• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Criticizes Treatment Of Kavanaugh During SCOTUS Hearings..;

But then, if she says something negative about Trump, she's a hyper-partisan with no business being on the court. Or so it was here said....




Anyway, regardless of whether she is right, the Dems would be idiots not to try to use every trick in the book at this point. Any time they take the high road, the GOP screws them by taking the low road when they get the chance. Shame things have come to this pass, but if the Dems just always fall on their swords, we'll have one party rule by the GOP
 
Mr Person said:
But then, if she says something negative about Trump, she's a hyper-partisan with no business being on the court. Or so it was here said....
Click to expand...

that too! :lol:
 
Merrick Garland is just the tip of the iceberg. They also held up appointments to the 1st District. The 1st is the most important court after the SC, and in political terms, it's incredibly useful as a way of keeping cases from getting to the SC.

There's lots more, like the way Republicans are trying to sneak Kavanaugh through while hiding his paper trail. Or saying documents pertaining to Kavanaugh were classified when they weren't.

We're as far from normal order as you can get.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, they're not, but I can see why someone would have to pretend otherwise. They would settle once and for all if he lied under oath during his confirmation hearings, for one thing, and the vast majority of his paper trail is being withheld.
Click to expand...

So put aside the perjury charge for a second since it didn't exist when the confirmation hearings began.

How does his writing as a lawyer inform his judging ability? A lawyer is supposed to advance the interest of his client. What a lawyer writes in that capacity does not necessarily reflect his pwn beliefs or his judicial philosophy. So what is the point of reviewing those documents?

He's written or concurred on something like 400 appellate decisions. Those bear directly on how he'd do his job on the Supreme Court. If that's not enough nothing is.

As to perjury as I understand it there's a criminal complaint that's being reviewed by the DC Court. We'll see what they say.
 
Mr Person said:
But then, if she says something negative about Trump, she's a hyper-partisan with no business being on the court. Or so it was here said....




Anyway, regardless of whether she is right, the Dems would be idiots not to try to use every trick in the book at this point. Any time they take the high road, the GOP screws them by taking the low road when they get the chance. Shame things have come to this pass, but if the Dems just always fall on their swords, we'll have one party rule by the GOP
Click to expand...

I think the Dems are nuts. They really think they're gonna get someone more to their liking if the torpedo this nomination? Kavanaugh is qualified and his opinions aren't out of the mainstream - he and Garland agreed on the vast majority of cases that came before the court.
 
Amelia said:
The Democrats standing up to Kavanaugh were elected, too.

Yes, elections have consequences.

And so does the GOP's 8 years of obstructionism when Obama was president.

And so does the GOP's complete abandonment of principle now.

Part of the consequences are that everything is fair game. No unwritten rules of decorum and statesmanship apply now. In the belligerent environment of today's GOP as headlined by Trump, Democrats' constituents expect them to fight. We have a president who gives more credence to the words of murderous dictators than to American institutions. A president who beams like a starstruck teenybopper when he gets positive attention from those dictators. And we have Republicans who are openly and aggressively doing what they accused Democrats of doing during Obama's tenure.

Nothing is sacred. Ginsburg is in a position to say something which we should take to heart. But Trump supporters stand for everything she is speaking against. I'd say Trump supporters are breaking the irony meter, except that they pulverized it months ago. Everything is broken. There is nothing left to break.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your golden boy shouldn't have voiced sending Republicans to the back of the bus.


Elections do have a way of evening the score......if that is how you want political parties to act.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Perhaps your golden boy shouldn't have voiced sending Republicans to the back of the bus.


Elections do have a way of evening the score......if that is how you want political parties to act.
Click to expand...


Not my golden boy.

Obama was a douche. I said so over and over.

Obama was not good. Republicans are orders of magnitude worse. They are so bad that this Bush, McCain and Romney voter isn't a Republican anymore.


Republicans need to keep in mind that elections have a way of evening the score. Obama was so bad that we got Trump. Now Republicans are doing everything they accused Democrats of and worse, and they think somehow they'll be immune from the fate which Democrats got?
 
Amelia said:
Not my golden boy.

Obama was a douche. I said so over and over.

Obama was not good. Republicans are orders of magnitude worse. They are so bad that this Bush, McCain and Romney voter isn't a Republican anymore.


Republicans need to keep in mind that elections have a way of evening the score. Obama was so bad that we got Trump. Now Republicans are doing everything they accused Democrats of and worse, and they think somehow they'll be immune from the fate which Democrats got?
Click to expand...

