Have the Kavanaugh confirmations on in the background

[The Branch]

lol you're out of your mind. Unreal. Kagan and Sotomayor are liberals in every sense of the word and were fairly left leaning in most of their judicial decisions and writing before being nominated to the SC.

They went through because Republicans, while not liking them being liberal judges, acknowledged that they were at least qualified in the academic sense and deferred to the President's pick. Unlike now, where we have moron Democrats blindly voting NO on a guy who is more qualified than any of the judges you just mentioned, with 13 years of experience on the Circuit Court.

Kavanaugh is only "partisan" because Democrats decided to try to slander and destroy a supremely qualified guy, all because he holds personal conservative views.

Kagan had no "judicial decisions" because she was never a judge. She was an ultra liberal in charge of Harvard Law. In fact, she HIRED Kavanaugh at Harvard Law because she thought the students needed a conservative point of view. So basically ... she tacitly admitted that Harvard Law is full of liberals .... and thought highly enough of Kavanaugh to hire him to teach.

So while some FIW in the dungeon thinks Kavanaugh is too extreme .... a sitting supreme court justice thought he was good enough to hire at Harvard Law.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Funny ... you just make stuff up here .... move some goalposts there ... say a bunch of dumb stuff... and ninja thinks you are a genius.

Awesome.

Funny, you just provide absolutely nothing of substance, resort to childish ad hominems and outright bullshit lies to a well thought out and actually cited post.

Typical red hat.

 

[The Branch]

- The Supreme Court is an equal branch of our government. Equal in power to the Legislative branch which writes the laws, equal to the Executive branch which executes the laws. The Supreme Court makes judgments on the laws and serves as a check on both the Legislative and the Executive which in turn check each other.

- Reid didn't nuke the threshold to filibuster proof the Supreme Court in 2013, McConnell did last year

- Kavanaugh is strongly involved with The Federalist Society and listed as a contributor to the organization which openly promotes hard right wing causes, judges and attorneys, he is too partisan to be on the SC

- Obama's nominees Sotomayer and Kagan were confirmed with 60+ votes and consent from the minority party out of power so no 51 votes was not fine for the Democrats to confirm SC nominees.

- Also Merrick Garland who was nominated by Obama but the Republican controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing obstructing Obama's nomination, Gorsch who is also a Federalist Society contributor is too partisan and should have never been confirmed either.

This one is for Ninja ....

- Nobody said Reid went nuclear on supreme court justices. He didn't need to because the Republicans didn't lockstep against if they believed the justice was qualified. Reid went nuclear on federal judges because Obama appointed a bunch of left wingers and the Republicans were blocking them. He set the precedent.

-Point 2 and 4 about The Federalist Society is hilarious. You already point out that Merrick Garland was a member, but then conveniently use him to say he was also extreme. Had Garland made the court, you would NEVER use that example. That aside, John Roberts was in the Federalist Society and was approved 13-5 by the judicial committee and 78-22 by the full Senate. Guess it wasn't really a problem then? Not enough for you? Antonin Scalia was 98-0. Not one person cared about The Federalist Society.

- Last point .... Kagan and Sotomayor got over 60 votes because the Republicans weren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations. Kagan had ZERO judicial experience ... and was the Dean at the ultra liberal Harvard Law School and still got 5 Republicans to vote for her. Sotomayor got more than that.

Like I said ... you moved the goal posts (differentiating federal judges and supreme court justices) and you made stuff up (Federalist Society is too extreme).

 

[UCFKnight85]

Let's make this real simple: the people opposing Kavanaugh are simply extremist, moronic left wingers who feel it's their faux duty to the #Resistance to lie and slander the guy, just as Kamala Harris has done and Cory Booker attempted to do.

There is no sane, rationale argument against Kavanuagh and he's arguably the most qualified nominee to be put forth by a President in decades. He is backed almost unanimously by anyone and everyone who has ever worked with him, including scores of liberals who still vouch for him.

The fact that he's not going to get 80-90 votes in the Senate simply tells you just how much influence the fringe left wing extremists now have over the Democratic Party.

 

[NinjaKnight]

This one is for Ninja ....

- Nobody said Reid went nuclear on supreme court justices. He didn't need to because the Republicans didn't lockstep against if they believed the justice was qualified. Reid went nuclear on federal judges because Obama appointed a bunch of left wingers and the Republicans were blocking them. He set the precedent.

-Point 2 and 4 about The Federalist Society is hilarious. You already point out that Merrick Garland was a member, but then conveniently use him to say he was also extreme. Had Garland made the court, you would NEVER use that example. That aside, John Roberts was in the Federalist Society and was approved 13-5 by the judicial committee and 78-22 by the full Senate. Guess it wasn't really a problem then? Not enough for you? Antonin Scalia was 98-0. Not one person cared about The Federalist Society.

- Last point .... Kagan and Sotomayor got over 60 votes because the Republicans weren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations. Kagan had ZERO judicial experience ... and was the Dean at the ultra liberal Harvard Law School and still got 5 Republicans to vote for her. Sotomayor got more than that.

Like I said ... you moved the goal posts (differentiating federal judges and supreme court justices) and you made stuff up (Federalist Society is too extreme).

Congratulations on actually typing out a response that didn't solely consist of middle school insults. It must have been difficult for you, but I'm proud of your accomplishment.

I don't know how you can even pretend to say Republicans aren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations...when that's exactly what they did in 2016 and fuking bragged about it. Or did you already forget McConnel's - "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

A dozen republican senators signed a goddamn letter saying they wouldn't consider ANY supreme court nominee.

Absolutely hilarious you can even pretend to say "republicans aren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations" when that is exactly what they did!

I now understand why you don't even try to type out long responses anymore, if they are this shitty. Just stick to your middle school insults, it suits your intelligence level a little better.

 

[The Branch]

Congratulations on actually typing out a response that didn't solely consist of middle school insults. It must have been difficult for you, but I'm proud of your accomplishment.

I don't know how you can even pretend to say Republicans aren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations...when that's exactly what they did in 2016 and fuking bragged about it. Or did you already forget McConnel's - "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

A dozen republican senators signed a goddamn letter saying they wouldn't consider ANY supreme court nominee.

Absolutely hilarious you can even pretend to say "republicans aren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations" when that is exactly what they did!

I now understand why you don't even try to type out long responses anymore, if they are this shitty. Just stick to your middle school insults, it suits your intelligence level a little better.

The Merrick Garland situation is far different from the Gorsuch and Kavanugh situation ... but nice try.

 

[NinjaKnight]

The Merrick Garland situation is far different from the Gorsuch and Kavanugh situation ... but nice try.

Yep sure is different. Your side was the one blocking 100% of all SC nominees.

 

[UCFWayne]

The Merrick Garland situation is far different from the Gorsuch and Kavanugh situation ... but nice try.

its not like there is a precedence for that situation or anything either.... oh wait there is.

 

[Crazyhole]

There is no doubt at all that confirming Kavanaugh will be thought of as a political win for the right, just like Kagan, Sotomeyer, and Garland (had it come to pass) were considered political wins for the left. That in itself is the problem. And quite honestly, having your presidential candidate be a political win is a bigger problem.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The Merrick Garland situation is far different from the Gorsuch and Kavanugh situation ... but nice try.

If HRC had won and nominated her SC candidate, I can almost assure you that they'd pass with an overwhelming vote from Republicans assuming they were qualified and not some crackpot left winger.

 

[NinjaKnight]

If HRC had won and nominated her SC candidate, I can almost assure you that they'd pass with an overwhelming vote from Republicans assuming they were qualified and not some crackpot left winger.

Its almost as if you live in an alternate reality. Insane how disconnected you are from the real world that the rest of us live in.

 

[Crazyhole]

RBG is the reason that these hearings have become political. It started with Bork, but Ginsburg is the reason that just being "qualified" isnt enough anymore for the right. Stop nominating ideologues who disrespect their office and the right will go along with whoever the left nominates.

 

[The Branch]

Yep sure is different. Your side was the one blocking 100% of all SC nominees.

100%? You forgot about Kagan and Sotomayor already? Hmm...

 

[NinjaKnight]

100%? You forgot about Kagan and Sotomayor already? Hmm...

100% of Obama's 2016 nominations. You literally had republican senators signing a letter saying they would oppose 100% of his nominations.

 

[Crazyhole]

100% of Obama's 2016 nominations. You literally had republican senators signing a letter saying they would oppose 100% of his nominations.

Because there was no faith that Obama would put up a nominee who wasnt politically driven, and thats fair. Thus far, Trump has not followed suit so the precedent is null.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Because there was no faith that Obama would put up a nominee who wasnt politically driven, and thats fair. Thus far, Trump has not followed suit so the precedent is null.

What an incredible load of bullshit. How about you let Obama choose a nominee before you just flat out deny him. Your statement makes zero sense.

 

[BG_Knightmare]

This one is for Ninja ....

- Nobody said Reid went nuclear on supreme court justices. He didn't need to because the Republicans didn't lockstep against if they believed the justice was qualified. Reid went nuclear on federal judges because Obama appointed a bunch of left wingers and the Republicans were blocking them. He set the precedent.

