Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

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).

I never said he is a dictator, because, thankfully, our form of government is not a dictatorship. I think he wants to be, though. He wants to be more than CEO, because a CEO is beholden to stock holders and a board. They have checks and balances too. If we let him, he'd take as much control as we allowed. He doesn't respect, or I suspect, fully understand, how our Republic works. He is not a student of history, he does not think our system of government is bigger than he is, or smarter, or better. He thinks he is smarter than our generals, and our experts and scientists, and our founding fathers.

[chancellor]

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

How so? I'd say ignoring design of the judiciary is disingenuous. Your statement that "the SC should reflect the populace wishes" is historically false, and easily so proven. Moreover, the Constitution clearly separates the judiciary from "populace wishes" by having them appointed with lifetime terms and not directly elected. As I said, if you disagree with that, there's groups that would like to change the Constitution to an elected judiciary; I happen to disagree with that, but, hey, have at it.

I'll also add that there's numerous cases where justices - both "conservative" and "liberal" have voted against what their nominators would have liked. John Roberts is the most obvious, but Sonia Sotomayer also did so in a lesser known case, but still important.

[baldgriff]

I never said he is a dictator, because, thankfully, our form of government is not a dictatorship. I think he wants to be, though. He wants to be more than CEO, because a CEO is beholden to stock holders and a board. They have checks and balances too. If we let him, he'd take as much control as we allowed. He doesn't respect, or I suspect, fully understand, how our Republic works. He is not a student of history, he does not think our system of government is bigger than he is, or smarter, or better. He thinks he is smarter than our generals, and our experts and scientists, and our founding fathers.

You may not have stated that he is a dictator - however, there have been so many references to how Trump:
- wants to be a Dictator
- will become a Dictator
- could become a Dictator
- etc etc etc ad nauseum from various news and journalistic outlets over the last 18 months it is stupid.

Honestly - the only way you get a Dictator (other than a coup) is that the people cede their responsibility to the government and then allow one person to run it all. The day we as a country cede all power to one person is the day this country dies.

[Judge Jude]

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.

if you thought that ANY SCOTUS nominee from either party would not have a pro forma letter on hand as "break glass in case of emergency" months before a vote, regardless of a candidate's background, then you are being hopelessly naive. to not have such a letter at the ready would be political malfeasance. I trust that, even if it hadn't occurred to you before, that you would agree once I point it out.

as for McConnell, he knew that Kavanaugh could be more easily attacked on Roe v Wade and Presidential executive powers than the others. McConnell's main job is to keep the Senate majority in November, so all he cares about is seeing the most milquetoast conservative nominated.

doesn't my explanation make a lot more sense? #Occamsrazor

P.S. Not to tell you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but media outlets have obituaries already written about thousands of famous people - sometimes decades in advance of their deaths. they even get quotes from famous friends who stipulate that the quote can appear in the obit. maybe you pictured reporters desperately scrambling around to develop background material when someone like Michael Jackson dies. yeah, not so much.

[Teenwolf]

if you thought that ANY SCOTUS nominee from either party would not have a pro forma letter on hand as "break glass in case of emergency" months before a vote, regardless of a candidate's background, then you are being hopelessly naive. to not have such a letter at the ready would be political malfeasance. I trust that, even if it hadn't occurred to you before, that you would agree once I point it out.

as for McConnell, he knew that Kavanaugh could be more easily attacked on Roe v Wade and Presidential executive powers than the others. McConnell's main job is to keep the Senate majority in November, so all he cares about is seeing the most milquetoast conservative nominated.

doesn't my explanation make a lot more sense? #Occamsrazor

P.S. Not to tell you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but media outlets have obituaries already written about thousands of famous people - sometimes decades in advance of their deaths. they even get quotes from famous friends who stipulate that the quote can appear in the obit. maybe you pictured reporters desperately scrambling around to develop background material when someone like Michael Jackson dies. yeah, not so much.

Your condescension is pretty over the top. Not worthy of response.

[onejayhawk]

Your condescension is pretty over the top. Not worthy of response.

I would take that as a yes.

He did not even mention Anita Hill and the track record of these hearings.

J

[Teenwolf]

if you thought that ANY SCOTUS nominee from either party would not have a pro forma letter on hand as "break glass in case of emergency" months before a vote, regardless of a candidate's background, then you are being hopelessly naive. to not have such a letter at the ready would be political malfeasance. I trust that, even if it hadn't occurred to you before, that you would agree once I point it out.

as for McConnell, he knew that Kavanaugh could be more easily attacked on Roe v Wade and Presidential executive powers than the others. McConnell's main job is to keep the Senate majority in November, so all he cares about is seeing the most milquetoast conservative nominated.

doesn't my explanation make a lot more sense? #Occamsrazor

P.S. Not to tell you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but media outlets have obituaries already written about thousands of famous people - sometimes decades in advance of their deaths. they even get quotes from famous friends who stipulate that the quote can appear in the obit. maybe you pictured reporters desperately scrambling around to develop background material when someone like Michael Jackson dies. yeah, not so much.

I'll take another shot and avoid the personal BS. I hope you can do the same.

The letter of 65 supporting witnesses was clearly prepared well beforehand. It WAS in fact released prematurely, because as I mentioned they released the support letter without contacting those supporters, and now half of those supporters are not responding to media requests and some have backpedaled. So yes, the letter was released without contacting the supporting witnesses to see that they still support him after the allegations.

Its come out there are now 6 witnesses ready to discredit Kavanaugh for protecting another judge with sexual abuse problems. They're afraid of career retribution.

So there ya go. Yes, all the support was collected well before the trial. Yes, releasing it less than 24 hours after the allegations surfaced was a mistake because they couldn't verify those supporters.

Seems like the letter of supporting witnesses was tossed out a bit too early, eh?

[In the Corn]

I think the Republicans need to get into a room and just say, "Let's give the Democrats Kavanaugh." I see him as being a sacrificial lamb for Franken, who many Democrats have come out after his resignation and said he should have been so hasty.

Perhaps after that, leader in the two parties can come together and say, "Let's be done with this idiocy. Let's start working together, like we are suppose too."

A man can dream.

[chancellor]

I think the Republicans need to get into a room and just say, "Let's give the Democrats Kavanaugh." I see him as being a sacrificial lamb for Franken, who many Democrats have come out after his resignation and said he should have been so hasty.

Perhaps after that, leader in the two parties can come together and say, "Let's be done with this idiocy. Let's start working together, like we are suppose too."

A man can dream.

I disagree. If the GOP caves into this re-run of Kafka's The Trial and sacrifices a man of whose innocence is of little doubt, they're morally lower than Trump. At this point, McConnell simply needs to ram this to a vote as quickly as possible. If the Left wants political war, the solution is not to surrender but rather to win.

[Teenwolf]

I disagree. If the GOP caves into this re-run of Kafka's The Trial and sacrifices a man of whose innocence is of little doubt, they're morally lower than Trump. At this point, McConnell simply needs to ram this to a vote as quickly as possible. If the Left wants political war, the solution is not to surrender but rather to win.

Gross.

[senorsheep]

I think the Republicans need to get into a room and just say, "Let's give the Democrats Kavanaugh." I see him as being a sacrificial lamb for Franken, who many Democrats have come out after his resignation and said he should have been so hasty.

Perhaps after that, leader in the two parties can come together and say, "Let's be done with this idiocy. Let's start working together, like we are suppose too."

A man can dream.

No way would I cave to these tactics. If she has something she wants to say, put her on the stand, under oath, let her say her peace, and let her answer any questions about her accusation. Then let the nominee respond. If she has no further proof or corroboration to offer beyond what she already has, be done with it and call the vote.

[DMT]

Ugh, you guys defending Kavanaugh make me sick. There's little doubt this guy is a scumbag. Encouraging his rushed confirmation is just inexcusable.

[nots]

Ugh, you guys defending Kavanaugh make me sick. There's little doubt this guy is a scumbag. Encouraging his rushed confirmation is just inexcusable.

People playing politics with this (looking at you Dianne Feinstein) make me sick.

[senorsheep]

There's little doubt this guy is a scumbag.

If there's credible evidence that the guy is an obvious scumbag, I'm not aware of it.

Encouraging his rushed confirmation is just inexcusable.

Wow, that's a world class Reading Comprehension 101 fail. I said exactly the opposite of "rush the confirmation." I said "Swear her in and let her speak."

[DMT]

If there's credible evidence that the guy is an obvious scumbag, I'm not aware of it.



Wow, that's a world class Reading Comprehension 101 fail. I said exactly the opposite of "rush the confirmation." I said "Swear her in and let her speak."

Dude, read chance's response. You're always so quick to assume I'm attacking you, not sure why.