Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 5 Next >>
Topic: How about that Mitch McConnell? Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30832
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 5:18am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

I wish Trump would nominate Ivanka. Just as a middle finger to
everybody. Then watch McConnell and his band of snakes rush to
defend his choice and confirm her. There are no constitutional
requirements for being a Supreme Court Justice, so why not?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15727
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 8:04am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

If that's your position I disagree.  We'd never be able to approve anyone as a justice, because political opponents could immediately disqualify any candidate by making unfounded accusations against them.  That's why it was important that due process take its course here.
------------------------------------------------
The process should be: a candidate is considered on all the available evidence. If new evidence comes to light, that evidence is considered. If it us unfounded or not credible, it is discarded. Such a process would not block anyone from being approved -- it is in fact how the process is supposed to be done. A candidate is nominated, the senate weighs up the info available and makes their decision.

In the case of Kavanaugh, the ABA Standing Committee followed this. They initially told the senate he was well qualified. When new information of a material nature came to light, they sensibly said, we are going to re-open our evaluation and re-vote. They told the senate they weren't going to be able to get that re-evaluation before the senate voted.

At this point, you'd think the non-rushed and sensible thing to do for the senate would be to wait for the new evaluation.

But they didn't. They pushed through Kavanaugh's appointment regardless.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15727
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 10:37am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Romney: "The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party's nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own"

This is self-serving horse shit.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4409
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 10:48am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

"the selection of a nominee is the job of the sitting president"So as Obama got to select one... there's no hypocrisy? Nice.

Four Republican Senators is what the potential extreme unbalancing, perhaps meaning four more years of this if the supreme court has to decide a close election, hinges on. How fragile we are. :^(

Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 22 September 2020 at 10:49am
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 3:33pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

With all due respect Rebecca - that is the very nature of democracy.  One person - one vote - majority rules. What is your alternative?  

I hear the same kind of comments from conservative Republicans when the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that gay couples have the right to marry or 5-4 that women STILL have a right to control their own reproductive health.  They yell and scream that a margin of ONE justice just set policy for the ENTIRE country and how that CAN'T be "right".

Yes, democracy is VERY fragile... the alternatives are all much worse.

Marc
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jonathan A. Dowdell
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 415
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Term Limits! 

6 terms in the House,
2 terms in the Senate,
then you run for President or go home and run for governor. 

If you want to serve you can still have a career as an elected official -- just not all in the same job.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4545
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 6:22pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

 Marc Baptiste wrote:
With all due respect Rebecca - that is the very nature of democracy.  One person - one vote - majority rules. What is your alternative? 
Of course, the problem is that what we have currently is minority rule, due to the Electoral College as well as the arbitrary configuration of US states that gives disproportionate voice to those in rural states, skewing the Senate towards Republicans. 

My solutions would be selecting the president by popular vote, re-configuring the Senate so the amount of senators a state gets are based on population, and requiring a 2/3 majority to confirm any federal judicial appointments (to eliminate the selection of extremists on both sides).  It's really too bad the latter was not written into the Constitution.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4409
Posted: 22 September 2020 at 7:22pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

I was going to say, one vote is not the same in one area of the U.S. as in another. Zero judges in eight years for one president and three in four for another sounds equal representation? Had R B-G stepped aside when asked on grounds of her age and illnesses Obama might've even had two picks in eight years and Trump one, now that would be objectively balanced. Instead she wanted to serve under the first female president which didn't happen with a ton of funny business and interference on one side and the FBI being a conspiracy in looking at it on the other, and then Obama's one proper doing his job pick was totally ignored with the result of it being a theft against the people who's will he represented, and he picked someone with genuine intent they be acceptable to Republicans to replace Scalia!

Also "5-4 that gay couples have the right to marry" is an embarrassment, that was something the land of the free should've been leading on, it shouldn't even have been close nor really even a matter of opinion or anyone's business but the people involved. I'm proud that Canada following Holland lead on this but it really is something that ideally the U.S. would've championed as they have other individual rights throughout the decades.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9629
Posted: 23 September 2020 at 12:40am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

John Wickett, clearly you are conservative. You would not be making such an intellectually dishonest argument in the guise of "fairness" which serves only to enable / justify a double dip by conservatives and has nothing to do with the "de-politicization" or "normal course" of a process you well know will never be anything but political and far from "normal course."

Four years ago the conservatives stole a seat by stonewalling the vote to replace a Justice who died in March (about EIGHT months before the election) by claiming "the people had the right to choose" and not allowing sitting president Obama to put forward a nominee before that election. That stall allowed Trump to add a conservative to the bench that should have been Obama's call. Now the conservatives want to unfairly steal a SECOND seat by conveniently reversing their stance and saying that a Justice who has just died in mid-September mere weeks before the election SHOULD be replaced by the sitting president in the last moments of his term. To suggest that this kind of total reversal of principle is the best thing because "we should avoid politicizing the judiciary" is a laughable house of cards argument both circular and nonsensical.

Based on his legal resume, Kavanagh was inarguably worthy when the nomination was made. There was no hint of any accusations against him until after he was announced as the pick.
*****
Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day. Kavanagh was so questionable, he got stalled for more than three years trying to get confirmed by the Senate for the Court of Appeals. He was downgraded to merely "qualified" by the ABA after multiple horrific showings in interviews to determine his adequacy (and "qualified" sounds A LOT better than it really is btw... going by this years' ABA ratings he would fall in the lowest 20% of all of those judged by this rubber stamp committee, which only judged one out of 172 attorneys to be "not qualified" for their federal judiciary jobs.) In 2007 Kavanaugh was accused of lying to the Judiciary Committee. Forget this at best checkered legal past, which I'm sure as a conservative you will dismiss as "all purely political."
Characterwise, Kavanagh is awful. Whether you believe all of his accusers, it's pretty clear he was a bit of a drunken misogynist jerk in college who maybe / probably took (considerable?) liberties with multiple women against their will. Okay, you say, sometimes people do things when they're young "but it's exaggerated and he's changed." But then there's that well known reputation he's long had for hiring "women clerks with a certain feminine look" (nuff said.)   Maybe you think that's just a "scamp" engaging in "harmless" sexist behavior or whatever rationalization works for you. But at some point enough is enough and it represents a continuing pattern that doesn't belong sitting on the Supreme Court as one of the 9 brightest and most fair-minded legal minds in the country.

If you want to argue that Trump should have replaced him at that point, that's fair. Some have argued that due to the importance of the office of SCJ, the mere accusation should be enough to disqualify a candidate.
****
Nice job arguing things nobody remotely suggested. Weak sauce, sir.

you are correct that multiple women accused Kavanagh, but only Christine Ford had even a shred of credibility, and then the problem was that Kavanagh was equally credible.
****
I watched the hearings and read the statements. His accusers (particularly Ford) were not just credible, they were heartbreaking. Ford had nothing to gain by being there and plenty to lose by dredging this stuff up and being on the receiving end of the abuse she took but she held firmly and convincingly. Kavanagh came off like a cornered, braying rat; bullying, abrasive, whiny, hissy-fitting, evasive and willing to claim anything to save his lying skin.

I thought it was a close enough call that either side could reasonably justify their vote to confirm or deny him.
*****
With multiple credible witnesses against him, including his own despicable behavior in plain view of the world and one particular witness the vast majority of non-partisan people agreed was utterly unimpeachable, it was far from a close call. How many girls did he have to
"probably" sexually abuse for you to be moved? The vote was a partisan call along strictly partisan party lines (the same partisanship you lamely want to claim should be "removed" from a process which has long been basically pure politics right down the line.


I don't give any weight to those who questioned Kavanagh's temperament during the hearings. What temperament are you supposed to have when you're falsely accused of repeated systematic gang rape on national television? (I'm referring to the accusations made by Judy Leighton)
*****
His temperament throughout the proceedings was both telling and frightening. You can't just focus on the weakest link in a chain full of otherwise damning and credible facts, witnesses and embarrassing revelations against Kavanagh. If one can't even hold their temper in the bright glare of the cameras and in front the public, what can we expect from them anonymously behind the scenes when no one is watching?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 795
Posted: 23 September 2020 at 8:51am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Rebecca- who said there's no hypocrisy?  Republicans are being incredibly hypocritical now.  I think everyone agrees on that.  

Rick, I agree Republicans stole a seat in 2016.  They prevented a legitimate exercise of presidential power by Obama; and act that I have characterized in this thread as "shameful."  That is why what they did should not set a precedent.  

Does that suck for Democrats this year?  Clearly.  But what about next time?  Or the time after that? If we set this precedent now, there's no telling which side will be negatively impacted in the future.  

As far as Kavanagh is concerned, I think you've got some things wrong here. Kavanagh's appointment to the DC Circuit wasn't held up because he was accused of being an incompetent lawyer.  Democrats argued he would be biased as a judge because he was part of the Ken Starr team that investigated Bill Clinton, and because he was part of the legal team that represented George Bush when Gore briefly contested the results of the presidential election in Florida.  

The ABA also cited potential bias when they downgraded him to "qualified" in 2006.  What you left out of your analysis was that the ABA unanimously rated him as "highly qualified" in 2016, following his years of service on the DC court. 

As far as his "checkered legal past" is concerned, I'm calling BS.  

- Yale law graduate, and editor of Yale law review
- 12 years on the DC circuit court of appeals
- 300 written opinions
- The Supreme Court has ruled on 14 cases where Kavanagh wrote an opinion (or a dissent).  The Court sided with Kavanagh 13 out of 14 times.  
- Highly rated law professor at Harvard and Yale law schools for more than a decade (hired by Elena Kagan)
- Showed lack of bias by ruling against Bush administration agencies 23 times between 2006-2008.  Also ruled against the Republican National Committee on campaign finance issues.
- Is recognized as a feeder judge, which means a disproportionately high number of his law clerks have obtained clerkships with the Supreme Court, including 84% of his female clerks.
- As an appellate judge, his decisions were joined by Democrat appointed judges 88% of the time.  Ruled together with Merrick Garland 94% of the time.  

You accuse him of having bad character, yet those who actually know Kavanagh consistently praise his character, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who descried Kavanagh as "very decent and very smart."

Regarding accusations of past sexual misconduct:

Christine Ford's testimony came across as highly credible, but there were still reasons to doubt her account, including that everyone else who she alleged attended the party where she was assaulted was unable to confirm, and some outright denied her story.  Her best friend, who supposedly hosted the party said she didn't know Kavanagh, and didn't remember ever being at a party with him.

Kavanagh came across as equally credible during his testimony.

Deborah Ramirez described having someone expose their penis to her during a drinking game.  However, she stated that she did not remember whether it was Kavanagh, and only accused him after others identified him as the one.  But none of the "others" present came forward to confirm her allegations. 

Julie Swetnick said in a sworn statement that she saw Kavanagh spiking punch at parties so that boys could gang rape girls who drank the punch (apparently none of the boys drank it?)  Later she walked back her testimony and admitted she never saw Kavanagh do anything.  She just remembered him being at the parties, and seeing him near the punch bowl.  

Judy Leighton claimed Kavanagh and a friend raped her in his car.  She later recanted and admitted she fabricated the story to prevent him from being nominated.  

Bottom line:  There was nothing conclusive.  Admittedly, its extremely difficult to prove something that happened that long ago, and according to Ford, the others at the party were not aware of what happened, so they would have no reason to remember details of that day. 

But this was a close call.  In my view the fact that the vote followed party lines highlighted the hypocrisy among politicians in both parties.  Absent politics, surely more Republicans would have voted against Kavanagh.  And while Democrats universally opposed him, we have subsequently seen them rally around and support their own, when equally credible or more credible accusations of sexual misconduct have been made.  The fact is, politicians on both sides are willing to look the other way when power is at stake.  

