Senate Judiciary announces Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing

MovingPictures said:

If and when Kavanaugh is confirmed it will be the responsibility of Democrats to orchestrate political strike-back against the GOP, once they regain majority control of the Congress and WH.

One of the options has to be an expansion of the court.

Click to expand...

Would not survive a veto.
Nor would it survive a filibuster.

They are not going to expand the court and the fact that you want to do this just for political power.

It would take an act of congress to change the number of judges.
The house would not approve such a bill.

Harshaw said:

You got more reliable poll numbers in battleground states?

Now's the time. Let's see them.

According to HuffPo/YouGov, a clear majority nationwide say hearings on Kavanaugh should happen before the election.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b48f025e4b0e7c958fb1c5c

The problem is, you mistake your personal anger for that of the country.

Click to expand...

The numbers on Kavanaugh show that he's already unpopular with larger public, and only a thin margin want him confirmed. Once his confirmation in the middle of an election year (which is directly against McConnells own rule), he'll poll even lower and the public be even more pissed off.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/brett-kavanaugh-is-polling-like-robert-bork-and-harriet-miers/

The traditional way pollsters test support for a Supreme Court nominee is this: “Do you think the Senate should vote to confirm [name] to the Supreme Court?” At least three high-quality pollsters have asked a version of this question for Kavanaugh already — enough to start taking the data seriously.

According to a Fox News poll conducted July 9-11, 38 percent of registered voters said they would vote to confirm Kavanaugh; 32 percent said they would vote against him. That +6 “net confirmation rating” is the second-worst initial score1 out of the seven Supreme Court nominees Fox News has polled.2 Only Harriet Miers, whose appointment to the court by George W. Bush was withdrawn, fared worse, with a +5 score.

According to a Gallup poll taken July 10-15, 41 percent of U.S. adults want to see the Senate vote in favor of Kavanaugh, while 37 percent want him voted down. On Gallup’s “initial reads” of 10 Supreme Court candidates since Robert Bork,3 only two came close to having such a low score: Bork, who was the rare nominee to lose a confirmation vote outright, and Miers. Miers had a +8 net confirmation rating; Bork’s was +6; Kavanaugh sits at +4

Click to expand...

You keep setting em' up and I'll just keep knocking em' down.

Cardinal said:

Now be honest. In light of everything the GOP has done for the last three years, is impeaching the judicial appointment of a President who's under FBI investigation for criminal involvement with a hostile foreign government the most shocking thing you've ever heard?

The Republican party has lost its mind and left the reservation. If they honestly believe they get to set the judicial direction of the country for the next thirty years with impunity, then frankly they're living in a dream world.

Click to expand...

Sorry guilt by association is not a impeachable crime.

MovingPictures said:

That's just Republican propaganda. Days before the Republican attacks it was Hatch that said Garland was a "fine man", and used him as an example of moderation on the court. That is until Mitch the Bitch and his gang sought to soil his reputation.

Wait, here you're supporting the idea of filling a vacancy on the court with someone that closely represents the views of the former justice, (like replacing Scalia with Gorsuch), but then you go on to support the idea of someone like Kennedy being replaced by Kavanaugh, which is a complete 180 from what you're saying right here.

If Garland couldn't replace Scalia, why should Kavanaugh get to replace Kennedy? Can't have this both ways.


:roll:

Click to expand...

No, I didn't "support" any such idea.

If I were to enter what I want in a Supreme Court Justice into the Electronic Arts Supreme Court Construction Set, it would spit out Neil Gorsuch. No, **** "balance"; I want NINE of HIM. That's what I support, without reservation. Hell, I wish he sat on EVERY bench. His judicial philosophy and acumen are impeccable. I find Kavanaugh sub-par, especially next to him.

No, it's YOU who insist that what YOU want is "balance."

So tell me, if it's "balance" you want, and want to maintain, then what makes Garland a better choice to replace Antonin Scalia than Gorsuch? Please explain. And remember . . . "balance."

