Kavanaugh should not be confirmed but, not because of Ford

Lol - both teams play dirty while in charge and change some sort of rule for their own benefit. They all have a GOD complex, believing, this time, they will never be voted out of power again so it doesn't matter what may happen if the other team gets control.

Always consider how you'd feel if the other team has this same power in a few years.

This is 1980's HS Civics stuff. It's not a new concept.

 

Agree 100%, but you left out a piece.

I'm also always amazed at what the right forget or purposely choose to ignore.

 

Agree 100%, but I also love how the Right seems to find a way to blame the Left for what the Right does.

 

Democrats are the ones that pushed for that in the first place and are now crying foul?

 

Kind of like how the #metoo people are circling around Kavanaugh like carrion but are completely ignoring Keith Ellison?

 

They did have the power and Kagan and Sotomayor are on the bench. Please note how the Republicans differed from the silly display put on by the democrats.

 

Neither will the Republicans.

 

The topic here is people crying about something the Democrats did in 2013.

 

Or Clinton's accusers who were trashed by Hillary? Yeah, exactly like that.

 

To ignore the entire issue is disingenuous. We have a broken system and die-hard partisans always find a way to blame the other side. I'm so tired of (and disgusted by,) partisans.

 

That's nice, but Democrats are the ones that did this. This is established fact. Trying to drag Republicans into it makes no sense.

 

I really do not understand why you think this has to do with Trump in any significant way ?

 

Sure it does. You are correct about this single incidence, but don't snow yourself into thinking that the only team changing the rules in their favor while in power is a democrat-only thing. Both sides have done this throughout our history; especially the last 30-40 years. Not one politician ever considers what this new rule change/power surge will mean when it gets in the hands of the other-evil-team.

Precedent was set for this a long time ago; Harry Reid certainly didn't invent the concept.

 

And it was McConnell no less.

So, we will have a sensible SCOTUS for at least the next 6 years.

Ginsberg is next, to be replaced by Amy Coney Barrett.

But the Dems might try to wax her like the Commies waxed Lenin and claim that she is just resting all the time while her clerks snicker behind a curtain.

 

This is not about what's in the Constitution. It is about the principles by which the constitution and law are supposed to be interpreted. So in this sense I suppose you are correct in saying this is not in the constitution but - just because something is not in the constitution does not make it a constitutional question.

The rules under which the Constitution is amended require a super majority.

Regardless - we are talking here about nominating a person who will have tremendous power to change/alter the Constitution - Someone who can limit or remove essential liberty - in conjunction with the others.

I disagree that such a body within Gov't having so much power - without consent of an overwhelming majority. This was understood in the past. It used to be 2/3rds 67%.

It is not like they just woke up one morning and put that bar in place. That bar was there for a reason. It is one of the main safeguards against Tyranny/Totalitarianism.

The main purpose of the Constitution is to maintain those safeguards - to keep essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

If some group, on the basis of 50+1, can just alter the Constitution or interpret it how they like, how is this document then effective at limiting Gov't power ? How is the effectiveness not diminished.

We can get into the rational behind calling 50+1 - Simple Majority Mandate "Tyranny of the Majority" but, regardless of what you or I think - this is what the founders thought. Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism refer to Simple Majority Mandate as "Tyranny of the Majority".

The purpose of setting a Gov't up as a Republic is to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority" - By Definition.

Now hey - perhaps "Tyranny of the Majority" is what some people want. That Gov't wants this is not a surprise. Show me a Gov't that does not want to increase its power and I will show you a flying pig, but lets at least call a spade a spade and be up front about it.

What is dangerous is when these safeguards are being removed - and the people do not realize it.

 

It amazes me how many people have tried to make this obviously stupid argument. Two wrongs to not make a right. Just because your neighbor jumps off a bridge does not mean you have to follow.

 

Correct - what else would we expect from our congressional clown show on either side of the fence.

That said - just because a bunch of fools on the left want to remove safeguards in place to protect us from Totalitarianism/Tyranny does not justify the right doing the same.

 

A bunch of fools? It was the Democratic Party establishment. Not "both parties" or anything else. Democrats.

And yeah, they seem intent on removing safeguards to protect us from totalitarianism. See how they were harassing social media executives to ban a guy who has spent a lot of time calling out Democrats for their slimy behavior? People swallowed it in droves, supported politicians bullying corporations to ban someone they hate, and people didn't see anything remotely wrong with it in terms of civil liberties and abuse of government power.

 

If the R team was truly outraged by such abuse of power by the D team, they should have reversed the rule change the day they took charge. Did they do that? No. Why? Because now they enjoy the power for themselves. In addition, they changed the rule giving the team in power even MORE power.

But, yeah, let's all play pretend-the-Republicans-are-oh-so-virtuous and honorable.

Lulz.

 

If the Republican Establishment had a problem with the removal of the safeguard - why did they not attempt to change it back to the 60 vote threshold when they got power ?

The Establishment consists of both Red and Blue and both have been trampling on individual liberty and removing said safeguards.

Anyone with a wit of understanding of this issue should be able to list a plethora of violations from both sides of the fence. Every siting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principles and the Rule of Law.

 

Then what possible objection could you have to Democrats using whatever means at their disposal to destroy Kavanaugh?

 

The gutless Senators won't even protect one of their own after absorbing the insult of the whole committee from Kavanaugh ("not advise and consent, search and destroy"). They continue their obsequious behavior and only look at the evidence -- or lack thereof -- against Kavanaugh. The Republican Senators are not the least bit interested in Kavanaugh's obnoxious, out-of-control anger and emotion. When one of their own is attacked, they say nothing and wish to go immediately to a confirmation vote.

This is nothing short of incredible. Trump's Supreme Court pick is attacking the United States Senate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...878f96be19b_video.html?utm_term=.7db48b035ba1

Thanks to the submissive Republicans in the Senate, this man will be a Supreme Court judge. Incredible.

 

That is true, if the GOP ignores all the polls that say differently. Please don't say the polls are inaccurate or you don't believe polls. That makes you look foolish. The polls were extremely accurate in the 2016 Presidential election.

Republicans and Trump keep saying that the Kavanaugh hearings have awaken Trump's slumbering base. Gauging by the response from Trump fans on this forum and the crowd size at Trump's rallies, they were never slumbering. Also, his fans are a minority, roughly 35% of the electorate.

Conclusion, GOP support for Trump and the confirmation of the out-of-control, partisan Kavanaugh will sharply awaken Trump's opposition which clearly is the majority. It is not q question of whether the GOP will win or lose on Nov. 6. It is a question of how much they will lose, the Senate along with the House?

 

I liked the 60 vote standard back in the day, but this is a different day. In this hyper-partisan era, will we simply do without 9 judges a la McConnell's tactics, then 8 judges, maybe seven because it is impossible to get bipartisan picks through? The higher the standard the more impossible that anyone can get through. its a real dilemma. Both sides are utterly shameless in their tactics to prevent a partisan appointment, yet both sides are more comfortable with a more partisan nominee and a more partisan process than before. No judges were getting appointed, hearings on nominees were stalled and the federal appellate courts were getting backlogged and the infection as now spread to SCOTUS. I don't know if you can bring back the 'good ol days' by setting the rule back to the 'good ol' days'.

the entire political culture has changed. I liked the bygone era when judgeships were decided on merit, experience, an ABA rating and character, and a 60 vote supermajority, but can we return to those days with a Senate rule change? I don't have an answer.

 

Woo Hoo Kavanaugh will be on the bench they have enough votes. A great day for America.