Supreme Court of the United States

[Lexicus]

There's winning, and there's winning like this. You think an honour-obsessed creep like Jackson wants his dignity upheld by Papists and Israelites?

Fair enough. Better dignity upheld by Papists and Israelites than to have Papists and Israelites endorse Communism, women in the workplace, and race-mixing, though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Meh... I think maybe I'd rather have nine liberal/Democrat/moderate WASPy dudes

Actually, nevermind. I looked a little harder, none of that made sense.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Actually, nevermind. I looked a little harder, none of that made sense.

Nine John Paul Stevens'es > Nine Clarence Thomas'es

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, now it would make sense. lol!

Interesting doesn't necessarily mean rather, and while Barrett is interesting(and in a way that certainly does have appeal*), it's not her vaginal qualities that make her particularly so**.

I miss a lot of context in responses, sorry about that.

*She even qualifies for the top-25 law school thing that manages to be unequivocally not part of that boring, stuffy, nasty old corridor of bespoke academic thought and interest.

**Well, at least not from here, I do understand she has 7 kids(though only 5 were particularly involved in that anatomy), so not looking to throw shade.

 

[onejayhawk]

The Brett Kavanaugh nomination is clear nepotism, clear quid-pro-quo, and he is clearly a staunchly conservative, far-right ideologue, being vetted for such characteristics and accordingly blessed by the Heritage Foundation. His nomination process was corrupt, and presented to the public in a dishonest manner, since he was clearly already 100% selected for the job before Kennedy retired. In fact his selection was a pre-condition of Kennedy's retirement. So there was no "selection process" and the representation to the public that there was any such process was a blatant, unmitigated lie.

Putting all that aside... he seems to be a perfectly normal, sufficiently educated/experienced, far-right, staunchly conservative Judge that will side reliably with the Republicans on every issue. He's not, for example, some reality show clown with no prior relevant experience for the job, or an accused child molester, or a Westboro Baptist church fanatic, or some conspiracy theory kook, or a wife-abuser, or convicted killer, or...

In other words, the current opposition to his nomination is based on political/ideological/strategic/fairness/policy concerns, rather than any problem with his individual character.

Nepotism? Whose family? The rest of this is outright bombast.

So what? Choice of replacement is a time-honored tradition. Even if it is an outright contractual arrangement, what is the problem?

Nine John Paul Stevens'es > Nine Clarence Thomas'es

Sure. Pick on Thomas. He's easy. It does not work if you use Alito or Roberts.

J

 

[Cutlass]

Sure. Pick on Thomas. He's easy. It does not work if you use Alito or Roberts.

J

Sure it does. Alito and Roberts fundamentally disagree with the text of the US Constitution. And so want to overrule it, and replace it with their own brand of fascism. They may be better at exterminating liberty and the rule of law than Thomas. But they are not in any sense different in goals.

The Constitution says one thing. They hate that, and so legislate from the bench to substitute something else.

 

[rah]

Choice of replacement is a time-honored tradition.

Would have been nice if the Republicans had observed that time-honored tradition. Sounds kind of hypocritical here.

 

[JollyRoger]

I disagree. The notion that the Heritage Foundation blessed a "moderate", by any definition... is quite... I'll just say, fanciful.

Also, the SCOTUS that ruled in Brown v. Board of Ed., was nine white dudes, as was the SCOTUS that ruled in Loving v. Virginia... FWIW.

And we will soon have 4 white guys and one black guy on the Court that think those cases were wrongly decided.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nepotism? Whose family? The rest of this is outright bombast.

Check your Google... "Nepotism" includes family and friends.

So what? Choice of replacement is a time-honored tradition. Even if it is an outright contractual arrangement, what is the problem?

Naturally.

Sure. Pick on Thomas. He's easy. It does not work if you use Alito or Roberts.

OMG J I'm a little shocked at how badly you missed the point. Anyway, @Farm Boy got it, and he was the one I was talking to, so... I'll tell you what rather than engage in a back-and-forth... I'll give you one chance only to get it.... and point out one piece of information that you apparently missed... Clarence Thomas is black. Now please go back and read the exchange in that context. I hope you get it now... good luck.

 

[onejayhawk]

OMG J I'm a little shocked at how badly you missed the point. Anyway, @Farm Boy got it, and he was the one I was talking to, so... I'll tell you what rather than engage in a back-and-forth... I'll give you one chance only to get it.... and point out one piece of information that you apparently missed... Clarence Thomas is black. Now please go back and read the exchange in that context. I hope you get it now... good luck.

Gotcha.

Naturally doesn't work this time. Seriously, what is the problem?

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Naturally doesn't work this time. Seriously, what is the problem?

The problem is you've been going on about "The Ivy League" and bemoaning this supposed "Boston-Washington corridor" and even after the nomination you complained:

Trump nominates an insider from the DC circuit. Once again he fails to go outside the Harvard/Yale enclave.

But now its:

So what? Choice of replacement is a time-honored tradition. Even if it is an outright contractual arrangement, what is the problem?