Cardinal said:

How well did McConnell's tactic work for the GOP? Did it blow up in their face or would you say it worked out pretty well for them in the end?

Click to expand...

They think only they are allowed to break precedents to get what they want, while everybody else is obligated to play by the rules.

I'll say this. If the GOP had allowed Garland to be confirmed, I'd have no personal beef with what fortune came they way under Trump. We all knew Kennedy was going to retire and we all knew that if the Republicans won the WH, they would then use the nuclear option to fill his seat with a justice that was more extreme.

But they made it loud and clear that they wanted a court politically aligned with their warfare games, so they played rogue politics to steal an extra seat.

Harshaw said:

Sure they can. Voters likely wouldn't take kindly to it, though. So go for it.

Click to expand...

He doesn't know what he is talking about.
It would have to be a bill to change the existing law. It would survive a filibuster or veto vote.
If dems had the house it might get through there but I figure not too many people would push that envelope.

Harshaw said:

No, I didn't "support" any such idea.

If I were to enter what I want in a Supreme Court Justice into the Electronic Arts Supreme Court Construction Set, it would spit out Neil Gorsuch. No, **** "balance"; I want NINE of HIM. That's what I support, without reservation. Hell, I wish he sat on EVERY bench. His judicial philosophy and acumen are impeccable. I find Kavanaugh sub-par, especially next to him.

Click to expand...

Aaaaaand, there goes your whole "libertarian" mask.

MovingPictures said:

The numbers on Kavanaugh show that he's already unpopular with larger public, and only a thin margin want him confirmed. Once his confirmation in the middle of an election year (which is directly against McConnells own rule), he'll poll even lower and the public be even more pissed off.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/brett-kavanaugh-is-polling-like-robert-bork-and-harriet-miers/


You keep setting em' up and I'll just keep knocking em' down.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you think you "knocked down"?

You claimed that if the Senate confirms Kavanaugh, it'll be electoral disaster for the GOP for a long time to come. Yet lo and behold, even you say a majority, however "thin" it may be, want him confirmed.

Do tell how THAT translates to many years of electoral armageddon for the GOP.

MovingPictures said:

Aaaaaand, there goes your whole "libertarian" mask.

Click to expand...

You're dodging the question.

If "balance" is really what you want to maintain, what makes Garland a better replacement for Antonin Scalia than Gorsuch? "Balance."

Roadvirus said:

Cryin' Chuck is an overbearing pusbag. I can see where Amy Schumer get's her bitchy personality.

Click to expand...

Schumer is for something until he is not. That is what make him a 'good' sleazebag politician. He stands for things that serve the Democrat party no matter how illegal, immoral or unethical those things may be, because the party is his bread and butter. You could say when it comes to choosing between God and the Democrat party, for Schumer it is "to hell with God."

JMR said:

The cost of the wall is estimated at 70 billion, with an additional 110 million per year to maintain it. Obviously there are people very informed as to how to implement our laws to control illegal immigration. Unfortunately those are not the people in charge of the current circus. Trump is still learning that delivering on very simple solutions to very complex problems is not an easy task. So he puts his focus on building a wall, a task that could be done, with little evidence that it would change anything. Meanwhile, no meaningful immigration policy is in place. We have become a world wide focus of cruelty and this matter.

Click to expand...

Trump has requested a fraction of the cost of the wall, and not the total. Get a grip. Most of the people charged with enforcing immigration law are the same people that served during the Obama administration. There is evidence that walls can be effective deterrents, as well. Look at Israel's wall, and tell me about the last spate of suicide bombings that were targeted at Israel from the West Bank. When you first saw images of children in chain link enclosures, you didn't realize they were archival photos from the Obama administration. Where was your outrage then?

Pruitt was just one of many bad choices, not only because he was a crook, but also because he sought to dismantle 40 years worth of environmental protections. This gets little coverage because of the constant upheaval of the White House.

Click to expand...

Yes, Pruitt was a poor choice. The EPA transitioned over it's existence from enforcing environmental laws to monitoring the mud puddles in my back yard. They need a hair cut.

Every credible economist will point out that the Economy did in fact turn around during the Obama administration, and that Trump inherited a ship heading in the right direction.

Click to expand...

And every human with the brain of a slug can tell you that when you hit bottom, the only thing left is upward movement. Obama had eight years to achieve meaningful sustained growth. It didn't happen. What did happen was the layering of additional regulation which throttled the growth of small business while corporate tax rates were the highest on the planet. Your wishful spin doesn't play in reality.

I find it impossible to separate Trump's "public persona" (is that euphemism for seriously lacking morality?) from his policies....which I have yet to see the positive ones enumerated .

Click to expand...

I'm sure you find a lot of things impossible.

JMR said:

I am fully aware of the process. This post shows you repeating CA....like an echo.

Click to expand...

It's obvious by your posts that you don't know the process. Also, facts are surprisingly similar so it's fine if they are echoed.

humbolt said:

Trump has requested a fraction of the cost of the wall, and not the total. Get a grip. Most of the people charged with enforcing immigration law are the same people that served during the Obama administration. There is evidence that walls can be effective deterrents, as well. Look at Israel's wall, and tell me about the last spate of suicide bombings that were targeted at Israel from the West Bank. When you first saw images of children in chain link enclosures, you didn't realize they were archival photos from the Obama administration. Where was your outrage then?



Yes, Pruitt was a poor choice. The EPA transitioned over it's existence from enforcing environmental laws to monitoring the mud puddles in my back yard. They need a hair cut.



And every human with the brain of a slug can tell you that when you hit bottom, the only thing left is upward movement. Obama had eight years to achieve meaningful sustained growth. It didn't happen. What did happen was the layering of additional regulation which throttled the growth of small business while corporate tax rates were the highest on the planet. Your wishful spin doesn't play in reality.




I'm sure you find a lot of things impossible.

Click to expand...

So very entrenched in your thinking....and insults are all that come of it. Have a good day.

Fishking said:

It's obvious by your posts that you don't know the process. Also, facts are surprisingly similar so it's fine if they are echoed.

Click to expand...

The process is this. The president makes a nomination to fill an empty seat, and the Senate holds hearings and a vote. The Senate may not act on a nomination and said nomination expires when the Congressional session ends. In the last (2016) case, a new idea was brought forth that the national election should be held before action was taken on the nomination , so the people could weigh in. This was totally BS, and McConnell further stated that IF Clinton won the presidency, and the GOP kept control of the Senate, the seat would be kept open until the next presidential election.

I am surprised that you find this behavior by the GOP Congress so honorable. We will see if you back similar behavior in the future by Democrats, and remain credible on this issue.

JMR said:

The process is this. The president makes a nomination to fill an empty seat, and the Senate holds hearings and a vote. The Senate may not act on a nomination and said nomination expires when the Congressional session ends. In the last (2016) case, a new idea was brought forth that the national election should be held before action was taken on the nomination , so the people could weigh in. This was totally BS, and McConnell further stated that IF Clinton won the presidency, and the GOP kept control of the Senate, the seat would be kept open until the next presidential election.

I am surprised that you find this behavior by the GOP Congress so honorable. We will see if you back similar behavior in the future by Democrats, and remain credible on this issue.

Click to expand...

That is correct:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said Monday that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Republicans will unite to block anyone she nominates to the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/4983...l-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

So Republicans would have us believe that it's reasonable to deny Democratic Presidents a hearing on all of their nominations for their entire terms (thus proving the lie that blocking Garland was about leaving it to the people to vote in the next term), but impeaching a Scotus Justice who was nominated by a President under FBI investigation for criminal involvement with a hostile foreign government is completely irrational.

This is why the hysteria by Republicans in this thread in reaction to my suggestion carries zero weight.

