Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

PS—why do you think Diane Feinstein, who had this bombshell of a letter since July, decided not to ask Kavanaugh about the incident in their private meeting(s)?

Because she is shady and a politician (sorry for the redundancy) and very likely motivated by the reasons you give. As a general rule, you won't find me defending the honor and motives of hardly any politicians, and that includes Dems. Clearly this accuser is being used as a political pawn. However, even if that is true, if she is a credible accuser, her accusations still must be considered.

The one concern I have about her accusations that I have not found a definitive answer to, that maybe someone here can help me find, is a discussion of why she is so certain it was Kavanaugh. If my understanding is accurate, they went to different schools and weren't close. Is that accurate? Is it possible there was a guy who looked like Kavanaugh at the party? I guess not, since that has not been an avenue of defense.

[baldgriff]

I agree. He basically was sacrificed at the altar of Kristen Gillibrand’s Presidential aspirations.
Now Keith Ellison on the other hand.......

I was wondering when than name would come up.

[B-Fly]

I agree. He basically was sacrificed at the altar of Kristen Gillibrand’s Presidential aspirations.
Now Keith Ellison on the other hand.......

At this point I suspect Ellison is and probably should be toast.

[chancellor]

The makeup, the political leaning of the SC does not reflect the country. Past 26 years in presidential elections, more people voted for the D nominee than the R in all but 1 race. The SC should reflect the populations wishes, but instead we have if fortune falls just so you have openings at fortuitous times to fill.

Uh, no. Well, I mean if you feel really strongly about that you could change the Constitution, but that was categorically not the intent of the framers. Again, to be a check on the Executive and Legislative branches means the Judiciary must be independent of the electorate.

[Sour Masher]

Uh, no. Well, I mean if you feel really strongly about that you could change the Constitution, but that was categorically not the intent of the framers. Again, to be a check on the Executive and Legislative branches means the Judiciary must be independent of the electorate.

Given that stance, which I agree with, maybe it would be interesting to move the conversation about Kavanaugh from the accusations against him to his positions on executive power. He seems to be a strategic pick by Trump, at least in part, because of his positions on how limited the the judiciary branch should be in checking the executive branch. Do you agree with that assessment? Do you have an reservations about Kavanaugh based on that assessment? Assuming he is consistent with these opinions if appointed, do you have any short or long term concerns about abuse of power and balances of power long term with Kavanaugh on the court?

I've long made the case that Trump does not appreciate and respect the checks and balances of our three branches of government, and if he had his way, he'd have all the power, without checks, to do whatever he felt was appropriate to do. You know, like a dictator.

[In the Corn]

Can I ask who my liberal friends would vote in the MN State Attorney General's election? Rep. Keith Ellison who is running for this position was accused of domestic violence?

Just wondering if Ellison and Kavanaugh bring the same condemnation?

[baldgriff]

Given that stance, which I agree with, maybe it would be interesting to move the conversation about Kavanaugh from the accusations against him to his positions on executive power. He seems to be a strategic pick by Trump, at least in part, because of his positions on how limited the the judiciary branch should be in checking the executive branch. Do you agree with that assessment? Do you have an reservations about Kavanaugh based on that assessment? Assuming he is consistent with these opinions if appointed, do you have any short or long term concerns about abuse of power and balances of power long term with Kavanaugh on the court?

I've long made the case that Trump does not appreciate and respect the checks and balances of our three branches of government, and if he had his way, he'd have all the power, without checks, to do whatever he felt was appropriate to do. You know, like a dictator.

Or a CEO - which he is much more accustomed to being.

[Teenwolf]

Was this identified or missed in the Trump team's vetting of Kavanaugh?

This is what's being overlooked. Republicans knew Kavanaugh would have these problems.

Supporting evidence #1: Mitch McConnell fighting against putting up Kavanaugh is a big hint that McConnell knew about his past transgressions before nomination, or he possibly knew about the letter.

Supporting evidence #2: In response to the allegations, they came up with a list of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh and provided character support... but they came up with the list less than 24 hours after the allegations came out. I doubt that it's physically possible to co-ordinate such a large list of character witnesses in such a short time span. They knew months in advance, IMO.

[baldgriff]

Can I ask who my liberal friends would vote in the MN State Attorney General's election? Rep. Keith Ellison who is running for this position was accused of domestic violence?

Just wondering if Ellison and Kavanaugh bring the same condemnation?

Arent there multiple accusations over the last few years?

[In the Corn]

At this point I suspect Ellison is and probably should be toast.

My assessment is Ellison will win running away here in Minnesota.

[baldgriff]

At this point I suspect Ellison is and probably should be toast.

This is where one gets to interject that the party needs to be consistent about instances of abusive relationships or domestic violence. As ITC said - Elllison is likely running away with it. I know my MN friends are frustrated by this (on both sides of the aisle - from what I can tell)

[gcstomp]

We could agree that SC should reflect the populace wishes, and we do not have that, we also can hum about what intent of 3 branch system with self checking mechanisms ideally would be. Every person on SC was selected by a President who felt they found someone who aligned with their agenda, policies, constituents, as well as being respected enough that they can be voted through by Congress, who also should act as a check on executive branch, but as of today if same party is a rubber stamp of President.

SC is the referee. This requires impartiality to this role with treating the law with highest respect, and ideally with a party blindness. But the high court is also just people, selected based on their past rulings, by someone from 1 of 2 parties, and you get enough hand selecting we get political bent to the court. To argue this reality is odd.

BTW, to respond to someone, with a canned response of definition of a branch, while ignoring reality of what exists, again, disingenuous.

[chancellor]

Given that stance, which I agree with, maybe it would be interesting to move the conversation about Kavanaugh from the accusations against him to his positions on executive power.

I think that would have been a fine question by a Democrat who was more interested in substantive questions than creating a clown show.

He seems to be a strategic pick by Trump, at least in part, because of his positions on how limited the the judiciary branch should be in checking the executive branch.

Well, I'm pleased someone on your side of the aisle agrees Trump can think strategically...

Possibly, though I think the POV was his judicial views aligned with the key voter groups combined with what (they thought) would be an easy confirmation. Or, I thought they'd put forth a candidate based on political strategic thinking ahead of/rather than judicial position strategic thinking, if that makes sense.

[Sour Masher]

Or a CEO - which he is much more accustomed to being.

Fair enough, although I'd hope that the POTUS, even if a former CEO, would appreciate the difference between a business and a Republic, and act accordingly.

[baldgriff]

Fair enough, although I'd hope that the POTUS, even if a former CEO, would appreciate the difference between a business and a Republic, and act accordingly.

Which is why all of the nonsense about our President being a dictator is bullshit. He is hamstrung, as all Presidents are, by having to get support from both parties to get anything meaningful accomplished. This is actually where I think he has failed miserably - The Art of the Deal - in DC would have been finding a way to bring both parties together and start uniting this country.

That said - both parties are so busy pandering to their extremes - with scorched earth policy in full force - that I dont foresee any semblance of unanimity when it comes to any policy (other than those that may benefit those in office).