Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[John V]

Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and liars.  And now they're claiming, without evidence, that Democrats are acting in bad faith.  It's nothing more than projection from people who believe that everyone else is like them, lacking in morals.

Have you ever considered the possibility that both sides are full of hypocrites acting in bad faith?

[Angrboda]

"It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."  Mitch McConnell quoting Biden in March of 2016.

Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and liars.  And now they're claiming, without evidence, that Democrats are acting in bad faith.  Nothing but a party full of cunts.

For one, this precedent  of Biden’s is concerning the presidency. Two, we are almost always coming up on some kind of election, how far ahead are you proposing?    Also, I believe that this was concerning after the election, when a candidate was on their way out.

This was in response to Obama nominating Merrick Garland in the spring of 2016, a full 8 months before the election.  This time we're within the 60 day window prior to an election.  I'm not arguing that the Biden rule should apply, but rather pointing out McConnell and the Republican party's duplicity in applying Biden's advice in 2016 when it concerned a justice nominated by a Democrat, yet in 2018, they instead prefer to rush through a Republican nominee before due consideration has been applied. Indeed, McConnell has now complained that bringing forth the accusation against Kavanaugh did not observe "standard bipartisan process."

"[E]ven before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year." (npr.org)

Joe Biden's comments were in 1992 regarding a potential supreme court nomination by president Bush. (WashingtonPost.com)

You don't think the midterms are as much an expression of the will of the people as a presidential election? I rather suspect just the opposite. That you do recognize it as an expression of the will of the people, and you'd rather not have that.

I'll remind you that congress is fully recognized as the third branch of federal government, equally as important as the president. The advice and consent of the senate isn't just a formality.

[John V]

You don't think the midterms are as much an expression of the will of the people as a presidential election?

Nope:


I agree that the lack of a vote on Garland was bullshit. I'm surprised Obama stood for it.

[Angrboda]

You don't think the midterms are as much an expression of the will of the people as a presidential election?

Nope:


I agree that the lack of a vote on Garland was bullshit. I'm surprised Obama stood for it.

The 2014 congressional election flipped the senate to Republican, which was what made the Garland deadlock possible. If it weren't for those midterms, Merrick Garland would probably be on the court today. Are you saying congress has less of a mandate than the president just because of lower turnout?

I don't agree that lower turnout makes congressional elections less of an expression of the will of the people. Additionally, since presidential elections involve both congressional and presidential election, it doesn't follow that the people are expressing a greater will toward the election of the president. That simply doesn't follow. There is more at stake during a presidential election year. Regardless, choosing not to vote is as much of an expression of will as doing so. What matters is whether the voters that turnout to vote make up a representative sample of all those eligible to vote. Otherwise you could argue that less than 100% participation means the election is illegitimate. Do you have any evidence that the voters that turnout for midterms are not a representative sample?

[RoadRunner79]

For one, this precedent  of Biden’s is concerning the presidency. Two, we are almost always coming up on some kind of election, how far ahead are you proposing?    Also, I believe that this was concerning after the election, when a candidate was on their way out.

This was in response to Obama nominating Merrick Garland in the spring of 2016, a full 8 months before the election.  This time we're within the 60 day window prior to an election.  I'm not arguing that the Biden rule should apply, but rather pointing out McConnell and the Republican party's duplicity in applying Biden's advice in 2016 when it concerned a justice nominated by a Democrat, yet in 2018, they instead prefer to rush through a Republican nominee before due consideration has been applied.  Indeed, McConnell has now complained that bringing forth the accusation against Kavanaugh did not observe "standard bipartisan process."

"[E]ven before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year." (npr.org)

Joe Biden's comments were in 1992 regarding a potential supreme court nomination by president Bush. (WashingtonPost.com)

You don't think the midterms are as much an expression of the will of the people as a presidential election?  I rather suspect just the opposite.  That you do recognize it as an expression of the will of the people, and you'd rather not have that.

I'll remind you that congress is fully recognized as the third branch of federal government, equally as important as the president.  The advice and consent of the senate isn't just a formality.

Ok... I was wrong, and thanks for the correction.

It seems a little silly, to hold up supreme court nominees for 2 years out of 4 though.  I can understand, if there was an election, if people are on their way out, and their successors will are already decided (talking a couple of months here). For the most part, I'm against this part of politics, when either side is doing it.

[John V]

The 2014 congressional election flipped the senate to Republican, which was what made the Garland deadlock possible.

Doesn't mean Obama had to just lay down and take it.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that they are taking this seriously, and are going to hear this woman out. I’ve also heard, that the Democrats object (what’s new) and won’t be attending. This information was sat on for some time, and I don’t see that it should disrupt the schedule at the last minute.  It should be taken seriously, and any investigation deemed appropriate should continue. I don’t see it going very far. Democrats have been actively trying to disrupt this democratic process in some pretty shady ways already. With some of the crazy protestors childishly disrupting the hearing being shown receiving money just before the confirmation proceedings.  But it doesn’t appear so far that Democrats have been taking the high road, and there is the possibility, that this is another part of that.

