Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings

Horn6721 said:
If Trump had not been the one to nominate him most Dems would have voted for him
Click to expand...

I can see why you'd assume that, but this is bigger than Trump. First, we're not just talking about any Supreme Court vacancy. It's the swing vote, which has the potential to be decisive on a lot of issues. Like I said in a previous post, the stakes are obscenely high.

Second, we're continuing a trend that has been going for decades - the partisan polarization of the Supreme Court as it becomes a proxy for all social and cultural issues. A vote in favor of a justice is now a litmus test for many primary voters, which is going to mean more straight, party line votes. It's hard to imagine, but Ted Kennedy voted to confirm Antonin Scalia. Only three senators voted against Ruth Bader Ginsburg. William Rehnquist got some significant opposition, but that had more to do with political contempt from his days with Nixon than ideology. Bork, of course, did, but he was shifting the balance. Clarence Thomas did too, but that was more about Anita Hill and replacing the liberal Thurgood Marshall. However, by the time Bush 43 was in office, there was major opposition to both of his picks, even though they weren't big difference makers, especially in the aggregate. It wasn't enough to put their confirmations in doubt, but it was substantial. Same with Obama's picks.
 
@Mr. Deez

So I guess this is one of those things I don't understand from a purely legalistic standpoint; why is a previous Supreme Court ruling "over-turnable?" You can't overturn the Constitution. Are we saying that some legal scholars believe interpretations are inherently flawed to a degree so that it's not the Constitution that can be over-turned but instead a misguided court's decision can be modified or over-turned (again in theory) if a more Constitutionally "enlightened" or more Constitutionally "grounded" court corrects the error.

I think it can be viewed like this: they can't "over-turn" or rule freedom of speech as unconstitutional. They can only say, a particular expression to whatever degree is covered or not (recalling the old you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater unless there is one). Then in this regard, a subsequent court can say, "No, we believe that decision was incorrect and it is [insert ruling; covered or not].

By the way, I dated a Muslim for a time and she said that Muhammed was not the only prophet; he was the last prophet and returned the word of God to it's original intent as they believe it had strayed from it's roots. I wonder if this is the analogy for over-turning precedent.
 
bystander said:
By the way, I dated a Muslim for a time and she said that Muhammed was not the only prophet; he was the last prophet and returned the word of God to it's original intent as they believe it had strayed from it's roots. I wonder if this is the analogy for over-turning precedent.
Click to expand...
I wonder how Muslims would react if they were called Arabian Mormons.
 
I hadn't seen the video (will watch later) but I think any of us could probably make that statement. Take the immigration situation; where is Congress? Why did Obama and now Trump have to use or eliminate executive orders and become lightening rods for what is Congress' job?
 
bystander said:
@Mr. Deez

So I guess this is one of those things I don't understand from a purely legalistic standpoint; why is a previous Supreme Court ruling "over-turnable?" You can't overturn the Constitution. Are we saying that some legal scholars believe interpretations are inherently flawed to a degree so that it's not the Constitution that can be over-turned but instead a misguided court's decision can be modified or over-turned (again in theory) if a more Constitutionally "enlightened" or more Constitutionally "grounded" court corrects the error.

I think it can be viewed like this: they can't "over-turn" or rule freedom of speech as unconstitutional. They can only say, a particular expression to whatever degree is covered or not (recalling the old you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater unless there is one). Then in this regard, a subsequent court can say, "No, we believe that decision was incorrect and it is [insert ruling; covered or not].
Click to expand...

They aren't overturning the Constitution. They're overturning an arguably misguided Court's decision. But what's usually going on is that they don't like the result of the previous decision or that they think it worked an injustice more than that the previous decision was an inaccurate reading of the Constitution.

For example, the most famous reversal was on whether or not the "separate but equal" doctrine (state-imposed segregation) violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court initially said Yes in Plessy v. Ferguson and then came back about 60 years later and said No in the famous Brown v. Board of Education. Did the Plessy decision just blow off the Constitution? No. Nothing in the 14th Amendment required integration or prohibited racial separation. However, in practice the ruling worked an injustice. Rarely were the separate facilities actually, and they were used to force blacks into a second-class citizenship. So the Court decided that repairing the injustice was more important than following the normal practice of not overturning previous decisions to maintain legal predictability and avoid (the stare decisis principle).

Why can they do that? Because there is no higher court that can step in and say they can't. It's simply a raw exercise of ultimate judicial power.

bystander said:
By the way, I dated a Muslim for a time and she said that Muhammed was not the only prophet; he was the last prophet and returned the word of God to it's original intent as they believe it had strayed from it's roots. I wonder if this is the analogy for over-turning precedent.
Click to expand...

I don't think your "tour of the Mideast" (dating the Muslim chick) is analogous in every situation. Plessy hadn't departed from the Constitution's roots. It simply wasn't an effective framework for providing real equal protection of the laws. If states had actually treated blacks equally to whites while keeping facilities separate, the Court likely would have been less motivated to toss the whole system out.
 
bystander said:
I think any of us could probably make that statement.
Click to expand...

true, but not any of us are IN congress.

The main point is ... allowing the exec and judiciary to have the responsibility for the legislative; that at least one in congress recognizes congress has CEDED its authority.

And that's not an accident. To continue the point ... The people have increasingly (re)elected congressmen/senators (who weren't supposed to be directly elected by the people, btw) ... who pledge increased Fed ... pledge more "goodies" like sidewalks for a municipality (Chet Edwards and Hillsboro cira 2005)

So ... we find once again ... we are our own worst enemy.
 
One thing you can say about democrats, they have no shame in emptying the bag of tricks:



Honestly, the way this thing is going, I'm starting to fear for Kavinaugh's life. The way the left has built this thing up and whipped people's emotions into a frenzy, someone is going to get attacked at some point.
 
Oh, and all of it's speculation at this point, but the scuttlebutt at this point appears to surround an issue that happened WHEN HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL...
 
??
So Difi will honor this anonymous person's wishes to not press the matter further by referring the matter to investigators.
What a vile *****
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Oh, and all of it's speculation at this point, but the scuttlebutt at this point appears to surround an issue that happened WHEN HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL...
Click to expand...

Here comes the mystery woman(or women) claiming God knows what. It was only a matter of time.
 
So DiFi.gets the info from a CA Rep who got it from someone at Stanford who got it from someone else.
The Dems will use this bs to delay confirmation.
These people will stop at nothing.
 
Last edited:
Not like Anita Hill. This is far less substantial. Most folks in high school are just learning about sex and are understandably fumbling around.in complex interpersonal relationships. Plus Anita stepped forward.
 
As John Cornyn puts it: "Left me get this straight. This is statement about a secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified source. Right."
Unless somebody was enslaved and sold to sex traffickers, I can imagine this going no place.
 
Crockett What it will do is delay confirmation. DEMS with no shame what so ever will call for a delay. I mean how can a confirmation happen when there is an FBI investigation?
Devious azzholes.
 
There is no statute of limitations on the federal level for sex crimes against minors. So it may require some time to put this to bed.
 
Last edited:
BTW there is one reason and one reason only that DF isn't letting other Dems see this: because if she does, someone will leak it, everyone will see what it is and realize that the Dems have completely lost their minds. If she hides it, everyone will speculate, the base will rage about a cover-up, the GOP will ignore it and confirm Kavenaugh, and they will have their midterm "October Surprise" without ever having to have something happen.
 
It's the blowback from denying Obama's nomination. Of course they are being ruthless. Of course it's a lie.
 
Oh ****, I guess Kavanaugh has been on double secret probation from high school all this time and didn't know it.
 
When it comes to Liberals I don't know how many times I've heard that someone's past doesn't have anything to do with their competence or if what they say is the truth. They're obviously not worried about Mr. O'Rourks' past. But the right is attacking his past. What goes around comes around. We're either going to bury people or not. If this is a #metoo event then he might have a problem but it has to be completely open; the accuser must be known. If it's all hush hush, trust us then no go.
 
Phil Elliott said:
This is very Anita Hill-like.
Click to expand...

I didn't buy Anita Hill's story, but this accusation doesn't have 100th of the credibility of her story. First, it involves an accusation from when both Kavanaugh and the girl were kids. Thomas and Hill were adults, and she was his subordinate. Second, Hill at least had the balls to come forward and testify under oath. That means she had to give details and subjected her story to scrutiny and herself to cross examination. This is third or fourth hand hearsay in which the accuser is unknown and in which specifics aren't even provided. It's all innuendo.

Screw it, and confirm the guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top