The Kavanaugh Hearing

Jamie

wow - any thoughts - predictions?  I'm a few minutes behind - it's pretty amazing.


Like  
Morganna

More than anything in politics, this is the reason people need to vote. Lifetime appointments to people who will decide the most important issues of our lives. This hearing is infuriating. Good coverage on Kavanaugh last night on Rachel Maddow.

and Sen. Dianne Feinstein is making a strong case.


Like  
South
Morganna said:
This hearing is infuriating. Good coverage on Kavanaugh last night on Rachel Maddow.

 Can't be.  All the Bernie fans who attack the Russia investigation claim that Rachel only covers Russia,Russia,Russia and nothing else.


Like  1 Like
South

Love how the GOP is so offended that the Democrats want to delay hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.


Like  2 Likes
Joseph

Shameless. Like Trump.


Like  1 Like
Joseph

Hatch just cited Kavanaugh's preference for pasta with catsup. Enough reason to reject him.


Like  
South
GL2 said:
Hatch just cited Kavanaugh's preference for pasta with catsup. Enough reason to reject him.

 That's a Utah thing.  A friend of mine has told me about his stop one time in Kanab, Utah.  He had the "veal parmagiana", which was a veal patty with ketchup and a slice of cheese on top.


Like  
Jamie

Who's the lawyer that deemed a lot of the documents committee confidential?  Bill Burke or something?


Like  
Morganna

Senator Sheldon is making quite a case. Who did his research? Sounds pretty impressive. A nice mix of data and snark.


Like  1 Like
Morganna
jamie said:
Who's the lawyer that deemed a lot of the documents committee confidential?  Bill Burke or something?

 http://www.news-herald.com/article/HR/20180902/NEWS/180909906


Like  
Jamie

Hmm, so Kavanaugh’s friend and former deputy at the Bush White House was the one determining what was confidential?  Wow!  


Like  1 Like
apple44

I'm sure it's interesting to watch and they'll be a lot of noise over the withheld documents, but as he only needs 51 votes for confirmation (owing to Harry Reid pushing for that change), I don't see how the confirmation doesn't happen.

It's a lifetime appointment and he can easily serve 30 if not 40 years. Ultimately whether he gets 51 or 91 votes really doesn't matter and isn't going to change how he decides on the bench.

Amazing to me that Trump isn't even two years in and he's already had the opportunity to change almost a quarter of the Court, let alone what is happening at the other levels. And that is why many of Trump's least enthusiastic supporters will stick with Trump.


Like  
Morganna

Trying to get the numbers right.

Trump has had 1 Supreme Court judge approved and another in the process.

He has had 26 judges confirmed in the Courts of Appeals

33 in the District Courts

2 in Tax Courts

4 in Appeals for Veterans Claims

1 in Appeals for Armed Forces

and a gazillion pending.

So basically this creep is shaping the law for light years.



Like  
Terry

Yeah for better or for worse, barring some giant bombshell coming out in the very near future, Kavanaugh's appointment seems a fait accompli. Democrats and protestors are making their voices heard, but it's just noise. 


Like  
qrysdonnell

Regardless of the nearly inevitable Republican rubber stamp, this is some pretty horrible optics...

https://twitter.com/rob_bennett/status/1037040612296613894


Like  
BG9
Morganna said:
Trying to get the numbers right.
Trump has had 1 Supreme Court judge approved and another in the process.
He has had 26 judges confirmed in the Courts of Appeals
33 in the District Courts
2 in Tax Courts
4 in Appeals for Veterans Claims
1 in Appeals for Armed Forces
and a gazillion pending.
So basically this creep is shaping the law for light years.


I brought up the Federal judge lifetime appointments issue several times before the 2016 election. That during Obama's last year the Republicans senate was holding up Obama's judicial nominees, hoping to get a Republican president to stack the courts for a generation. It paid off.

It seems I was talking to a wall. Very rarely did anyone comment on this. And now we see where we are. Not nice.

Thank you Democratic voters to lazy to vote and you who voted third party. The Republicans are laughing.


Like  
Tom

A light year is a measure of distance not of time.


Like  
Ridley
Tom_Reingold said:
A light year is a measure of distance not of time.

 A light year is like a regular year, but less filling.


Like  
Tom
ridski said:


Tom_Reingold said:
A light year is a measure of distance not of time.
 A light year is like a regular year, but less filling.

 You're thinking of a Lite Yeer.


