as a tool of insight. I just can’t agree that everything outside that frame is unimportant.
McParadigm wrote:
And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.
This is totally different and completely fair.
McParadigm wrote:To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.
Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.
McParadigm wrote:It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.
And the thing is, I don’t disagree at all with your argument that his precedential work is more important as a tool of insight. I just can’t agree that everything outside that frame is unimportant.
It's less that I think "everything outside that frame is unimportant" than it is that I think this particular event is unimportant.
A prospective nominee being milquetoast and gracious - perhaps even sycophantic - to the guy who is essentially hiring him, and who has yet to run what will doubtlessly be an absolutely unhinged, overtly political appointment gauntlet, is par for the course. There is only downside to anything but staid boilerplate, even if that requires being liberal with the truth. There is literally no upside for Kavanaugh to play his cards any way other than how he played them.
It means nothing, and any time spent scrutinizing it is time wasted.
Last edited by --- on Tue July 10, 2018 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
McParadigm wrote:
And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.
This is totally different and completely fair.
McParadigm wrote:To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.
Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.
McParadigm wrote:It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.
And the thing is, I don’t disagree at all with your argument that his precedential work is more important as a tool of insight. I just can’t agree that everything outside that frame is unimportant.
It's less that I think "everything outside that frame is unimportant" than it is that I think this particular event is unimportant.
A prospective nominee being milquetoast and gracious - perhaps even sycophantic - to the guy who is essentially hiring him, and who has yet to run what will doubtlessly be an absolutely unhinged, overtly political appointment gauntlet, is par for the course. There is only downside to anything but staid boilerplate, even if that requires being liberal with the truth. There is literally no upside for Kavanaugh to play his cards any way other than how he played them.
It means nothing, and any time spent scrutinizing it is time wasted.
tragabigzanda wrote:The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS.
And you know this how?
Don't be a shithead, I don't "know" anything with any more or less certainty than you do. My belief is that Trump's intention is obvious because there is a wealth of conservative justices to draw from, but considerably fewer who hold this particular view on investigations into a POTUS.
Trump is so fucking obvious about all of his intentions.
tragabigzanda wrote:The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS.
And you know this how?
Don't be a shithead, I don't "know" anything with any more or less certainty than you do. My belief is that Trump's intention is obvious because there is a wealth of conservative justices to draw from, but considerably fewer who hold this particular view on investigations into a POTUS.
And yet one of us seems quite comfortable betraying certainty about something entirely unknowable, casting off every pretense of humility, for reasons I don't suppose I'll ever understand.
1. He is not a trans
2. He is not a woman
3. He is not gay
4. He is not black
SO HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT QUALIFIED
Shut up, the adults are talking now.
sorry jammer, we all didn’t go to Gudger College
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
yeah it’s not one-dimensional eco-terrorist hate-spew so i am having difficulty processing
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