JMR said:

The process is this. The president makes a nomination to fill an empty seat, and the Senate holds hearings and a vote. The Senate may not act on a nomination and said nomination expires when the Congressional session ends. In the last (2016) case, a new idea was brought forth that the national election should be held before action was taken on the nomination , so the people could weigh in. This was totally BS, and McConnell further stated that IF Clinton won the presidency, and the GOP kept control of the Senate, the seat would be kept open until the next presidential election.

I am surprised that you find this behavior by the GOP Congress so honorable. We will see if you back similar behavior in the future by Democrats, and remain credible on this issue.

Click to expand...

I never said it was honorable. I've only said they operated well within their authority in what they did.

Fishking said:

I never said it was honorable. I've only said they operated well within their authority in what they did.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you mentioned that to some one else. Your only posts to me were that I did not understand the process.

I am wondering when the expectation of honor from our elected officials slipped away so conveniently?

Cardinal said:

That is correct:



https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/4983...l-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

So Republicans would have us believe that it's reasonable to deny Democratic Presidents a hearing on all of their nominations for their entire terms (thus proving the lie that blocking Garland was about leaving it to the people to vote in the next term), but impeaching a Scotus Justice who was nominated by a President under FBI investigation for criminal involvement with a hostile foreign government is completely irrational.

This is why the hysteria by Republicans in this thread in reaction to my suggestion carries zero weight.

Click to expand...

There wasn't any "hysteria" to your suggestion. There was just the rather reasonable statement that you're just plain wrong, said many times.

And no one said your suggestion was "completely irrational." They simply explained how it was just plain wrong.

This is, of course, the typical level of dishonesty with which you conduct yourself in these things.

humbolt said:

Trump has requested a fraction of the cost of the wall, and not the total. Get a grip. Most of the people charged with enforcing immigration law are the same people that served during the Obama administration. There is evidence that walls can be effective deterrents, as well. Look at Israel's wall, and tell me about the last spate of suicide bombings that were targeted at Israel from the West Bank. When you first saw images of children in chain link enclosures, you didn't realize they were archival photos from the Obama administration. Where was your outrage then?



Yes, Pruitt was a poor choice. The EPA transitioned over it's existence from enforcing environmental laws to monitoring the mud puddles in my back yard. They need a hair cut.



And every human with the brain of a slug can tell you that when you hit bottom, the only thing left is upward movement. Obama had eight years to achieve meaningful sustained growth. It didn't happen. What did happen was the layering of additional regulation which throttled the growth of small business while corporate tax rates were the highest on the planet. Your wishful spin doesn't play in reality.




I'm sure you find a lot of things impossible.

Click to expand...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Many people thought the EPA was kidding when they announced they intended to monitor puddles in lawns after a rain. They weren't, but that brainstorm was quickly and "quietly" scrapped when public ridicule became a source of jokes and laughter. :shrug:

In August of 2015, we had a real catastrophe that no one found amusing! There were several million gallons of water from the Animus River in Colorado that turned bright orange with heavy metals, toxic chemicals and arsenic when the EPA inadvertently released wastewater from an abandoned gold mine they were cleaning up. Sadly, everything in the River died - fish, other aquatic animals and plant life.

Accidents happen, but that River flows through parks where people camp, and no one knows at this point if the river bottom will retain any of those contaminates, and what effect that water will have on trees and other vegetation in the future, let alone with people who used to water their gardens and pastures from that river. I haven't kept up with this story, so I don't know what the latest might be!

Too many other things to argue about now anyway.... :duel

JMR said:

Perhaps you mentioned that to some one else. Your only posts to me were that I did not understand the process.

I am wondering when the expectation of honor from our elected officials slipped away so conveniently?

Click to expand...

Nah...didn't say honorable anything. As for your question...that's been gone for a while. I'll say that the advent of the 24 hr news cycle and social media has probably been two of the biggest factors in it's degredation.