Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Or they could just release all the documents.

Please. I don’t want this guy on the court, but there is something like 300+ cases to judge him on. Performance art falsely creating a hope that you can stall until the election is the worst kind of disrespectful politics there is.

Maybe, but it's also completely rational. See 2016.

tragabigzanda wrote:spoke with a friend last week who clerked in a federal appellate court before her current legal/gov't gig, and she said the common reading amongst her colleagues of Kavanaugh's "settles law" statement is that he's open to letting states and/or the fed dismantle abortion access through other measures that don't interfere with Roe directly.

This is the same as Roberts, Alito, and other conservative jurists. They've been allowing this sort of thing since at least Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I think there's one before that but I can't think of it.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Or they could just release all the documents.

Please. I don’t want this guy on the court, but there is something like 300+ cases to judge him on. Performance art falsely creating a hope that you can stall until the election is the worst kind of disrespectful politics there is.

You feel that majority document withholding for a Supreme Court nominee, insistence on pre-submitted questions, and refusal to delay a few days so people have time to read yesterday’s dump is, therefore, not the worst kind of disrespectful politics there is.

“But his documents!”


No. It’s shitty, but within the rules. Once in the hearing, showboating and feigning outrage to disrupt a longstanding established process is childish and below people like Ms. Harris. She is better than that.

There have been precious few days that I have found the election of Donald Trump pleasing. This is one of them.

Yeah, my thoughts when this moment happened were “there it is.”

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Or they could just release all the documents.

Please. I don’t want this guy on the court, but there is something like 300+ cases to judge him on. Performance art falsely creating a hope that you can stall until the election is the worst kind of disrespectful politics there is.

You feel that majority document withholding for a Supreme Court nominee, insistence on pre-submitted questions, and refusal to delay a few days so people have time to read yesterday’s dump is, therefore, not the worst kind of disrespectful politics there is.

“But his documents!”


No. It’s shitty, but within the rules. Once in the hearing, showboating and feigning outrage to disrupt a longstanding established process is childish and below people like Ms. Harris. She is better than that.

Quite obviously, she isn't.

It’s shitty, but within the rules.

“It’s within the rules” is an argument that could be and has been used to mask a multitude of actions that were never legally disallowed solely because our government wrongly considers honor of precedent to be more or less invincible. Do you believe that every other Supreme Court nominee’s full records were provided just for the lulls?

The idea that anything less than the full set can be “enough cases“ to judge a nominee for the highest court is hilarious. If someone accused me of being racist, and I provided 300 of my posts on RM as a defense but refused them access to the rest, there’s a reason that would immediately make me look infinitely more suspicious. And it sure wouldn’t be grandstanding for them to demand the rest

McParadigm wrote:

It’s shitty, but within the rules.

“It’s within the rules” is an argument that could be and has been used to mask a multitude of actions that were never legally disallowed solely because our government wrongly considers honor of precedent to be more or less invincible. Do you believe that every other Supreme Court nominee’s full records were provided just for the lulls?

See, respecting precedence is important, but it doesn’t matter. This is a purely political process. Unless his secret rulings as a secret judge in some secret court are filled with racist language, it’s as good as done based on partisan makeup. But sure, keep on tilting. Those windmills deserve it and those TV sound bites won’t make themselves.

McParadigm wrote: The idea that anything less than the full set can be “enough cases“ to judge a nominee for the highest court is hilarious. If someone accused me of being racist, and I provided 300 of my posts on RM as a defense but refused them access to the rest, there’s a reason that would immediately make me look infinitely more suspicious. And it sure wouldn’t be grandstanding for them to demand the rest

Any person as educated as you knows this is a fallacious argument.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

It’s shitty, but within the rules.

“It’s within the rules” is an argument that could be and has been used to mask a multitude of actions that were never legally disallowed solely because our government wrongly considers honor of precedent to be more or less invincible. Do you believe that every other Supreme Court nominee’s full records were provided just for the lulls?