---

I just see a disrepency in reasoning from other encounters, and wonder which one is true this time. It seems applicable to the conversation.   Is testimony about an event from 40 years ago evidence or not?      Do we launch a scientific investigation into the matter, before we can believe it?  All applicable to this topic.

There is already more evidence than just 40 year old hearsay.
The accusation was made at least 6 years ago.  It's not like it just now came out of nowhere.

You also mischaracterize "sitting on it".  They held back because the woman did not want her life ruined by getting involved in such a big political mess.  She was forced to come forward when a someone leaked the existence of the letter to the press.
Feinstein held the information because the accuser requested it.

The accuser, Ford, is risking everything.  She's not some paid protester.  She has a career and is a respected person.  Just making the accusation could ruin her, because of how our society tends to view female accusers as either liars or whores.  Or just dimsmissing that sort of behavior as  "boys will be boys". As you have so aptly demonstrated.

Naturally we should look into it. What do you think of the existing evidence, that She talked about it years ago with her future husband and later a therapist, among others, and has passed an FBI-administered lie detector test?

I never dismissed it as "boys will be boys".  And she still could have chosen to remain anonymous.   I do doubt that her career is at risk or her reputation, unless it comes out that she is lying.   Although if it took her many years to tell anyone, then it is obviously difficult for her.  Basically, it's going to be her word, against the two (or four) others.  So I don't see much coming from it.   And a lie detector isn't as solid as people once thought.  The details seem to be sketchy, and there is no cooroboration, so I don't think that there will be much to investigate.

---

---

And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

Anonymous hearsay is meaningless, until it is no longer anonymous, and no longer hearsay. You have gotten your wish, it seems on that account. More details have been presented as well. It's likely his accuser will be cross-examined, and other witnesses secured.

You really believed it would stop at 'Feinstein says someone said something'?

Yes, the person is now known.   Which is good, if this is going to proceed.   However that's not where it started.   Especially when I have made arguments to absurdity, that have gotten pretty absurd, and people here still says that witness testimony is not evidence.  Which the inconsistency was the point of this.  That the same arguments used to say that the testimony of scripture is not evidence, seem to think otherwise here.

[SteelCurtain]

Of course the Dems held on to this information until the last minute. Of course they did.

What really galls me is if the shoe were on the other foot---if Hillary was about to flip the court for a generation and nominated a judge on the record as saying that a president shouldn't be subject to indictment or criminal inquiry in the middle of (what would surely have been) year 2 of the Email Investigation, if the Clinton White house had redacted 100,000 pages of judicial documents related to their nominee, if the Senate Judiciary Committee dumped 40,000 pages of documents mere hours before the hearings---do you think the Republican party would have even the slightest reservation about using a political ploy in order to derail a SCOTUS nominee???

Really? If you could look me in the face and say you think the GOP wouldn't use whatever ploy they had in order to delay a vote for a SC nominee until after the midterms, especially in this climate, you're a joke of a human being and not worth being taken seriously. This is what it looks like when the Dems grow the first vestiges of a backbone. Don't worry, it probably won't get any bigger. The Democratic Party is feckless, but every now and again they accident their way into playing the game that the GOP has been playing for a decade. Lie, cheat and steal your way to power, because in #Murrica, the voters lurve it.

[Jehanne]

No statue of limitations in Maryland:

Judge Won't Testify before the Senate on Monday

Kavanaugh is guilty; he views his vile act as being an "indiscretion", a one-time thing that he did while in high school (and, let's face it, probably, 1 in 10 high school men have done what Kavanaugh did, including, DT), but now, he's a liar.  As such, he does not belong on the SCOTUS.

[Amarok]

Of course the Dems held on to this information until the last minute. Of course they did.

What really galls me is if the shoe were on the other foot---if Hillary was about to flip the court for a generation and nominated a judge on the record as saying that a president shouldn't be subject to indictment or criminal inquiry in the middle of (what would surely have been) year 2 of the Email Investigation, if the Clinton White house had redacted 100,000 pages of judicial documents related to their nominee, if the Senate Judiciary Committee dumped 40,000 pages of documents mere hours before the hearings---do you think the Republican party would have even the slightest reservation about using a political ploy in order to derail a SCOTUS nominee???

Really? If you could look me in the face and say you think the GOP wouldn't use whatever ploy they had in order to delay a vote for a SC nominee until after the midterms, especially in this climate, you're a joke of a human being and not worth being taken seriously. This is what it looks like when the Dems grow the first vestiges of a backbone. Don't worry, it probably won't get any bigger. The Democratic Party is feckless, but every now and again they accident their way into playing the game that the GOP has been playing for a decade. Lie, cheat and steal your way to power, because in #Murrica, the voters lurve it.

Truth