You need to open your eyes and ears as to what is going on ………………….on both sides of the fence.

Democrats and Republicans are all full of **** when it comes to instigating & placing blame.
 
Anagram said:
I have to agree with RBG here. To those bringing up Merrick Garland: I absolutely agree that Republicans were in the wrong. They adhered to a “rule” I am 100% confident they never would have had the parties of the president and senate been reversed.

Yet I fail to see how that fact makes the Democrats’ actions here any better.
Click to expand...
There are two major differences:

1) Republicans are continually, repeatedly and willfully hiding documents related to Kavanaugh's nomination, even when there is no real reason to do so (as we have seen from the documents leaked by the Senate Dems). That is not standard, to the best of my knowledge.

2) Kavanaugh has been nominated by a President who is clearly on a collision course with legal cases likely to wind up in the Supreme Court and, to the best of my knowledge, he has refused to state his position on how he views (as a SC Justice) the President when it comes to criminal investigations. In other words, the man who will clearly be a defendant in criminal cases (even if it is just a subpoena) is getting to pick the judges who will preside over his case and Americans are not given any insight into how the potential Justice will be inclined to rule. That is most definitely not standard.

These two are not subtle nor unimportant differences. They are incredibly important differences, one of which can basically determine whether or not our President can be a criminal both during his Presidency and before it and be legally allowed to get away with it and/or obstruct (little o obstruct, not big O Obstruct) the investigation into himself because he is the President.


With that said, do I think Democrats would have just sat back contentedly if those two issues were addressed? No, obviously not. Not only is it a partisan show, there is also quite a bit of understandably "hurt" feelings over the way Republicans chose to ignore the will of the people with Obama's nomination. But, despite the partisanship, the two issues mentioned above are INCREDIBLY important and should be addressed before a Kavanaugh confirmation.
 
Rogue Valley said:
RBG is what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to be.

Not like Kavanaugh who refuses to answer questions by using the all-encompassing "hypothetical" duck.
Click to expand...

It was Ginberg that started the "hypothetical duck". quack quack. Every jurist since has applied it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You need to open your eyes and ears as to what is going on ………………….on both sides of the fence.

Democrats and Republicans are all full of **** when it comes to instigating & placing blame.
Click to expand...


My eyes and ears are working just fine.

There's a reason I'm not a Democrat.


But there's an even bigger reason that for the foreseeable future I'll be doing all I can to help Democrats hold the line against the new Putin-loving GOP.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Two words

Merrick Garland

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This is an election year after all, the people should have the right to vote on who fills the seat. Wasn't that the theory?
Click to expand...

Democrats nominate their kinds of judges and conservatives nominate their kinds of judges. If the American people have given conservatives greater political power during this period then leftists will just have to accept what happens as the end result of the will of the people.
 
Anagram said:
I have to agree with RBG here. To those bringing up Merrick Garland: I absolutely agree that Republicans were in the wrong. They adhered to a “rule” I am 100% confident they never would have had the parties of the president and senate been reversed.

Yet I fail to see how that fact makes the Democrats’ actions here any better.
Click to expand...

Agreed and neither does the rush to confirmation. That is on the Republicans.
May be wrong here, but who changed the Senate rules for SCOTUS to a simple majority? IIRC it was McConnel
 
Amelia said:
My eyes and ears are working just fine.

There's a reason I'm not a Democrat.


But there's an even bigger reason that for the foreseeable future I'll be doing all I can to help Democrats hold the line against the new Putin-loving GOP.
Click to expand...



Are the Democrats going to stand up and be really really tough by telling Pooty to "knock it off" again?

Or draw some more red lines?

Or laugh again when someone says that Russia is out biggest geopolitical foe? (Romney)


Gimme a break.
 
JANFU said:
Agreed and neither does the rush to confirmation. That is on the Republicans.
May be wrong here, but who changed the Senate rules for SCOTUS to a simple majority? IIRC it was McConnel
Click to expand...

Democrats for non-SCOTUS. Republicans for SCOTUS.

Either way I think having the ability to appoint federal judges at all dependent on the party of the President and Senate being the same really undermines the legitimacy of our federal judicial system.
 
Anagram said:
Democrats for non-SCOTUS. Republicans for SCOTUS.

Either way I think having the ability to appoint federal judges at all dependent on the party of the President and Senate being the same really undermines the legitimacy of our federal judicial system.
Click to expand...

Good point. Then raise the min Senate vote required.
 