See, respecting precedence is important, but it doesn’t matter. This is a purely political process. Unless his secret rulings as a secret judge in some secret court are filled with racist language, it’s as good as done based on partisan makeup. But sure, keep on tilting. Those windmills deserve it and those TV sound bites won’t make themselves.

McParadigm wrote: The idea that anything less than the full set can be “enough cases“ to judge a nominee for the highest court is hilarious. If someone accused me of being racist, and I provided 300 of my posts on RM as a defense but refused them access to the rest, there’s a reason that would immediately make me look infinitely more suspicious. And it sure wouldn’t be grandstanding for them to demand the rest

Any person as educated as you knows this is a fallacious argument.

A full set isn't required. But a cherry picked collection can't be representative either.

respecting precedence is important, but it doesn’t matter. This is a purely political process. Unless his secret rulings as a secret judge in some secret court are filled with racist language, it’s as good as done based on partisan makeup.

Less fantastical would be the existence of comments that indicate positions on topics like executive authority, abortion, or gay rights that are intentionally not made evident by his answers in these hearings. His statement that Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” which is evasive at best, is a great example.

Every effort is being made by both the nominee and the Republican Party to prevent public clarity on his positions relative to these issues, because he is already historically unpopular and because they don’t want the political fallout of nominating a justice whose purpose is to undermine existing popular law. This isn’t about getting him on the bench. That will happen. It’s about getting him on the bench without people finding out what made him appealing to you in the first place, because exactly those stances are politically costly. Documents aren’t being withheld because Republicans fear Kavanaugh might be rejected. It can’t happen. Documents are being withheld, and the process distorted, solely because there is an election coming.

The idea that THAT is reasonable but that democrats not playing along is not is silly to me. But not as silly as “they don’t have enough votes to stop him so they should just roll over and let it happen.“

I'm not watching a second of this. I don't think it matters.

I'm running under the assumption that Kavanaugh gets confirmed unless and until there's an indication that a GOP senator or two is getting cold feet.

Green Habit wrote:I'm not watching a second of this. I don't think it matters.

I'm running under the assumption that Kavanaugh gets confirmed unless and until there's an indication that a GOP senator or two is getting cold feet.

Finally, a man of reason.

Bi_3 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I'm not watching a second of this. I don't think it matters.

I'm running under the assumption that Kavanaugh gets confirmed unless and until there's an indication that a GOP senator or two is getting cold feet.

Finally, a man of reason.

Not that there is anything you, i, or anyone here could do - but this is exactly the indifference, and normalization of that which should not be - could severely damage many a things we hold dear for this country.

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I'm not watching a second of this. I don't think it matters.

I'm running under the assumption that Kavanaugh gets confirmed unless and until there's an indication that a GOP senator or two is getting cold feet.

Finally, a man of reason.

Not that there is anything you, i, or anyone here could do - but this is exactly the indifference, and normalization of that which should not be - could severely damage many a things we hold dear for this country.

Fighting unwinnable battles does not make one a hero, but often it exhausts your will and your resources. That’s why the term triage exists.

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I'm not watching a second of this. I don't think it matters.

I'm running under the assumption that Kavanaugh gets confirmed unless and until there's an indication that a GOP senator or two is getting cold feet.

Finally, a man of reason.

Not that there is anything you, i, or anyone here could do - but this is exactly the indifference, and normalization of that which should not be - could severely damage many a things we hold dear for this country.

Fighting unwinnable battles does not make one a hero, but often it exhausts your will and your resources. That’s why the term triage exists.

And then I found that my will to fight was spent, wasted like blood seeping into the soil on questions at a hearing.

Is today's hearing as contentious as the last two pages of this thread?

Yes

McParadigm wrote:

This snub will probably play better for Democrats than anything in his papers would.

4/5 wrote:This snub will probably play better for Democrats than anything in his papers would.

What do you think would have happened if he did it?