wrathofhahn

Do you honestly have a sliver of a doubt had the Democrats had the votes they wouldn't have done the same for Garland? Reid already opened that door once. The real problem for Democrats isn't tradition or process it's the fact they've been losing elections repeatedly in the senate and have lost the American heartland and become almost a strictly coastal party. I read somewhere where a writer stated well why doesn't America just break up at this point. Well if it did this is what the map would look like based on the 2016 election: In other words in 2016 the Republicans won approximately 2,600 counties to Democrats 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. The real challenge for the Democrats moving forward is to figure out a way to still keep it's base while at the same time figuring out a way to appeal to Americans living outside coastal cities.

Like I said in the other post Kavanaugh in many ways was a fig leaf to that wing he was not a deplorable far from it. Yale educated. Top of his class. Served in the Bush admin. Spent years in public service. Democrats showed that none of that matters and tried to destroy him anyways with spurious accusations. As the wall street journal editorial board put it: The Kavanaugh fight isn’t about Trump. We’re all deplorables now "Brett Kavanaugh isn’t part of Mr. Trump’s New York menagerie, or some Steve Bannon insurgent. The judge is the epitome of the GOP legal establishment, a Supreme Court nominee from central casting. He went to the best schools and served his apprenticeship among legal elites including a clerkship with former Justice Anthony Kennedy. With these credentials Judge Kavanaugh would have been on any Republican’s short list for the Supreme Court. He could have been Jeb Bush’s nominee, or John Kasich’s, though Mr. Kasich in the ambitious ebb of his career now tilts with the anti-conservative left against Mr. Kavanaugh. In 2012 the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin wrote that Mr. Kavanaugh would have been Mitt Romney’s “most likely first nominee” for the High Court. Mr. Toobin, who loathes conservatives, meant it as a warning. Mr. Trump’s nomination of Mr. Kavanaugh is a credit to the process he established to win the election and govern with conservative support. He sought the help of legal elites on the right, led by the Federalist Society, who compiled an impressive list of potential nominees. This isn’t a rogue judicial operation to choose presidential cronies. It is the gold standard for legal talent that believes in the original meaning of the Constitution. It’s hard to see how any GOP President would have done better, and others have done much worse. Yet this is precisely why Democrats and the left have set out to destroy Judge Kavanaugh—not in legal philosophy or competence, which they knew was a political loser, but as a human being, a spouse and father. They need to destroy him personally with accusations but no corroboration, as they tried with Clarence Thomas, so they can deny the open Supreme Court seat to a judicial conservative. Republicans are well aware of Mr. Trump’s excesses and falsehoods. But they have also come to understand that the resistance to him isn’t rooted in principle or some august call to superior character. They know Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her history of deceit. Voters know this is about the left’s will to power by any means necessary. Republicans across America can see, and certainly their Senators voting on Judge Kavanaugh should realize, that the left hates them as much or more than they loathe Mr. Trump. Conservatives understand that, for the American left, they are all deplorables now." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-never-conservatives-1538608630

Via Erik Erickson (one of the original never trumpers) Progressives believe Trump is an authoritarian tyrant barely constrained by the rule of law. With a straight face, these same progressives argue that the accusations against Kavanaugh are proof of his guilt, that he should not be presumed innocent, that a lack of witnesses is confirmation he did what they claim, that all women must be believed except the ones who defend Kavanaugh and that any dissent is just white male privilege. Progressives may claim Trump is Caesar at the edge of the Rubicon, but they have embraced the bastard love child of Joseph Stalin and Franz Kafka and enlisted the American political press to smear, defame and attack anyone who stands in their way. Between Trump and his opposition, I would rather vote for him, despite his flaws, than for his opponents who want a flawless progressive utopia. Trump is neither an ambassador for my values nor the articulate champion of my principles I would prefer. But he is a safe harbor in a progressive storm that seeks to both destroy my values and upend our constitutional republic. There is much in the present political age about which I am uncertain. But there is one thing about which I am absolutely certain: President Trump is not my enemy, and too many progressives view me as theirs. Going after Kavanaugh seems to have backfired badly. It's almost like what we saw the last couple of years ago with Erodgen they went for killshot and failed. Here are just some of the things I noticed: It has united the political factions within the GOP and commentariat. Sort of the last hold outs were the Bushes who have never forgiven him for Jeb and the way they spoke about GW presidency. Part of the reason for Kavanaugh being nominated beyond him being supremely qualified was to help mend those fences you have Condi Rice speaking on his behalf before the hearing and GW as well sending a video message extolling his virtues. It's actually funny one of the most legitimate avenues to attack him early was the fact he had already worked in the Bush administration. Worked for Ken Starr that despite the fact he maybe claim to be apolitical it would certainly appear otherwise to outsiders and that can't happen to the SC. That case was never really made properly. In any case the remnants of the old guard of the Bush admin were all in excited even beyond that seemed to have genuine affection for him. So when the Democrats went after Kavanaugh the way in which they did it wasn't just an attack on Trump or at least it's not viewed that way by the Bush family. It's partly why you saw Graham get so animated for a way in which he's never done for Trump. For the old guard the Bushes are their original benefactor. Just for the record I thought he was an awful president. It's awoken the base for obvious reasons but even people on the outside looking in are saying progressive values are not my values. I may not support Trump. He's an Oaf but I don't want to live under a society where all men are assumed guilty and have to prove their innocence. Recent polling by Ramussen has Trump sitting at a 51 approval rating prior that his RCP average was sitting in the low 40's It's really put them in a tough spot as it relates to the FBI they just accused them of a coverup and a sham investigation. The media isn't covering it but you can bet the next time a democrat mentions Trump going after the FBI it will be repeated It's put redstate democrats particularly in a real bad spot. Since they fought to the bitter end Donnelly, Tester, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Manchin were all forced to make tough choices only Manchin followed his constituent wishes. One of the major issues being of course should they continue to keep the senate they'll continue to confirm judges and possibly another SC justice. Breyer is what 80? RBG is 85.

The SC doesn't pass laws. At least not yet. One of the things I really hope a conservative SC does is it passes the buck more to congress they are supposed to make the laws and the public should demand they do their damn jobs instead putting it in the hands of unelected judges to do it for them,

Also a non-lifetime appointment would hardly be as attractive. Imagine going through a contentious hearing like Kavanaugh has to find out you serve 10 years? These people are losing money in many cases millions of dollars versus what they could be making going into private practice. As Hamilton put it “…that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity.”

I disagree with idea vehemently for the reasons I already outlined. I don't think it will ever happen either as likely it couldn't be done retroactively and the people making the law would be giving up a tremendous amount of power. “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78

I don't think the democrats have treated Trump judge choices any differently the only difference is the Republicans control the senate and I suspect they'll do the same thing should the Republicans lose control of the senate. They've already attempted to delay when they can despite being in the minority. I think blaming brinkmanship on either side is dangerous the only way out is for both sides to admit they are wrong and try to tamp down on the all out warfare but part of that has to do with voters as well. We elected Trump. Look at the front runners in your party right now. Warren. Booker. Harris. Maxine Waters. Those aren't exactly centrists.

I'll here for a bit still but it's not them anyways. It's just I don't post much on politics unless something major happens.

I think honestly we should be less focused on the supreme court and more focused on our senators. Laws are supposed to be enacted through congress not the SC. If democrats want to modernize laws that is what congress if for. If they want to create new protections that is once again what congress if for. Stop trying to get your way via the courts and unelected judges a lot of this tension would die down. I don't want Kavanuagh to do anything other then interpret existing law as it is written. I suspect there will be times where that will be unpopular and I hope people will call up their congressman to fix those laws and fill in any gaps when they exist instead of blaming the SC.

I would think Article III says they can keep their post indefinitely as long as they remain in good standing. It would probably be challenged by whomever the minority party happens to be then decided by the supreme court. There has also been some sort movement on what ex post facto means technically it means everything but the supreme court has limited it as to now for criminal cases. Regardless expecting the very people who you are trying to fire in 10 years to rule in your favor to me doesn't seem very likely but who knows. It's also likely to be extremely complicated because it could easily end up in a situation where one party could be nominating 6 justices for 15-20 years on a 8 year term. I have zero confidence congress could figure out a way to make it work and for it to be bipartisan. They can barely even pass a budget at this point. I think the tendency is for some people to say well why don't we do this and why don't we do that we need to be very careful the framers were titans of their time literally the very best and brightest America had to offer. This bunch? Most of the time I'm happy they get through their term without breaking something. I wouldn't want them rewriting anything as serious as this in a million years. When I reading through your quote I also read Hamiltons papers which he made clear a lifetime appointment was central to the SC independence from the Federal Government which brings up another point. What happens if someone whose on the way out decides they want another term? Can they be reappointed? Could they barter decisions during their term for that position? What about one of their friends? Could they potentially sell a decision knowing they'll be leaving shortly anyways? The more I think about it it's one of those ideas that sound good but it's implementation would be awful and not work at all.

They have to rewrite Section 9 as well. "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed (by congress)"

Well part of the problem is it will be hard to apply the rule ex posto facto and I assume if it was tried it would be challenged under Section 1 Clause 3 article 9 of the constitution . Basically it would be the current party super majority making a rule that future nominees (their own) would be subject to term limits. Which is why it won't happen

I mean he is replacing the swing vote which is why there was always more pushback on him even before Ford then Gorsuch who was replacing Scalia.

He wasn't the swing vote. Kavanaugh is. It will be interesting to see how the senate plays out election time because there is likely 1 even possibly 2 more SC at stake. Both Breyer and RBG probably don't last another 4 years.

Agreed but either way he was getting confirmed. The person sending the biggest thank you letter to Collins is Manchin he'd much rather be the 51st vote then the 50th vote. Kavanaugh is polling something like 60 29 in his state right now with 10 percent undecided.

Manchin is going to vote yes too so what difference does it make? Tie breaker is Pence

It's fine I don't take any of this personally. I wouldn't have replied to people posts if I didn't want to know what they actually thought and engage in a honest discussion with them. I just wanted to be clear on what I said and meant at the time. Anyways going to take a break from the board a bit. Sox season is over and there really isn't much to discuss I'll probably be back in Nov lol

I was trying to have a real conversation and everyone went to Trump. Which proves my point you guys are so focused on Trump you are missing the actual message. I have family members I can't talk politics where they can't handle the fact I disagree with them. I've never experienced that with other Republicans even with things we disagree with (we are not a product of a hive mentality) but lets put that aside for the moment the other poster mentioned what is tearing society apart and the point we have to find a way to be able disagree without immediately retreating back to our safe spaces and we should be able to walk away without people feeling "sad" or "angry" or "disappointed" and recognize people have the right to have a difference of opinion and still be able to socialize with them. This isn't some far out idea there are hundreds of studies out there about the polarization of the public how fewer people are socializing outside their own groupthink and how people are not allowing themselves to be exposed to ideas they disagree with. There is an ignore button if you don't want to read my posts. Edit: I assume there is an ignore button I've never used it.

There is a whole world outside of Trump. I was speaking more broadly about my own personal experience.

The difference is Kavanaugh only spoke of derogatory of democrats in this particular circumstance. He didn't speak more broadly outside of that. He was rude but that was reciprocated by Democrats that were also rude with him. Earlier he was respectful of Dems throughout the process which shows he is able to be fair and reasonable as long as he is treated with the proper respect. I don't think/hope he'll hold a lasting grudge against an entire ideology due to the actions of a couple of democrats but if he does the Democrats have noone to blame but themselves.

No and she hasn't recused herself from any of the cases of involving the Trump admin either. Then there is also the major difference of noone called her evil. Said they believed a man accusing her of rape. Labeled her a gang rapist. Done any sort of the smearing that democrats have done to Kavanaugh many of it happening even before the allegations took place. I think something has sort of happened to democrats where they seem incapable of practicing the same tolerance they preach towards others. With Republicans they seem to be able to disagree with you without calling you names and are open to listening. They don't need to retreat to safe spaces and refuse to be exposed to things they disagree with. One thing I always admired about Ginsburg even though I disagreed with her on almost everything is she seemed to form a lasting friendship with Scalia. I really respected that about her before her comments about Trump there is a life outside of politics. Noone should cut themselves off from one side because they disagree with each other politically.

/

Which they are worried the Democrats will follow if they lose seats this November. The Democrats are being blatant in their desire to stall his nomination the only question is will Republicans who hold the senate fall for it. Doesn't appear so.

I'm saying there are ways to keep her name confidential while at the same time having a proper and through investigation something the Democrats and Ford both claim to have wanted. I've said repeatedly I'd like to see the information released and I still would the only consideration for me would be the privacy of the witnesses. You are casting blame on the Republicans but my guess is they are just following tradition. If the report confirms what is already out there like they said there is no political reason not to release the information.

Real people to watch are: McCaskill Tester Jones Hedi Manchin We may end up seeing Republicans pick another SCJ before 2020. Interesting to see if the Dems hang these guys out to dry