-Point 2 and 4 about The Federalist Society is hilarious. You already point out that Merrick Garland was a member, but then conveniently use him to say he was also extreme. Had Garland made the court, you would NEVER use that example. That aside, John Roberts was in the Federalist Society and was approved 13-5 by the judicial committee and 78-22 by the full Senate. Guess it wasn't really a problem then? Not enough for you? Antonin Scalia was 98-0. Not one person cared about The Federalist Society.

- Last point .... Kagan and Sotomayor got over 60 votes because the Republicans weren't lunatics blocking 100% of the nominations. Kagan had ZERO judicial experience ... and was the Dean at the ultra liberal Harvard Law School and still got 5 Republicans to vote for her. Sotomayor got more than that.

Like I said ... you moved the goal posts (differentiating federal judges and supreme court justices) and you made stuff up (Federalist Society is too extreme).

Fair point about Garland and The Federalist Society, but doesn't that give you pause that even though Garland would've likely been a moderate, his nomination and confirmation was still obstructed by a Republican majority Senate simply because he was nominated by Obama?

 

[sk8knight]

Fair point about Garland and The Federalist Society, but doesn't that give you pause that even though Garland would've likely been a moderate, his nomination and confirmation was still obstructed by a Republican majority Senate simply because he was nominated by Obama?

It might give one more pause if the 9th Circuit wasn’t so hell bent on ruling damn near everything it sees in the most leftist manner possible.

 

[The Branch]

Fair point about Garland and The Federalist Society, but doesn't that give you pause that even though Garland would've likely been a moderate, his nomination and confirmation was still obstructed by a Republican majority Senate simply because he was nominated by Obama?

There has only been one supreme court justice nominated by a President in his last year in office in our history ... and that nomination failed.

So although I'm not blind to the fact that the Republicans played hardball there on Garland, they did at least have a bit of history behind them.

 

[UCFKnight85]

There has only been one supreme court justice nominated by a President in his last year in office in our history ... and that nomination failed.

So although I'm not blind to the fact that the Republicans played hardball there on Garland, they did at least have a bit of history behind them.

They simply did exactly what Joe Biden had suggested.

 

[The Branch]

They simply did exactly what Joe Biden had suggested.

And if Biden was just some random Senator that had some random opinion that would have been one thing. He was actually Obama's Vice President at the time Garland was nominated. So the Republicans knew they had Biden on their side (at least, his previous thoughts on the matter were on their side)

 

[UCFWayne]

Fair point about Garland and The Federalist Society, but doesn't that give you pause that even though Garland would've likely been a moderate, his nomination and confirmation was still obstructed by a Republican majority Senate simply because he was nominated by Obama?

or it couldve been because it was a presidential election year and plenty of precedent of holding off until after the election

 

[NinjaKnight]

or it couldve been because it was a presidential election year and plenty of precedent of holding off until after the election

You keep saying this, I'm about 60% sure you aren't smart enough to define "precedent".

 

[Crazyhole]

What an incredible load of bullshit. How about you let Obama choose a nominee before you just flat out deny him. Your statement makes zero sense.

He did, Merrick Garland.

 

[NinjaKnight]

He did, Merrick Garland.

I'm talking about Obama's 2016 slot, that the Republicans just decided that he does not get to fulfill his presidential duties and appoint someone.

Why are you changing your stance, I remember you saying it was wrong for the GOP to just put out a blanket "no" statement.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm talking about Obama's 2016 slot, that the Republicans just decided that he does not get to fulfill his presidential duties and appoint someone.

Why are you changing your stance, I remember you saying it was wrong for the GOP to just put out a blanket "no" statement.

Im not changing my stance. I'm saying that the politics of the situation was that the republicans had no faith that Garland wouldnt be an ideologue because the last 2 Obama put up were exactly that.

 

[DaShuckster]

The Senate needs to go back to requiring 60/40 votes for supreme court nominees, until we get back to that I don't want to see any supreme court nominations.

I whole-heartedly agree no matter the ideology of the President who makes the nomination.

For our system to work, we desperately need free thinkers on the court, not strict partisan hacks of either party. Nothing is fail safe, but obtaining 60 votes makes it less likely a judge with a one-sided record is going to be confirmed.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I whole-heartedly agree no matter the ideology of the President who makes the nomination.

For our system to work, we desperately need free thinkers on the court, not strict partisan hacks of either party. Nothing is fail safe, but obtaining 60 votes makes it less likely a judge with a one-sided record is going to be confirmed.

You do realize that the rules were changed because Democrats were utterly unprepared to confirm a supremely qualified candidate in Neil Gosurch, yes?

Harry Reid destroyed the fillibuster and the GOP simply drew upon that to assure that worthy candidates are confirmed

 

[The Branch]

I whole-heartedly agree no matter the ideology of the President who makes the nomination.

For our system to work, we desperately need free thinkers on the court, not strict partisan hacks of either party. Nothing is fail safe, but obtaining 60 votes makes it less likely a judge with a one-sided record is going to be confirmed.

I don't disagree with this. I wish it was never changed.

 

[DaShuckster]

You do realize that the rules were changed because Democrats were utterly unprepared to confirm a supremely qualified candidate in Neil Gosurch, yes?

Harry Reid destroyed the fillibuster and the GOP simply drew upon that to assure that worthy candidates are confirmed

The GOP was using their minority clout at the time to deny ANY candidates from getting confirmed. I admit that Reid's decision was ill-advised but having an ever-increasing backlog of Presidential appointees waiting to get confirmed was absolutely ridiculous.

But that's the new modern GOP gameplan: Either we get our way or we don't play.

 

[sk8knight]

I don't disagree with this. I wish it was never changed.

We can wish all we want, but when you've got a good number of Democrats publicly saying that they will not vote for the nominee before anyone has even been nominated, you can't have a super-majority requirement. It's irresponsible of them and it would be irresponsible of Republicans as well.

 

[sk8knight]

The GOP was using their minority clout at the time to deny ANY candidates from getting confirmed. I admit that Reid's decision was ill-advised but having an ever-increasing backlog of Presidential appointees waiting to get confirmed was absolutely ridiculous.

But that's the new modern GOP gameplan: Either we get our way or we don't play.

You realize that goes both ways, right? Democrats have stalled Republican nominees and legislation for years as well. You can't lay it all on one party.

 

[NinjaKnight]

We can wish all we want, but when you've got a good number of Democrats publicly saying that they will not vote for the nominee before anyone has even been nominated, you can't have a super-majority requirement. It's irresponsible of them and it would be irresponsible of Republicans as well.

I love how you completely ignored the dozen GOP congresspeople who literally signed a letter saying they would not consider ANY nominee Obama put up in 2016. Spineless Mitch's "proudest moment". Pathetic.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The GOP was using their minority clout at the time to deny ANY candidates from getting confirmed. I admit that Reid's decision was ill-advised but having an ever-increasing backlog of Presidential appointees waiting to get confirmed was absolutely ridiculous.

But that's the new modern GOP gameplan: Either we get our way or we don't play.

Give me a break. You bitch and whine about the GOP changing the rules last year yet give Reid a pass for changing hundreds of years of precedent by saying “meanie Republicans weren’t confirming appointees fast enough!”

The way to change that is to actually win elections, not nuke the fillibuster. But Harry Reid did, at the request of Barack Obama, and now you guys get to live with the consequences. Deal with it.

 

[DaShuckster]

You realize that goes both ways, right? Democrats have stalled Republican nominees and legislation for years as well. You can't lay it all on one party.

If you look at the past 40-plus years, it's been a back and forth 'always escalating' deal

It shouldn't be that hard for folks on either side to fathom that the success of our country over the years has come from a system of government that relies on our ability to compromise.

This "All or Nothing" crap from both parties has put our country in serious jeopardy.

 

[sk8knight]

If you look at the past 40-plus years, it's been a back and forth 'always escalating' deal

It shouldn't be that hard for folks on either side to fathom that the success of our country over the years has come from a system of government that relies on our ability to compromise.

This "All or Nothing" crap from both parties has put our country in serious jeopardy.

Agree

 

[Crazyhole]

If you look at the past 40-plus years, it's been a back and forth 'always escalating' deal

It shouldn't be that hard for folks on either side to fathom that the success of our country over the years has come from a system of government that relies on our ability to compromise.

This "All or Nothing" crap from both parties has put our country in serious jeopardy.

Regarding SCOTUS, where exactly is the back and forth you're talking about? Bork, Thomas, Miers were the only ones I can recall who received poor treatment and it all came from the left. Other than Garland, which democrat-nominated SCOTUS justice was turned away or the subject of character assassination?

 

[UCFWayne]

Regarding SCOTUS, where exactly is the back and forth you're talking about? Bork, Thomas, Miers were the only ones I can recall who received poor treatment and it all came from the left. Other than Garland, which democrat-nominated SCOTUS justice was turned away or the subject of character assassination?

i mean i posted a great source for information on this....

 

[Crazyhole]

i mean i posted a great source for information on this....

Sorry, missed that. Of note: the article you shared didnt include the other Ginsburg. The guy who followed Bork but stepped aside because someone found out he smoked pot in college. Funny how things have changed.

 

[DaShuckster]

Regarding SCOTUS, where exactly is the back and forth you're talking about?

The Senate playing games with its rules.