Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
Thanks Tree9Thanks

Thread: Kavanaugh likely to get every Republican vote, red-state Dems likely to join them

  1. #1
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Thanks
    18799

    From
    Kansas

    Kavanaugh likely to get every Republican vote, red-state Dems likely to join them

    It's the right move.

    While I initially felt otherwise, there's no point in voting No when you're trying to sell a bipartisan message and the confirmation will happen no matter what.

    Democrats have got to recognize how if they don't vote, every time, they will pay for it later.

    Conservatives acquired their consistent turnout advantage because they took one gut punch after another from 1930 to 1970, and vowed Never Again.

    Democrats have to do the same. I'm optimistic that after Trump, they will. And there will be more of them.

    In all likelihood, the courts having a Republican lean as part of Trump's legacy will be a favorable counterweight against future Democratic governments.
    Thanks from Wonderer and Jets

  2. #2
    Junior Member Sprockey's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks
    2403

    From
    Boston
    There really is no good reason not to confirm him. He is more than qualified
    Thanks from Macduff, Wonderer, Jets and 1 others

  3. #3
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50,759
    Thanks
    10266

    From
    United States
    At least you admit Dims do not vote on the qualifications of the nominee.

  4. #4
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Thanks
    18799

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Sprockey View Post
    There really is no good reason not to confirm him. He is more than qualified
    More or less. However, he should still be made to give a clear answer to the following questions:

    1) Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the Court to overturn or affirmatively reduce the impact of well-established precedent?

    2) What responsibility does the President of the United States have to respect subpoenas and contempt proceedings from DoJ and the Congress, which has no vehicle other than DoJ and impeachment for enforcing its will?
    Thanks from Wonderer

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50,759
    Thanks
    10266

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    More or less. However, he should still be made to give a clear answer to the following questions:

    1) Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the Court to overturn or affirmatively reduce the impact of well-established precedent?

    2) What responsibility does the President of the United States have to respect subpoenas and contempt proceedings from DoJ and the Congress, which has no vehicle other than DoJ and impeachment for enforcing its will?
    And he can invoke the Ginsberg Rule.

  6. #6
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Thanks
    18799

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    And he can invoke the Ginsberg Rule.
    The Ginsburg Rule is a judicial nominee's right to not answer questions about how they would rule on a specific issue or case pending or likely to be addressed by the Court.

    These are questions about general principles of law. If Kavanaugh flat-out refuses to answer their like, he's actually not qualified.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50,759
    Thanks
    10266

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    The Ginsburg Rule is a judicial nominee's right to not answer questions about how they would rule on a specific issue or case pending or likely to be addressed by the Court.

    These are questions about general principles of law. If Kavanaugh flat-out refuses to answer their like, he's actually not qualified.
    Those specific issues may come before the court.

    Ginsberg Rule.


  8. #8
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Thanks
    18799

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    Those specific issues may come before the court.

    Ginsberg Rule.

    Nope. They're not pertaining to actual cases or pending legal issues. They're purely hypothetical based on what a prospective justice believes.

    But I get it: You are in favor for approving whomever this president nominates regardless of how they behave in confirmation hearings.

    Also, you've twice misspelled her name.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50,759
    Thanks
    10266

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Nope. They're not pertaining to actual cases or pending legal issues. They're purely hypothetical based on what a prospective justice believes.

    But I get it: You are in favor for approving whomever this president nominates regardless of how they behave in confirmation hearings.

    Also, you've twice misspelled her name.
    The fact you think the Buzzy Rule applies only to her is laughable.

    And fuck how she spells her name. Don't give a shit, but I changed it just for you.

  10. #10
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    27,510
    Thanks
    18799

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    The fact you think the Buzzy Rule applies only to her is laughable.

    And fuck how she spells her name. Don't give a shit, but I changed it just for you.
    Ginsburg actually spoke at length about what she believes on hypothetical legal questions. That's why she got confirmed 96-3. She just declined to comment on specific cases and pending matters.

    Also, a typical observer would be right to infer that if one cares not for how things are spelled, especially after the correct spelling was provided, one doesn't care much for fact in general.

    If you really want to dig in your heels, I guess that's up to you.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Let's join in prayer for the Republican party
    By PopeADope in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th November 2016, 04:39 AM
  2. Massachusettes Dems vote to limit state employee unions
    By kmiller1610 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 28th April 2011, 05:21 PM
  3. What cap? Dems join climate word war
    By Politico in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th July 2010, 03:40 PM
  4. Sick of Reps and Dems? Join the Constitution Party
    By Justinian in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 23rd July 2007, 01:29 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed