CDZ The US Supreme Court

[Tommy Tainant]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

 

[Correll]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

NOpe. Liberal legal activism is a valid reason to block all dem appointments. It is a threat to our democratic from of government.


Conservatives do not hold to judicial activism, so that does not apply.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

 

[Oddball]

It can’t be de-politicized; that genie is out of the bottle.

And what you’re witnessing is the dismantling of the American Constitutional Republic, the replacing of the rule of law with the capricious ‘will of the people’ – where the ignorance, fear, bigotry, racism, and hate of the people will go unchecked by the Constitution and its case law, allowing government to disadvantage various classes of persons for no other reason than who they are through force of law, because a simple majority of citizens have an unwarranted fear of, and hostility toward, a given class of persons.

This will be the consequence of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, or that of any reactionary conservative ideologue.

You want to live by the foolhardy trope of case law, you can die by it.

What absolutely mortifies the subversive left is that one of their tools of the intellectual corruption of the nation is about to be taken away, for a generation if not more. Long and the short of the matter is that they are so poor at persuasion, salesmanship, and winning hearts and minds, that they have to resort to perversion of the law -hence abusing its monopoly on the use of coercive aggression- to impose their will on dissenters at the point of a gun. And because thy absolutely suck at reason and persuasion (i.e. convincing others that the given policy is wrong) , they're left with the character assassination born of projecting their inherent moral flaws onto all who won't be moved by their intellectual bankruptcy. In other words, they are incapable of convincing anyone outside their little bubble that opposing arguments are wrong, so there must be something morally wrong with those making the arguments.

You can see this model in play in the quoted post.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

 

[2aguy]

The process looks to be a bit of a shambles from over here.

Both sides seem to be playing the same game and it all looks rather tawdry. These women may be lying in order to run down the clock.

But the other side is happy to airbrush out all the accusations for exactly the same reason.They are terrified that they will lose control of the process in November.

I cant see any good guys in this process.

How could the process be de-politicized so that justice is better served ?

How are they airbrushing anything? Neither of the women is credible in any way.


Both accusations are from over 30 years ago......

Ford...named 4 people who she said were at the party. All 4, under oath and threat of criminal penalty state there was no party...one of them is her best friend from High School. Ford can't remember when or where the party was, and gave different numbers for the people in the room.

Ramirez....stated she did not see Kavanaugh do anything, she merely heard his name called out as she lay on the floor in a drunken stupor......and the New York Time, NBC news, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker Magazine, all interviewed dozens of people named by the victim who were supposed to be at the party or heard about the party....and none of them said it happened and many of them said Kavanaugh was never at a party.....


And with that level of evidence and with zero witnesses.....


How is airbrushing done when there are no crimes to airbrush?

 

[2aguy]

To me it is obvious that this is what happens when you have a system hi-jacked by two corrupt political parties whose main purpose is to gain or hold on to power, all the while working together to make sure voices from outside the political mainstream (third parties) do not have access to the system. They use their connections in corrupt mainstream news media (on both sides) to accomplish both goals. We are all just audience members watching the spectacle as it plays out. It doesn't really matter who wins or loses any particular fight. What matters is that we the people are entertained, distracted, disillusioned or disgusted, and ultimately remain powerless.

How did the republicans corrupt this process? Please, enlighten us...

 

[2aguy]

Why I think Kavanaugh is guilty, because he doesn't want his buddy , Judge, to testify under oath.
He doesn't want him to perjure himself, otherwise he would insist he be there.

He is accused of attempted rape.

Judge submitted written statements to the committee investigators.......that is under oath, and carries a felony conviction if he is caught lying.

 

[2aguy]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes.....through the Constitutional process. The Senate hear has the power to advise and consent for any Presidential nominee. That does not mean they automatically approve the nomination....they get to decide, as is their Right and power, if they will vote the guy in, and that process was used to keep Merrick Garland off the court. The democrats also used this to keep George W. Bush appointees from being confirmed.....

Using smear tactics to delay a vote is not Constitutional.

 

[2aguy]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

NOpe. Liberal legal activism is a valid reason to block all dem appointments. It is a threat to our democratic from of government.


Conservatives do not hold to judicial activism, so that does not apply.

Yep...if I was a Senator I would not vote for any democrat judicial nominee......they do not support the Constitution.

 

[Correll]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

NOpe. Liberal legal activism is a valid reason to block all dem appointments. It is a threat to our democratic from of government.


Conservatives do not hold to judicial activism, so that does not apply.

Yep...if I was a Senator I would not vote for any democrat judicial nominee......they do not support the Constitution.

The school of thought that has taken over that side of the aisle of law, is not compatible with democratic principles.

 

[oldsoul]

The process looks to be a bit of a shambles from over here.

Both sides seem to be playing the same game and it all looks rather tawdry. These women may be lying in order to run down the clock.

But the other side is happy to airbrush out all the accusations for exactly the same reason.They are terrified that they will lose control of the process in November.

I cant see any good guys in this process.

How could the process be de-politicized so that justice is better served ?

It can’t be de-politicized; that genie is out of the bottle.

And what you’re witnessing is the dismantling of the American Constitutional Republic, the replacing of the rule of law with the capricious ‘will of the people’ – where the ignorance, fear, bigotry, racism, and hate of the people will go unchecked by the Constitution and its case law, allowing government to disadvantage various classes of persons for no other reason than who they are through force of law, because a simple majority of citizens have an unwarranted fear of, and hostility toward, a given class of persons.

This will be the consequence of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, or that of any reactionary conservative ideologue.

I was with you, wholeheartedly, until, "This will be the consequence of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court..."

He would be but one of NINE!!! One justice cannot change the entire system. That's the beauty of it. No one person, anywhere in the government or out, can wield that much power. The fact that you seem to believe otherwise, is quite disturbing.

 

[oldsoul]

Guys, its about the process not the current shambles.
Keep up.

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

 

[oldsoul]

Using smear tactics to delay a vote is not Constitutional.

What part of the COTUS forbids it? I am aware of nothing that even comes close to discussing it. However, There are codes/laws that deal very directly with giving false testimony, perjury, and other such things. Therefore, if Ford testifies that such and such happened and it can be proven she knew, or should have known, that her testimony was untrue, the law can, and hopefully, will deal with that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.


This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

 

[oldsoul]

I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

Absolutely not. They are acting like school yard bullies that have been usurped by an upperclassman and have gone running to the principal to get said upperclassman in trouble for some made up thing. It's reprehensible, unless these allegations are found to have some shred of evidence.

As for the obligation to advise and consent I refer you to Article II Section II clause II. I'll even give you the entire clause for your convenience:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I'll even give you a link to the wiki page I got it from. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
So, yes, they do have an obligation to advise and consent. Doesn't mean they have to ratify/agree. They MUST VOTE though.

 

[sparky]

Well i think the judges might actually be 'supreme' if they gave love child a try>

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.

To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.

They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.

You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.

Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.

It is assuredly NOT the same game.

I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?

There is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to advise and consent.

You are saying that because the Democrats don't have the numbers to legally block a nominee, they are justified in destroying a nominee's reputation via false accusations instead?

Absolutely not. They are acting like school yard bullies that have been usurped by an upperclassman and have gone running to the principal to get said upperclassman in trouble for some made up thing. It's reprehensible, unless these allegations are found to have some shred of evidence.

As for the obligation to advise and consent I refer you to Article II Section II clause II. I'll even give you the entire clause for your convenience:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I'll even give you a link to the wiki page I got it from. Advice and consent - Wikipedia
So, yes, they do have an obligation to advise and consent. Doesn't mean they have to ratify/agree. They MUST VOTE though.

As you can see, I referred to the clause earlier.

Where in the phrase "by and with" do you see an obligation to vote, or even hold hearings?

 

[sakinago]

The process looks to be a bit of a shambles from over here.

Both sides seem to be playing the same game and it all looks rather tawdry. These women may be lying in order to run down the clock.

But the other side is happy to airbrush out all the accusations for exactly the same reason.They are terrified that they will lose control of the process in November.

I cant see any good guys in this process.

How could the process be de-politicized so that justice is better served ?

You can’t really have justice with baseless accusations for an alleged event over 30 years ago. Especially with no specific time, date, location, or any corroborating witnesses from the time. We don’t even have witnesses placing Kav and Ford at any of the same parties together. All we have are character witnesses from both sides, Kav has 65 or so, Ford has 4. I would argue that Fords witnesses aren’t very credible sources, husbands are generally going to back up their wives no matter what. It also doesn’t help that they waited until the 11th hour to roll out these accusations. This is a clear attempt to block the nomination whether it’s true or not, Ford is being used, whether that’s willingly or unbenounced to her. Should republicans give in to the delay tactic with this little evidence, I don’t think so.