Like  
Morganna
BG9 said:


Morganna said:
Trying to get the numbers right.
Trump has had 1 Supreme Court judge approved and another in the process.
He has had 26 judges confirmed in the Courts of Appeals
33 in the District Courts
2 in Tax Courts
4 in Appeals for Veterans Claims
1 in Appeals for Armed Forces
and a gazillion pending.
So basically this creep is shaping the law for light years.
I brought up the Federal judge lifetime appointments issue several times before the 2016 election. That during Obama's last year the Republicans senate was holding up Obama's judicial nominees, hoping to get a Republican president to stack the courts for a generation. It paid off.
It seems I was talking to a wall. Very rarely did anyone comment on this. And now we see where we are. Not nice.

Thank you Democratic voters to lazy to vote and you who voted third party. The Republicans are laughing.

 So did I.

 Lindsey Graham gave a scathing speech at the end of the hearing today pointing out that Roe v Wade was the litmus test for Dems and each side had their opinions so if the Dems wanted to pick judges they had to win elections. Harsh but true.

Someone who voted for Trump told me if it didn't work out it was only for 4 years. I asked if she supported a woman's right to chose and she assured me she did, as did another Trump supporter . When I mentioned SCOTUS, both were insistent that it would never be overturned.

Another father concluded that it would stay legal in NJ.

I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone.



Like  
dave23
Morganna said:

 So did I.
 Lindsey Graham gave a scathing speech at the end of the hearing today pointing out that Roe v Wade was the litmus test for Dems and each side had their opinions so if the Dems wanted to pick judges they had to win elections. Harsh but true.

 Obama won twice and was denied the opportunity to give Garland a hearing.


Like  
Morganna
dave23 said:


Morganna said:
 So did I.
 Lindsey Graham gave a scathing speech at the end of the hearing today pointing out that Roe v Wade was the litmus test for Dems and each side had their opinions so if the Dems wanted to pick judges they had to win elections. Harsh but true.
 Obama won twice and was denied the opportunity to give Garland a hearing.

 That is true but he did get to pick Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Just hoped that people would have been more worried about Trump having the chance to fill the new seats.


Like  
joanne

I've tried to make sense of what was covered here, and just found it totally baffling. 

For one thing, I'm still not sure why the president gets to nominate judges - even if there is a series of 'panel interviews' via these committee meetings. I thought your system was meant to be very very clear that government-of-the-day is distinctly separate from judiciary/enforcement which is also meant to be separate from religious influences. So all three are distinct realms. 

We have a very different system, in which a different kind of politics (from within the legal world) is in play. The Attorneys-General get to select the shortlist and the Justice Dept has more say about who's appointed. Public sentiment seems to be considered more, along the way. (There were some controversial appointments a few years back)

But withholding important background information, seemingly not listening to ordinary people (nor finding a way to accommodate their protest), ignoring a person with a genuine concern (the grieving parents), not holding proper discussion nor debate... None of this seems within the spirit of your system. It also seems highly challengable later, if government changes. ?


Like  
nohero
Tom_Reingold said:
A light year is a measure of distance not of time.

 When Han Solo said the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, did you correct him, also?  cheese 


Like  
Mike
Smedley said:
Yeah for better or for worse, barring some giant bombshell coming out in the very near future, Kavanaugh's appointment seems a fait accompli. Democrats and protestors are making their voices heard, but it's just noise. 

 And if by some miracle the Dems are able to stop Kavanaugh's nomination, I'm sure there are much worse candidates ready to be promoted by Trump. 


Like  
Jamie

Questioning phase will be interesting.  His stance on guns appears to be pretty frightening.


Like  
Danny
joanne said:
I've tried to make sense of what was covered here, and just found it totally baffling. 
For one thing, I'm still not sure why the president gets to nominate judges.

 Article II of the US Constitution expressly grants this power to the President.


Like  2 Likes
LOST
joanne said:
I've tried to make sense of what was covered here, and just found it totally baffling. 
For one thing, I'm still not sure why the president gets to nominate judges - even if there is a series of 'panel interviews' via these committee meetings. I thought your system was meant to be very very clear that government-of-the-day is distinctly separate from judiciary/enforcement which is also meant to be separate from religious influences. So all three are distinct realms. 

It's very different from your system. There are three branches of Government. The Executive is the President. There is no specific mention of Cabinet Officers in our Constitution other than the President picks them subject to approval by the Senate which is called "advice and consent". BTW you may learn a lot by reading the novel "Advise and Consent" though it was written in the 50s and some customs have changed.

The President nominates Judges. There is really no one else who can play that role. The Senate then gets to "advise and consent" which means they get to vote "yes" or "no". The Senate has organized itself into Committees to streamline its work but the Committees can only make recommendations to the full Senate.


BTW my wife ran into an Australian in New York who told her that your immediate ex-PM was in his apartment in New York City. Did you hear that?


Like  1 Like

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business