Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

 

There was also the whole line of questioning around whether or not a sitting president must respond to subpoena or could pardon himself of crimes, to which Kavanaugh continually responded "I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions." 

 

That's a pretty standard response to those types of questions that I didn't find abnormal.

Link to comment

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's a pretty standard response to those types of questions that I didn't find abnormal.

 

Except we're in abnormal times, with a sitting President that may have committed treason by conspiring with the Russians. 

 

So while it may be a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical when things were more...grounded...it's not anymore. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's a pretty standard response to those types of questions that I didn't find abnormal.

 

Normally, I would agree that this line of questioning is out-of-bounds. But we're currently in uncharted territory.

 

24 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Except we're in abnormal times, with a sitting President that may have committed treason by conspiring with the Russians. 

 

So while it may be a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical when things were more...grounded...it's not anymore. 

 

The entire process needs to be put on hold until the Mueller investigation wraps up. It's bad enough that Trump's been able to seat one justice (something that probably can't be "undone" no matter what happens to Trump). And now he's days away from getting to seat a second. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's a pretty standard response to those types of questions that I didn't find abnormal.

 

Everybody knows these hearings are a dog & pony show where we don't learn anything. Nobody answers anything honestly since Bork.

 

They give safe answers. How hypothetical is this situation, though? Presidents have been subpoenaed before. Kavanaugh has made very direct comments about the subject. And the president, whose administration is under investigation, and his lawyers, are openly salivating about ignoring a subpoena and sending the matter to the Supreme Court. Saying it's hypothetical is a load of sh#t.

 

20 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Except we're in abnormal times, with a sitting President that may have committed treason by conspiring with the Russians. 

 

So while it may be a pie-in-the-sky hypothetical when things were more...grounded...it's not anymore. 

 

Agreed.

 

Kavanaugh would be less of a big deal under ordinary circumstances. But, in addition to everything that's already been said, he's a lifelong GOP partisan figure. He's been surrounded by GOP figures & ruled the way they would prefer his entire judicial life. His confirmation amounts to installing a Republican robot on the Supreme Court.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Am I the only one who really doesn't think this Kavanaugh nomination is all that bad? He leans right, but he's fairly centrist from what I've heard in the hearings this week. He's extremely intelligent, and knowledgeable. Is this really that bad?

 

The only issue I have is that Trump probably shouldn't be nominating anyone at the moment given the ethical implications. Maybe Kavanaugh would recuse himself from any rulings...

Link to comment

18 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Am I the only one who really doesn't think this Kavanaugh nomination is all that bad? He leans right, but he's fairly centrist from what I've heard in the hearings this week. He's extremely intelligent, and knowledgeable. Is this really that bad?

 

The only issue I have is that Trump probably shouldn't be nominating anyone at the moment given the ethical implications. Maybe Kavanaugh would recuse himself from any rulings...

 

 

Imagine how pissed off a recusal would make Trump. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
On 9/6/2018 at 9:39 AM, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

It really is interesting.  I've had the hearings on in the back ground in my office while I work.  There hasn't been a question that the guy hasn't answered very professionally, well prepared, knowledgeable.....etc.....his memory is extremely impressive......until this one.

See and I found him evasive and long winded to circumvent saying anything of substance.  He could quote things and reference what he'd done but rarely was it related to the question he was asked.  We are in trouble.

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Am I the only one who really doesn't think this Kavanaugh nomination is all that bad? He leans right, but he's fairly centrist from what I've heard in the hearings this week. He's extremely intelligent, and knowledgeable. Is this really that bad?

 

The only issue I have is that Trump probably shouldn't be nominating anyone at the moment given the ethical implications. Maybe Kavanaugh would recuse himself from any rulings...

I found his stance on many issues vague by his comments, but his past actions I find alarming.  I think he'd be the worst addition to the SC since Clarence Thomas.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

See and I found him evasive and long winded to circumvent saying anything of substance.  He could quote things and reference what he'd done but rarely was it related to the question he was asked.  We are in trouble.

I found his stance on many issues vague by his comments, but his past actions I find alarming.  I think he'd be the worst addition to the SC since Clarence Thomas.

I think that's a little over dramatic. He could clearly reference and interpret many cases (even though he prepaid that's still a tall task to remember all the info). If you listened to his rulings he seemed pretty fair minded. I can't see how he would be that much different than Justice Roberts. What are these past actions you find so alarming?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I think that's a little over dramatic. He could clearly reference and interpret many cases (even though he prepaid that's still a tall task to remember all the info). If you listened to his rulings he seemed pretty fair minded. I can't see how he would be that much different than Justice Roberts. What are these past actions you find so alarming?

 

Unabashedly corporate shill. At the expense of the planet. As long as businesses can make more money and have more freedom, all is well. And that's from Ralph Nader, one of the all time great consumer advocates. This is particularly bothersome:

 

Quote

He seems to love government power when it is arrayed against the people, ruling 7 times for police or human rights abuses versus zero rulings for the victims. But he rules against government agencies when they are protecting the interests of the people over those of corporations.

Even more extreme, he does not like human beings to sue corporations or sue the government. But if you are a corporation, the courthouse doors are always open.

 

I mean what the hell.

 

Unabashedly pro-2A.  This argument tries to make him out to be some type of would-be moderate on this issue, but it's on the basis of thing he has said, not rulings he has made. I've heard enough mealy-mouthed wish-wash from Kavanaugh. He appears to have lied under oath no less than 5 times. He is a liar. Liars do not belong on the Supreme Court. Particularly when they cannot stop themselves from lying under oath. 

 

NM is a woman. Kavanaugh was asked directly whether he agreed with the landmark case that gave women the autonomy to make their own health decisions about their own bodies. He said it was the settled law of the land. Then an email surfaced from 2003 where he wasn't so sure that was the case.

 

To top it all off, he's a lifelong Republican partisan. He can go up there and offer all the same meaningless fluff we've gotten from every nominee since Bork proved being candid can lose you your seat, but he's been awash in GOP politics his entire career until he became a judge, and it's foolish to think he left that behind when he put on the robe. We're going to get all this drivel about calling balls and strike and interpreting the law independent of politics and "I'm an originalist!", but it's all just a load of crap. He's a been a Republican his whole life,  trained to rule in a way that is amenable to Republican goals, ruled that way as a judge and now will go to the Supreme Court to do things Republicans want him to do. 

 

This metric used in a FiveThirtyEight article lists him as far to the right of Roberts & just ever so slightly left of Thomas, the most conservative justice.

 

So, essentially, we got stuck with a dishonest Republican activist who is going to always side with corporations over people, not touch guns whatsoever & tell women what they can do with their bodies. He's a catastrophically bad nominee.

 

Edit: Also, voting rights bad, voter ID laws good. This guy just gets worst the more you learn about him. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...