It is a horribly viscious partisan cycle we find ourselves in. The Dems will cite Judge Garland’s treatment and they are 100% correct to be upset about that. So then the Dems go ultra-partisan when it is a Republican president’s turn. Do they think it will stop there? Do they think the Republicans will “learn their lesson”? No. Next time the Republicans will cite how hyperpartisan the Dems were being to excuse a new level of partisanship. Then the Dems will do it again and around and around we go.

We are cycling around and around and down and down, not unlike a toilet bowl flushing. I have no idea how we are going to overcome the inertia of our political trajectory.
 
Stop with the public hearings, eliminate the television cameras, take away the opportunities for Senators to grandstand. Take away the opportunity for protesters to grandstand.

Problem solved.
 
hanger4 said:
Stop with the public hearings, eliminate the television cameras, take away the opportunities for Senators to grandstand. Take away the opportunity for protesters to grandstand.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

My initial gut response is that is anti-democratic. But I honestly can’t see that being worse than the way we currently do it.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are you saying there is not an election coming up in a few months. An election in which senators, who ultimately approve members to the Supreme Court will be chosen (at least some of course)
Click to expand...

The rule has always been Presidential elections, and that has been Bi-Partisan. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting a similar rule for the Senate.

Now as you say bad behaviour is not excused if one side did it first, but if it is not punished and it unfortunately was not punished tends to become the new normal

Anthony Kennedy was appointed to the SCOTUS in Feb 1988, an election year
Click to expand...

Actually, the Kennedy example disproves your claim :( Since both sides tend to downplay their own abuses of norms, punishment of one side's bad behavior A) tends to over reach and B) produces more retribution in turn. Kennedy was put into the SCOTUS after Democrats decided to destroy the norms that had governed SCOTUS appointments, by the way they treated Bork.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It is a horribly viscious partisan cycle we find ourselves in. The Dems will cite Judge Garland’s treatment and they are 100% correct to be upset about that. So then the Dems go ultra-partisan when it is a Republican president’s turn. Do they think it will stop there? Do they think the Republicans will “learn their lesson”? No. Next time the Republicans will cite how hyperpartisan the Dems were being to excuse a new level of partisanship. Then the Dems will do it again and around and around we go.

We are cycling around and around and down and down, not unlike a toilet bowl flushing. I have no idea how we are going to overcome the inertia of our political trajectory.
Click to expand...

With respect, that implies that we will :(
 
Skeptic Bob said:
My initial gut response is that is anti-democratic. But I honestly can’t see that being worse than the way we currently do it.
Click to expand...

Public hearings for SC nominees didn't start until 1916, the first nominee to show up didn't happen until 1925. And the first televised hearing was 1981 on cable. Since 1981 Senator grandstanding became front and center. It wasn't anti- democratic before, why would it be now ??
 
KLATTU said:
Oh fer crying out loud, give it up already. He's getting in.
You don't want to sound as dimwitted and sleazy as Booker, Harris and Feinstein.

Seek the higher ground.
Click to expand...

Okay here's some higher ground.
Kavanaugh is most likely getting in but you guys better not get too used to things going 100 percent your way for very long because Kavanaugh is probably the last RW SCOTUS justice you are going to seat for a generation.
So enjoy it while you can. You might sway the Court for five years at most.
There on out, you're outnumbered and out maneuvered in every election until maybe 2050, or longer.
You may very well wind up seeing three SCOTUS justices seated with the power to oppose ripped from your grasp, because you guys blew it up with the nuclear option already.

I don't blame the Democratic Party from doing all they can to add some friction to a well greased RNC slam dunk, but I realize Kavanaugh is getting in, but I also know that's the swan song for the Right for a very long time, and not just in the SCOTUS either.
 
cpwill said:
The rule has always been Presidential elections, and that has been Bi-Partisan. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting a similar rule for the Senate.



Actually, the Kennedy example disproves your claim :( Since both sides tend to downplay their own abuses of norms, punishment of one side's bad behavior A) tends to over reach and B) produces more retribution in turn. Kennedy was put into the SCOTUS after Democrats decided to destroy the norms that had governed SCOTUS appointments, by the way they treated Bork.
Click to expand...

Feb 1988 was not part of an election year? For some reason I believed GHWB was elected in 1988
 
cpwill said:
With respect, that implies that we will :(
Click to expand...

That is a depressing point, but if I am honest with myself I have already given up on our government. All I can do is the best I can to set myself and my family up for success despite our increasingly partisan and incompetent government.

The complicated question is: if I have no respect for our government, how can I have respect for the voters who put them in office or for the laws the politicians make? These things actually keep me up some nights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom