Kavenaugh

[DvlDog4WVU]

I keep reading these articles about opposition to Kavenaugh. In every one of them, the opposition is about how he’ll judge potential issues, nothing is really addressing his approach to the law or his qualifications. It leaves me thinking about the approach to these and how differently the mind works between the parties. In the case of SCOTUS, at least in my mind, the litmus test should be whether the individual is qualified and whether the individual will apply adequate a logical application of the law as intended by the founders. The law is or should be fairly black and white with respect to constitutionality. It’s either grounded in the constitution or it’s not.

It seems the Democrats want someone who legislates from the bench or is concerned about that in the case of GOP pick. Their opposition hasn’t been founded on his knowledge (unquestionably knowledgeable), his application and experience in the law (over 300 rulings), or his qualification (again unquestionably qualified). What are we talking about here? If we weren’t in bizarro world, the man should be confirmed almost unanimously.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

How objective can someone be who received stolen documents for political purposes?

How objective can someone be who has lied about being on the advisory panel for treatment of combatant hostages?

How objective can someone be who has said he didn't say something, regarding the previous ruling on Roe v Wade, only to change his statement after additional documents were made available for others to review?

How objective can someone be who has essentially said a sitting President is above the law and cannot be subpoenaed or indicted?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I keep reading these articles about opposition to Kavenaugh. In every one of them, the opposition is about how he’ll judge potential issues, nothing is really addressing his approach to the law or his qualifications. It leaves me thinking about the approach to these and how differently the mind works between the parties. In the case of SCOTUS, at least in my mind, the litmus test should be whether the individual is qualified and whether the individual will apply adequate a logical application of the law as intended by the founders. The law is or should be fairly black and white with respect to constitutionality. It’s either grounded in the constitution or it’s not.

It seems the Democrats want someone who legislates from the bench or is concerned about that in the case of GOP pick. Their opposition hasn’t been founded on his knowledge (unquestionably knowledgeable), his application and experience in the law (over 300 rulings), or his qualification (again unquestionably qualified). What are we talking about here? If we weren’t in bizarro world, the man should be confirmed almost unanimously.

SCOTUS noms are the worst these days. Both sides. Not the nominees themselves, but the incredible circus surrounding them.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

BTW, this one is BY FAR the worst with all the grandstanding for 2020 primary voters.

 

[Airport]

SCOTUS noms are the worst these days. Both sides. Not the nominees themselves, but the incredible circus surrounding them.

Started with Robert Bork. Now if you have a paper trail, you are in big trouble.

 

[mule_eer]

Started with Robert Bork. Now if you have a paper trail, you are in big trouble.

Bork was an anomaly though, at least for a while. The other appointees have gone pretty smoothly outside of him until recently. The reason for this is 2-fold: Merrick Garland and 2020. You can complain all day long about the treatment that Kavaenaugh is getting in his hearing. He's getting the hearing though.

If you look at the current Justices, Clarence Thomas was a close vote, 52-48. The allegations of sexual harassment were the issues there. Alito was relatively close, 58-42, based on his previous claimed association with a group that sought to reverse Affirmative Action as part of the admission policy of Princeton. He disavowed their position during is hearings though. The Gorsuch confirmation vote was 54-45. I thought that was a mistake by the Dems. He was well qualified for the position, and without strong evidence of some sort of bias I think qualifications are really what this process is about. Having said that, Garland should have at least gotten hearings. That was a travesty, and it was purely political on the part of the GOP. He was another well qualified appointee, and the only reasons to not go forward were political - his perceived position on the 2nd Amendment and the bogus window of time prior to a presidential election, credit that to Biden or McConnell.

 

[dave]

How objective can someone be who received stolen documents for political purposes?

How objective can someone be who has lied about being on the advisory panel for treatment of combatant hostages?

How objective can someone be who has said he didn't say something, regarding the previous ruling on Roe v Wade, only to change his statement after additional documents were made available for others to review?

How objective can someone be who has essentially said a sitting President is above the law and cannot be subpoenaed or indicted?

Someone is getting their DNC talking points. Bless your heart.

 

[bornaneer]

How objective can someone be who received stolen documents for political purposes?

How objective can someone be who has lied about being on the advisory panel for treatment of combatant hostages?

How objective can someone be who has said he didn't say something, regarding the previous ruling on Roe v Wade, only to change his statement after additional documents were made available for others to review?

How objective can someone be who has essentially said a sitting President is above the law and cannot be subpoenaed or indicted?

LOL....shew

 

[Airport]

Bork was an anomaly though, at least for a while. The other appointees have gone pretty smoothly outside of him until recently. The reason for this is 2-fold: Merrick Garland and 2020. You can complain all day long about the treatment that Kavaenaugh is getting in his hearing. He's getting the hearing though.

If you look at the current Justices, Clarence Thomas was a close vote, 52-48. The allegations of sexual harassment were the issues there. Alito was relatively close, 58-42, based on his previous claimed association with a group that sought to reverse Affirmative Action as part of the admission policy of Princeton. He disavowed their position during is hearings though. The Gorsuch confirmation vote was 54-45. I thought that was a mistake by the Dems. He was well qualified for the position, and without strong evidence of some sort of bias I think qualifications are really what this process is about. Having said that, Garland should have at least gotten hearings. That was a travesty, and it was purely political on the part of the GOP. He was another well qualified appointee, and the only reasons to not go forward were political - his perceived position on the 2nd Amendment and the bogus window of time prior to a presidential election, credit that to Biden or McConnell.

I'm not complaining about Kavanaugh. I said it all started with Bork.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

LOL....shew

Dispute it ...with facts.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Dispute it ...with facts.

Provide some facts first

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Bork was an anomaly though, at least for a while. The other appointees have gone pretty smoothly outside of him until recently. The reason for this is 2-fold: Merrick Garland and 2020. You can complain all day long about the treatment that Kavaenaugh is getting in his hearing. He's getting the hearing though.

If you look at the current Justices, Clarence Thomas was a close vote, 52-48. The allegations of sexual harassment were the issues there. Alito was relatively close, 58-42, based on his previous claimed association with a group that sought to reverse Affirmative Action as part of the admission policy of Princeton. He disavowed their position during is hearings though. The Gorsuch confirmation vote was 54-45. I thought that was a mistake by the Dems. He was well qualified for the position, and without strong evidence of some sort of bias I think qualifications are really what this process is about. Having said that, Garland should have at least gotten hearings. That was a travesty, and it was purely political on the part of the GOP. He was another well qualified appointee, and the only reasons to not go forward were political - his perceived position on the 2nd Amendment and the bogus window of time prior to a presidential election, credit that to Biden or McConnell.

It’s like there is a pattern to your list. All “conservative” judges. This confirmation is an embarrassment on the part of the Dems.

 

[mule_eer]

It’s like there is a pattern to your list. All “conservative” judges. This confirmation is an embarrassment on the part of the Dems.

Garland wasn't a conservative appointment. He also wasn't a liberal ideologue. He never even got consideration. I agree that this game the Dems are playing looks silly with respect to Kavanaugh, same as it did with Gorsuch. I thought the Dems dropped the ball on the Garland issue though. They should have called the political crud from every rooftop when McConnell decided to stonewall that nom. They foolishly didn't. I'm guessing they thought that at worst they'd get some liberal ideologue appointed after the assumed HRC win. A perfect example of counting your chickens before they are hatched.

 

[Mntneer]

I'm guessing they thought that at worst they'd get some liberal ideologue appointed after the assumed HRC win. A perfect example of counting your chickens before they are hatched.

I'd think that's a real possibility as well. They never thought Hillary wouldn't win.

 

[bornaneer]

• Thomas 52-48
• Ginsburg 96-3
• Breyer 87-9
• Alito 58-48
• Gorsuch 54-45
• Sotomeyer 68-31
• Kagan 63-37

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Garland wasn't a conservative appointment. He also wasn't a liberal ideologue. He never even got consideration. I agree that this game the Dems are playing looks silly with respect to Kavanaugh, same as it did with Gorsuch. I thought the Dems dropped the ball on the Garland issue though. They should have called the political crud from every rooftop when McConnell decided to stonewall that nom. They foolishly didn't. I'm guessing they thought that at worst they'd get some liberal ideologue appointed after the assumed HRC win. A perfect example of counting your chickens before they are hatched.

Sorry, I wasn’t talking about Garland. They’ve viciously opposed every remote conservative selection since Bork. Sotomayor and RBG sailed through and of the SCOTUS appointments, Sotomayor is a borderline activist.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

• Thomas 52-48
• Ginsburg 96-3
• Breyer 87-9
• Alito 58-48
• Gorsuch 54-45
• Sotomeyer 68-31
• Kagan 63-37

It would really be interesting to see the years beside the vote and see who had the control of the Senate at that time.

 

[mule_eer]

Sorry, I wasn’t talking about Garland. They’ve viciously opposed every remote conservative selection since Bork. Sotomayor and RBG sailed through and of the SCOTUS appointments, Sotomayor is a borderline activist.

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 99-0. He was the guy named after Bork was voted down. David Souter was confirmed 90-9. John Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Trying to say the Dems viciously opposed every conservative since Bork is not correct.

 

[Mntneer]

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 99-0. He was the guy named after Bork was voted down. David Souter was confirmed 90-9. John Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Trying to say the Dems viciously opposed every conservative since Bork is not correct.

• Kennedy 99-0
• Souter 90-9
• Thomas 52-48
• Ginsburg 96-3
• Breyer 87-9
• Alito 58-48
• Gorsuch 54-45
• Sotomeyer 68-31
• Kagan 63-37

It's a clear trend that the process is getting way too political.

 

[bornaneer]

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 99-0. He was the guy named after Bork was voted down. David Souter was confirmed 90-9. John Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Trying to say the Dems viciously opposed every conservative since Bork is not correct.

LOL....Really....... Kennedy,Souter and Roberts are /were considered conservative? What were the votes on Thomas,Alito and Gorsuch ?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Kennedy,Souter and Roberts are /were considered conservative?

Yes

 

[mule_eer]

• Kennedy 99-0
• Souter 90-9
• Thomas 52-48
• Ginsburg 96-3
• Breyer 87-9
• Alito 58-48
• Gorsuch 54-45
• Sotomeyer 68-31
• Kagan 63-37

It's a clear trend that the process is getting way too political.

If you go back a little to the confirmation of Rehnquist as Chief Justice(1986), he was confirmed 65-33. His initial confirmation (1971) was similar, 68-26. I don't think you are necessarily wrong to say that the nomination process has become more political. All evidence seems to point to that. I'm simply saying that the splits don't always tell the tale.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed 99-0. He was the guy named after Bork was voted down. David Souter was confirmed 90-9. John Roberts was confirmed 78-22. Trying to say the Dems viciously opposed every conservative since Bork is not correct.

Are you saying Kennedy, Souter, and Roberts are conservatives? Kennedy has been a swing vote. Sure, they were GOP nominations, that doesn’t make them conservatives.

 

[mule_eer]

LOL....Really....... Kennedy,Souter and Roberts are /were considered conservative? What were the votes on Thomas,Alito and Gorsuch ?

All were appointed by Republican Presidents. Merrick Garland wasn't considered hardcore liberal, but he was denied so much as a committee hearing based on who nominated him. Of Kennedy, Souter, and Roberts, Kennedy and Roberts were conservative leaning, but not ideological if graded by how they voted. The issue is how they were perceived upon nomination. Alito and Roberts were perceived to be ideologically similar in their conservative lean. Souter wasn't much different then either. Kennedy was similar to Gorsuch.

 

[TarHeelEer]

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

That puts Senate confirmation sometime in early October?

 

[atlkvb]

Dispute it ...with facts.

He believes in the sanctity of innocent human life, that's the only fact about him the Left cares about and doesn't like. The irony here is protecting human life is Constitutional.