 


Edited by John Wickett on 23 September 2020 at 8:56am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9629
Posted: 23 September 2020 at 10:08am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Does that suck for Democrats this year? Clearly. But what about next time? Or the time after that? If we set this precedent now, there's no telling which side will be negatively impacted in the future.
*****
It sucks for democracy when a different and entirely corrupted standard of rules is applied to suit the one party which happens to control the Senate in a given moment. However, once again, your hew and cry of "oh the horror of it all... think of the children of the future" if we set a precedent and actually abide by it is crocodile tears I don't buy. You are a conservative and this is to your benefit so you're in favor of it. The clear bias you demonstrate regarding Kavanagh is the giveaway.

Regarding my "getting some things wrong," we're clearly not going to agree on anything relating to Kavanagh, who you characterize as a "close call" despite his reckless pattern of blackout drinking, sexual misconduct, misogyny and remarkably awful behavior in front of the world whilst trying to sweep it under the rug. I disagree with your characterization that no one from the parties could corroborate Kavanagh's awful behavior made by multiple multiple women. In fact Kavanagh's own friend Chad Ludington corroborated plenty of nasty behavior regarding his copious and consistent "blackout drinking" (drinking to the point of having zero memory of what occurred during its duration) as well as "belligerent behavior towards others" (getting into fights, generally making an ass of himself) Kavanagh exhibited when drunk. These observations were directly at odds with Kavanagh's sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanagh knew "unequivocally" that he never drank to the point of not being able to remember his actions. Suuuure. You can choose to believe that because not every thing every woman said was filmed on videotape or witnessed by others it is all therefore make believe but the pattern of irresponsible behavior and transparent lying to cover it up is there and it's not myth or rumor it's fact. Even you admitted one woman was found to be highly credible. If you admit that, how can you possibly put his nomination forward knowing the behavior of which he was capable (and capable of totally lying about later in an attempt to cover it up)

Maybe you might claim "this was decades ago... it's all a little murky and okay, he got drunk and was horsing around but it's just college hijinx.   He went to Yale! He's smart! He was on the Law Review! He's reformed!" But even today Kavanagh can't even cop to drinking to excess back then (it happened regularly) nor has his sexism towards women changed (his female law clerk predilictions, corroborated by multiple people.) There are plenty of smart people who don't belong on the bench because of their dishonesty, temperament and pattern of bad behavior. Ask Robert Bork. Kavanagh wasn't interviewing to become a ditch digger. He was interviewing to fill a position on the highest court in the land. He should have been held to that standard but it was a purely political appointment down purely political lines.

Speaking of purely political lines, back to the ABA ratings. First, it was 2018 where Kavanagh got rated again, not 2016. And he was one of 92 to get at least a majority well qualified rating out of 170. Not that impressive, particularly for a rubber stamp committee which you well know only rates out and out horse thieves as "not qualified." I merely raised Kavanagh's "qualified" previous rating as a demonstration that many felt he was a marginal person at best (he was in the bottom 20% of his group) because of your sweeping suggestion that his legal resume was "inarguably worthy." Many clearly weren't of that opinion, though I'm sure you'll throw up your hands and say it's all purely political.

Having another conservative on the bench may seem like no big deal.

It will be a big deal if ROE V WADE gets overturned (it probably won't, but it will undoubtedly get whittled down and chipped away in manners clearly at odds with the 77% of the country who broadly support ROE.

It will be a big deal for many tens of millions when it means the repeal of the affordable healthcare act.

It will be a big deal when in subtle but meaningful ways our civil rights get similarly chiseled back.

This isn't just conservatives putting their pinky on the scales of justice. It's dropping two Orangutans on it and it represents the worst of partisan, dishonest politics.

Edited by Rick Senger on 23 September 2020 at 10:44am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15727
Posted: 23 September 2020 at 11:27am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Just for the record, it's Kavanaugh 

-- pernickety Pete
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 5 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE