Supreme Court of the United States

[frae]

Geesh, Frae, do you work the maps for one of the 24 hour news networks? If not, you should! I follow this stuff enough to get mad and frustrated, but you really are a wonk. Thanks for the 411. Not what I'd hope for, but I must be swayed by the level of knowledge you have of this. I mean, I get the sense that the 32 and zero numbers aren't just guesstimates, but based on some strong nerd math .

They are very much guesses, especially that House number. The Senate number anyone that is looking at the maps will tell you it can be anything from +3R to +2 D I am just assuming the races sort of break evenly which traditionally would not be the case, but it seems like we can throw tradition out at this point.

[onejayhawk]

For the true wonks out there, is the assumption that Kavanaugh gets through? Depressing, if so. If he does, does that energize Dems enough for them to take the Senate? That is still a long shot either way, right?

He gets through and rightfully feels exonerated.

I agree with chancellor and disagree with frea about the effects. If anything, it will energize the Republicans. McConnell will be seen as growing a spine and standing up the attempted slander. The Republicans holding the House was a always more likely than the Democrats taking the Senate. For some reason no one reports that detail.

J

[Lurker765]

Lindsey Graham said that "One’s crazy as a loon, I don’t believe the other one."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.6b23183812c0

Your posts are always useful for me OaklandAs

[gcstomp]

up to 2500+ law professors have signed doc "But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rs-letter.html

ABA President, as well as Yale Law also state Kavanaugh unfit for highest court. Could go on, basically this is, and again we hear word, unprecedented opposition to this SC nominee. Not from partisan quarters, this is the view from entire elite and experienced legal world. Again we will have record number of protestors, again they are like dust in the wind as this is plowed through. Welcome to the end my friends where reason is a myth, and depravity is welcome if it serves the push.

[gcstomp]

BTW, this view of kavanaugh being unfit from every corner that is worth hearing, isnt because of perceived guilt over Ford. That is still unresolved. Its not because of about 10 small lies regarding his youth stated during hearing, that too is crazy minor stuff, and unresolved. Kavanaugh dug a new hole, from being so unhinged and partisan with fringe pov, the whole revenge for the Clintons, and beware what goes around comes around, and the whole I like beer stated over again, have you blacked out, I wanna know, in response to him being questioned. this speaks to this guy cant be counted on as not carrying out a petty revenge agenda rather than weigh the law as a judge.

[frae]

He gets through and rightfully feels exonerated.

I agree with chancellor and disagree with frea about the effects. If anything, it will energize the Republicans. McConnell will be seen as growing a spine and standing up the attempted slander. The Republicans holding the House was a always more likely than the Democrats taking the Senate. For some reason no one reports that detail.

J

I have seen the senate as 1/4 for D's and the house as 1/4 for R's. So pretty much the same, but there is more varriance in a house vote. That said the house gets into the demos of CD's and I think the races that are in play are generally more suburban that rural and are generally more educated. We are looking at a lot of districts where Trump may have won closely, but now his favorables aren't working and educated women as a whole should not be more likely to vote for a Republican if they feel Dr. Ford was ignored.

Look there are districts that may have been lean R or likely R where this fires the base up, but even through this alomst all of the changes Cook Political has made in race designations has moved to the left (except some senate designations which I concede). The democrats have two seats they hold labledl as toss ups and Republians have 29 held seats as tossups. Take that out to the lean category and seats leaning to Republicans are currently held by 25 R's and 0 D's. Seats currently leaning toward D's are currently held by 11 R's and 1 D. Go out one level farther and because of redistricting 4 R held seats are now categorizied as likely D wheras only 1 currently held D seat is likely R.

So the math is in the favor of the Democrats. For me anger works better as a voting motivation than being happy and add to that the makup of the districts where we are seeing compettetive races and I think the house is just as likely to go to the Democrats as the Senate is to stay in Republican control. Winning the House for R's is like threading the needle for the Democrats in the Senate it is possible but unlikely.

We don't talk about Governors races a lot but the trend on Cook political is moving toward Democrats. They just moved SD from a lean R to a toss up. The Governors map is sort of the opposite of the Senate map and favors the Democrats to pickup seats. Democrats are defending 9 seats and currently only 1 is a Lean R (Alaska) and one is a toss up (CT). Republicans hold 26 Governors Houses and currently 9 are toss ups 2 are lean D and 1 is likely D. Tough to tell how tossups will break, but it is certainly better to be defending so few seats (though it is sad that the D's own so few). RealClear and 270towin all have different ratings of certain races but overall the trend looks good for some pickups for the D's.

[chancellor]

ABA President, as well as Yale Law also state Kavanaugh unfit for highest court. Could go on, basically this is, and again we hear word, unprecedented opposition to this SC nominee. Not from partisan quarters, this is the view from entire elite and experienced legal world.

Categorically untrue. The ABA gave and reiterated their highest rating for Kavanaugh. Moreover, the ABA essentially repudiated their own president (see my earlier post with their text) relative to his statements.

As for Yale Law not being partisan....

[gcstomp]

chance, lets look at how many ways you are wrong in your unneeded "rebuttal". My post was about 2500+ law professors, this majority of the field are coming from pov of law, with an also, btw, the ABA President and Yale Law. I correctly said the individual, you responded that ABA is different. Yes, its different, its why I said the individual. And then you take a shot at the #1 law school in world, while having been in error over entire premise of your response in 1st place.

Listen, go ahead cherry pick, then make errors in your bit that you cherry pick, then mock the top law school because you dont get that point was the 2500+ law professors, and Yale was in the also cat with ABA President. You felt it was a most important to respond, while I can see multiple errors, so yay, huzzah, great. You will get some good news in a little over an hour that will result in more drama, so theres that.

[chancellor]

I'm not mocking the top law school in the nation, but I'm mocking your concept that Yale Law is non-partisan - because it's laughable. That doesn't mean they're bad lawyers, it just means the law school has chosen to move to a point of view that aligns with leftist views. There's more examples than I can list here, but Prof. Gonsalves has attempted to provide a legal basis for doxxing ICE employees while also attempting to frame a legal discussion that hiding illegal immigrants isn't really illegal, the Yale Journal of Regulation has stated opposition to the Trump Administration handling of Administrative Law Judges, and for an extended time, the school supported conceptually limiting free speech. And that's just in the last six months. The new dean, to her credit, has at least spiked the concept of limiting free speech.

The ABA's president's action was deemed so partisan and so gratuitous - oh, and wholly unsanctioned by the ABA board responsible for judicial ratings - that that same ABA board reiterated Kavanaugh's rating and repudiated their president. It doesn't get much more partisan than what the ABA president did, and the ABA board responsible for this duty recognized it and essentially slapped him upside the head for doing so.

[B-Fly]

Imagine b-fly in tights.

Um...please don't.

[chancellor]

For the true wonks out there, is the assumption that Kavanaugh gets through?

Following up on this, I'm moving to more confident. McConnell has not postponed the cloture vote, which is scheduled for late morning today. That means he's committing to a vote on Kavanaugh late afternoon/early evening on Saturday, where, as nots accurately noted, he'll be missing a vote. McConnell's experienced enough to not make that call if he wasn't sure he had at least a tie for Pence to break.

So, for the moment, let's assume McConnell has exactly 50 votes. This leaves the Dems with one last card to play on Saturday, I believe, and that's the quorum card. With one R senator gone for sure, if all D senators walk out, it will (I think, but could be wrong) leave the Senate one short of a quorum, as I believe 51 senators are required and a quorum call is required for any vote that invokes cloture. Pence does not count toward a quorum call, to my knowledge.

Again, my memory could be faulty here.

[frae]

Following up on this, I'm moving to more confident. McConnell has not postponed the cloture vote, which is scheduled for late morning today. That means he's committing to a vote on Kavanaugh late afternoon/early evening on Saturday, where, as nots accurately noted, he'll be missing a vote. McConnell's experienced enough to not make that call if he wasn't sure he had at least a tie for Pence to break.

So, for the moment, let's assume McConnell has exactly 50 votes. This leaves the Dems with one last card to play on Saturday, I believe, and that's the quorum card. With one R senator gone for sure, if all D senators walk out, it will (I think, but could be wrong) leave the Senate one short of a quorum, as I believe 51 senators are required and a quorum call is required for any vote that invokes cloture. Pence does not count toward a quorum call, to my knowledge.

Again, my memory could be faulty here.

51 senators need to be present in a roll call vote for a quorum. So while it is possible it would just delay the inevitable and would require Manchin to stick with the Dems.

[gcstomp]

chance, you dont see these words? "because you dont get that point was the 2500+ law professors...."

I am unable to get you to see the easiest of points, so i again conclude we are speaking different languages. ABA President or Yale Law were or werent partisan wasnt focus and wasnt claim, they were throw ins, like the retired SC judge who is against kavanaugh appointment, 1st time in living memory thats happened. point was about 2500+ law professors who are largely focused on pov of law above partisan, though undoubtedly there exists varying levels of partisan all over spectrum in what is essentially majority of legal education field and then i threw in 2 individuals, and i can continue to throw in say, Washington Post editor, 1st time in 30 years he has opposed the SC nomination as his position is regardless of party, as long as a judge is of sound mind and qualified he should be ok'd.

I give. NM.

[frae]

OK so where are we. Murkowski is off the fence and is a No for cloture and she won't change on the final vote or that just looks bad. I will say I am impressed she did it with no one else along for the ride yet.

This comes down to Collins who says she will announce her intentions during a 3 pm senate floor speech. If she is actually a No vote on confirmation the pressure on Manchin will be enourmous from both sides. If he votes Yes the Democrats will never forgive him for it, but he almost certainly wins his Senate race. If he votes No he might move his seat back from Lean D to toss up. I think if Collins is a No Manchin will try to use the Republican No votes as cover. Flake is just enjoying getting some good PR in my mind and will be a yes vote.

Enjoy the show everyone we have reached the final act of this crazy drama.

[revo]

It's OK. It's a key reason revo and the other mods created this area, so that those who feel the need can vent their spleen in here and not spread it to the other areas of sports bar and fantasy posts. TW, to my knowledge, has not taken such shots at me outside this forum, and I have no issue with him doing so in here.

Let's be clear -- I'm the only moderator in this place, and I'm like the jailer who's falling asleep on his creaky wooden chair while the inmates are using a rudimentary pole to snatch my key ring.

Appreciate it. Kudos to revo, at least in my view, for making it crystal clear that the rules in here were not the same as in the other forums or even in the other part of the Sports Bar. Or, to use a football analogy, this forum is under 1960s type NFL rules - head slaps, leading with the crown of the helmet, clotheslining, and leg whips are all legal; the other forums are under 2018 type NFL rules - if you land on the QB with all your weight, it's a 15-yard penalty.

To quote 'Airplane' -- "they bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, 'let 'em crash.' "