If you're saying "so what?" and "what is the problem?" to the "Harvard/Yale enclave" Justices "time-honored tradition" of choosing their replacement... then how, by Odin's beard, can you honestly complain about the Justices usually coming from the "Harvard/Yale enclave" or "The Ivy League" or the "Boston-Washington corridor"? You don't see the inherent contradiction in that? You can't hand-wring about one while hand waving the other... Or I guess you can... Naturally

 

[Sommerswerd]

On a somewhat related note, I notice that before the nomination you were sure of Kavanaugh's conservative bonafides. You said:

That would be Kavanaugh and Kethledge. Kavanaugh is the supposed to be enough like Kennedy that a deal between the Justice and the President might name him. I have my doubts. Kethledge is supposed to be more in the Gorsuch vein. It's hard to say which is more conservative. Frankly, Kennedy himself was pretty conservative, except on LGBT issues.

But after he gets nominated, you're trying to throw shade at him, implying he's some kind of RINO:

Kavanaugh is arguably the least conservative of the four finalists

So now he's the "least conservative"? C'mon gimme a break, you just said you couldn't say who was more conservative, now you're saying he's the least conservative? What's with the shade man? What's that about?

Also, going back to the main point... there were no "four finalists"... There were no "finalists". There were no "candidates". There was no "selection process". The whole thing was a sham to obscure the fact that Kavanaugh had already been selected before Kennedy had even announced his retirement. To borrow a popular phrase... this was a coronation, not a deliberation. The fact that you are still using terms like "finalists" underscores that you still aren't really getting that.

 

[onejayhawk]

I already noted that this selection is straight from the swamp. All you have added is that it amounts to nepotism. So, Trump did not live up to a campaign promise on several levels. You are unhappy about it. Got it.

What is the problem? This looks more like a storm in a teacup. For that matter, even if Kavanaugh is objectionable, the list is short. Which of Hardiman, Coney Barrett, and Kethledge would you prefer, and why?

J

 

[AdrienIer]

I'd have preferred Merrick Garland because he should have been on the court for the past 2 years

 

[onejayhawk]

I'd have preferred Merrick Garland because he should have been on the court for the past 2 years

I would prefer Garland to Kagan, which might have actually happened.

It's ironic that Garland keeps coming up, because Kavanaugh once waited three years for a confirmation hearing.

J

 

[rah]

and some are still waiting.

 

[onejayhawk]

and some are still waiting.

For the next time the Senate changes hands. Exactly. It's the sad state of politics as usual.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

I already noted that this selection is straight from the swamp.

You did?? When? Where? Did I miss it? I never noticed you saying that.

Hmmm... I just checked... The last time you used the word "swamp" was on June 12th in this post and it had nothing to do with the SCOTUS... So I'm calling shenanigans on your claim that you "already noted that this selection is straight from the swamp". You did no such thing. If you're acknowledging it now then fine, I accept your surrender

What is the problem? This looks more like a storm in a teacup. For that matter, even if Kavanaugh is objectionable, the list is short. Which of Hardiman, Coney Barrett, and Kethledge would you prefer, and why?

Again... There is NO LIST...and there never was. The fact that you are still refusing to acknowledge that is one problem.

For the next time the Senate changes hands. Exactly. It's the sad state of Republicans politics as usual.

FTFY

 

[onejayhawk]

You did?? When? Where? Did I miss it? I never noticed you saying that.

Hmmm... I just checked... The last time you used the word "swamp" was on June 12th in this post and it had nothing to do with the SCOTUS... So I'm calling shenanigans on your claim that you "already noted that this selection is straight from the swamp". You did no such thing. If you're acknowledging it now then fine, I accept your surrender
Again... There is NO LIST...and there never was. The fact that you are still refusing to acknowledge that is one problem.
FTFY

I used the word insider instead of swamp and in another thread. I'll give you that one.

Of course, there was a list. Don't be silly. Even if there was a nominee presumptive, which is not given, they needed to have a back up available.

Nothing about having no list indicates there is a problem. How is this any different than any other posturing for the cameras?

Once again, you tried to fix something and got it wrong. It was the state of Democratic politics that kept Kavanaugh from getting a confirmation hearing before 2006. What we have is new boss same as old boss, ie politics as usual. Cites from wiki

Lewis, Neil (May 10, 2006). "Senators Renew Jousting Over Court Pick". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2011.
Lewis, Neil (July 26, 2003). "Bush Selects Two for Bench, Adding Fuel to Senate Fire". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2011.
Kellman, Laurie (May 23, 2006). "Kavanaugh Confirmed U.S. Appellate Judge". Washington Post. Washington DC: Nash Holdings LLC. Retrieved November 8, 2011.​

Your game is off. Striking out is one thing, but you whiffed badly here.

J

 

[Cutlass]

I already noted that this selection is straight from the swamp. All you have added is that it amounts to nepotism. So, Trump did not live up to a campaign promise on several levels. You are unhappy about it. Got it.

What is the problem? This looks more like a storm in a teacup. For that matter, even if Kavanaugh is objectionable, the list is short. Which of Hardiman, Coney Barrett, and Kethledge would you prefer, and why?

J

I'd prefer someone who wasn't trying to rewrite the Constitution to force fascism on the US.