[Nevyn]

worry, on 03 October 2018 - 08:53 PM, said:

Obviously establishment Dems are terrible at representing their (ostensible) ideals, but I don't see how you conclude being able to compromise is key to the solution. How do you make your case while simultaneously compromising your principles!? Dems lose because they're spineless losers who don't fight for what they claim to want, not because they're unwilling to compromise. In fact, compromising -- a delightful euphemism for caving -- has pretty much been their calling card since at least Clinton. And that has been awful for the long term health of the country.

The american political system as constitutionally designed only works on compromise. Its not a matter of principle, it is pure pragmatism. They have 2 legislative bodies and an executive, all elected separately, and which must coordinate.

If you end up with all 3 in one party, they still have to compromise between ideological differences of the party and regional interests. And traditions of compromise are the only thing that allow the minority voices in those bodies any chance of a say at all. But for most of the time, you have some version of divided government. And if neither side blinks, that simply doesn't function.

For all the talk of compromising as caving, republicans never compromising and defying convention, and democrats caving, even in the last highly polarized decade you have had instances of democrats defying political convention to force things through without compromise, and multiple instances of republicans compromising, particularly in the Senate. Democrats didn't have to go nuclear to get Sotomayor or Kagan through, and both got republican votes to approve.

And not every decision of government is a stark idealistic choice, either.

Especially when it comes to the court. Both parties (republicans more) have been playing more and more political games with the court, and it is a destructive pattern. The president shouldn't be picking a judge by his or her ideology. And the Senate's role should be relatively minor and a mere affirmation that the choice is appropriate. No matter which side wins, the pattern is destructive. You get worse judges either way, because you are picking based on ideology rather than a position of fundamental fairness and respect for the law. But even worse things happen. You get unfilled seats for long blocks of time, you get 4-4 courts ducking important cases because they know they can't decide them. You potentially get fading justices with ill health or declining faculties sitting in a seat waiting for the right replacement.

And even if you fight that fight eye for an eye to try to win ideologically, whether or not you win becomes a much more random determination based on when judges die. Just imagine in 15 years, by then the first party to get both presidency and 50+ in the senate will be putting up recent law school grads, just to max out their "win".

[worry]

I guess you're defining compromise as any work between two or more individuals where no one's singular vision is purely enacted. Which is fine, but isn't really what anyone else is talking about, imo.

I hate to put words in others' mouths, so I won't speak for Venge or Obdi, but when I say compromise I'm talking about party principles being watered down or abandoned for the benefit of those with power (in some case deliberately, because there are Dem politicians who fundamentally aren't principled). So compromise, in the US at least, only happens in one direction: to the right. There is no folksy, practical, everybody has the same goal and just disagrees about how to get there style of compromise available. There's no 'good ideas' from all sides being brought to the table to form common ground policy. That does not exist. All compromise is rightward, because we have a 'center' party and a far right party. Compromise means moving right. Bipartisanship means moving right. And moving right is nihilism.

[worry]

Also I think you're making a big presumption that ideologically left judges aren't, by very nature of that ideology, superior judges to conservative ones.


Edit: Not saying I am throwing all your thought-babies out with the bathwater, but hopefully these posts provide some semblance of where we disagree.

This post has been edited by worry: 03 October 2018 - 10:56 PM

[Khellendros]

Over here in the UK, the Democratic Party, in its policies and ideology, appears somewhat right of our right-wing Conservative Party (although increasingly less so as the Tories lurch ever further to the right).

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Donald Trump's most recent Supreme Court Nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is facing perjury complaints for his testimony before Congress during the Senate hearing for his confirmation.The Democratic Coalition, in their initial complaint, alleges that Kavanaugh's testimony, not only in this hearing but in other testimony before Congress, includes false statements about certain documents said to be stolen from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The complaint will now be heard by none other than Merrick Garland — President Obama's pick for SCOTUS, who was denied a hearing. [...] If Judge Garland feels there is sufficient cause, he can appoint a Special Judiciary Committee to carry out a formal inquiry into Brett Kavanaugh's testimony.'

https://hillreporter...impression=true

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 04 October 2018 - 12:44 AM

[amphibian]

The Supreme Court Justices have always been picked with a serious emphasis on ideology. This has become more and more boldly public over the years, but it's been a huge component for hundreds of years.

One can't compromise with a side that's seriously willing to shut down the federal government to make dumbass demands and able to capitalize on the perceived incompetence of the government to obtain more power. The frames of reference are too far apart to actually create a working relationship.

That's where senators like Schumer and Biden go wrong - they think people like Orrin Hatch are their friends. Ted Kennedy was a sexual assaulter and probably committed manslaughter, but he was one of the most powerful liberal senators in recent memory because he knew Hatch and the others weren't his real friends.

[Tsundoku]

So ... what's the significance here? Narrow-framed brief FBI investigation results spouted by WH as 'clearing' Kav?

Although I do note it's a the senate hearing that has final say apparently. Apologies but I'm still trying to follow how things work. Or don't work, as the case may be.

https://www.news.com...2db46c6d92df093

I found this part interesting:

"A massive coalition of Christian churches, attended by 40 million people, have said they want Mr Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination.

The National Council of Churches said the conservative jurist has “disqualified himself”.

The group said in a statement that at last week’s dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he showed “extreme partisan bias,” demonstrating he lacks the temperament to join the high court."

Then I thought maybe those 40 million people and churches are probably non-white and therefore don't matter to the GOP.

[Nevyn]

Tsundoku, on 04 October 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

So ... what's the significance here? Narrow-framed brief FBI investigation results spouted by WH as 'clearing' Kav?

Although I do note it's a the senate hearing that has final say apparently. Apologies but I'm still trying to follow how things work. Or don't work, as the case may be.

https://www.news.com...2db46c6d92df093

I found this part interesting:

"A massive coalition of Christian churches, attended by 40 million people, have said they want Mr Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination.

The National Council of Churches said the conservative jurist has "disqualified himself".

The group said in a statement that at last week's dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he showed "extreme partisan bias," demonstrating he lacks the temperament to join the high court."

Then I thought maybe those 40 million people and churches are probably non-white and therefore don't matter to the GOP.

There is no court here.

The president nominates someone to be the judge. A committee in the senate considers him, and then votes whether or not to move his nomination to the whole senate for an approval vote. The senate votes to approve, and if he gets a majority, he is on the supreme court.

The allegations here don't get proven in any real sense. Even with better scope, the FBI's role here is not so much criminal investigation as background checking. They don't say "this witness is lying etc etc". They interview who they interview, and the White House and the Senate can see the transcripts of those. They are involved because they have the trained workforce and the mandate to question people, and to ideally ask the right questions of the right witnesses in the right order that it is possible to draw a conclusion.

Which means when you limit the scope and time you also cut back the usefulness, and its really just a handful of disconnected interviews.

Now as to being cleared or not, that is all eye of the beholder. There isn't actually a rule that he can't be on the court if the accusations are proven, nor a specific standard of proof that has to be met. It is all politics. Technically, the white house and senate could all say he did it and they think he lied under oath and still confirm him. But they won't because it is bad politics.

So the white house have to say they cleared him, because otherwise why aren't you withdrawing the nom?

And now the Senate get to fight over what they think the investigation showed, as well as whether it was too narrow, and whether other public statements, etc make them comfortable enough to vote for him.

In the end it all comes down to a few republican senators who either are not running again (and thus don't fear punishment from their base), or have a history of some bipartisanship, and/or could be vulnerable in their next election if they supported this guy with the accusation over his head. Collins, Murkowski, Flake.

And their decision comes down to whether they are comfortable putting him on their (own conscience), whether they are comfortable politically doing it, and on the flip side how they weigh that against wanting another conservative justice.


tl;dr : Its a political shit show that further undermines the integrity of the court no matter the result.

[Obdigore]

Tsundoku, on 04 October 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

So ... what's the significance here? Narrow-framed brief FBI investigation results spouted by WH as 'clearing' Kav?

Although I do note it's a the senate hearing that has final say apparently. Apologies but I'm still trying to follow how things work. Or don't work, as the case may be.

https://www.news.com...2db46c6d92df093

I found this part interesting:

"A massive coalition of Christian churches, attended by 40 million people, have said they want Mr Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination.

The National Council of Churches said the conservative jurist has “disqualified himself”.

The group said in a statement that at last week’s dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he showed “extreme partisan bias,” demonstrating he lacks the temperament to join the high court."

Then I thought maybe those 40 million people and churches are probably non-white and therefore don't matter to the GOP.

This investigation was a tailor-made sham to let Flake vote yes, and give people GOP a talking point of 'we had an investigation and it didn't return anything, there's nothing there'.

This organization of churches has both white and non-white people/churches. What you need to remember is that the GOP doesn't have time to nominate another judge before the SCOTUS hears a case that will decide if a Presidential Pardon also Pardons, and thus prevents further, state charges.

This is the reason for this entire thing. Kavenomeansyes is the only judge who has 3 very important things that trump wants - 1) Presidents can't be indicted while sitting, 2) Presidential Pardons Pardon Everything Ever, and 3) He loves to rape, so he's one of the 'guys' AND he has handles that people can force him to vote any way they want.

I expect Flake and probably Collins to vote for confirmation, Murkowski to vote against, and then ol' Mike Pence, aka "I'd rape all of you if god wasn't watching" to cast the deciding vote of the 50-50 tie to confirm.

Just expect the GOP SCOTUS to never pick up an abortion case, because they lose ~50% of their base if abortion is made illegal. What will happen is that this SCOTUS will continue to erode, and allow, states to make it harder and harder for medical professionals to provide abortions in their states, meanwhile rich people can get on a plane and get their mistresses/hookers abortions in those 'dirty librul' areas.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 04 October 2018 - 05:39 PM

[Nevyn]

Obdigore, on 04 October 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

This organization of churches has both white and non-white people/churches. What you need to remember is that the GOP doesn't have time to nominate another judge before the SCOTUS hears a case that will decide if a Presidential Pardon also Pardons, and thus prevents further, state charges.

This is the reason for this entire thing. Kavenomeansyes is the only judge who has 3 very important things that trump wants - 1) Presidents can't be indicted while sitting, 2) Presidential Pardons Pardon Everything Ever, and 3) He loves to rape, so he's one of the 'guys' AND he has handles that people can force him to vote any way they want.

No, that's complete bunk.

People continue to dramatically overestimate the likelihood of Trump being impeached or charged, or of it ending up at the Supreme court.

The time crunch of Kavanaugh is they can't nominate and confirm another before the midterms, and if the Democrats took the Senate in the midterms they could in theory block Trump from nominating someone at all. So for republicans a no on Kavanaugh risks their chances at a conservative balance to the court.

If this was all about Trump and pardons, a number of GOP senators would happily see Kavanaugh go down. You think Flake wants to give him a supreme court firewall?

[Obdigore]

Nevyn, on 04 October 2018 - 06:24 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 04 October 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

This organization of churches has both white and non-white people/churches. What you need to remember is that the GOP doesn't have time to nominate another judge before the SCOTUS hears a case that will decide if a Presidential Pardon also Pardons, and thus prevents further, state charges.

This is the reason for this entire thing. Kavenomeansyes is the only judge who has 3 very important things that trump wants - 1) Presidents can't be indicted while sitting, 2) Presidential Pardons Pardon Everything Ever, and 3) He loves to rape, so he's one of the 'guys' AND he has handles that people can force him to vote any way they want.

No, that's complete bunk.

People continue to dramatically overestimate the likelihood of Trump being impeached or charged, or of it ending up at the Supreme court.

The time crunch of Kavanaugh is they can't nominate and confirm another before the midterms, and if the Democrats took the Senate in the midterms they could in theory block Trump from nominating someone at all. So for republicans a no on Kavanaugh risks their chances at a conservative balance to the court.

If this was all about Trump and pardons, a number of GOP senators would happily see Kavanaugh go down. You think Flake wants to give him a supreme court firewall?

So once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't say anything about impeachement or charges. I said the case before SCOTUS is about Presidential Pardons. This allows trumpski to defend all his little people, in an effort to prevent further witnesses. It's another facet of fascism, where people who are loyal to you are protected and everyone else can fuck off.

Since you obviously aren't aware, there is a time frame between elections and when the Senate changes. That time frame is until Jan. 3rd. The Senate has plenty of time to confirm another judge in this lame duck session. They are set on Kavenomeansyes for the reasons I listed above. You've said nothing to disagree with that besides calling it 'bunk', because you apparently don't know basic things like how our government functions or what the human observation of time is.

You also seem to think that GOP senators don't vote as ordered every fucking time.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 04 October 2018 - 06:35 PM

[Nevyn]

Obdigore, on 04 October 2018 - 06:35 PM, said:

So once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't say anything about impeachement or charges. I said the case before SCOTUS is about Presidential Pardons. This allows trumpski to defend all his little people, in an effort to prevent further witnesses. It's another facet of fascism, where people who are loyal to you are protected and everyone else can fuck off.

The implication of your assertion is that Trump wants to use those pardons on his people, and that the specific senators who have been on the fence give a damn about helping him.

So its disingenuous in the extreme to say its not about impeachment. The reason state charges matter is because people are afraid Trump will pardon people to keep them from cutting deals. So if he can't pardon state charges you can roll people.

But of course, most of the people have already taken deals, and some done so on federal charges.

And further, the case is not explicitly about pardons, it is about double jeopardy with a possible implication for pardons. So the basis for assuming its right now a 4-4 tie to be broken is shaky. The defendant cited a prior Ginsburg opinion in their petition.

And if they were sure this would go party line, any number of justices with easier confirmation roads could have been picked, and proceedings could have been rushed further.

Quote

Since you obviously aren't aware, there is a time frame between elections and when the Senate changes. That time frame is until Jan. 3rd. The Senate has plenty of time to confirm another judge in this lame duck session. They are set on Kavenomeansyes for the reasons I listed above. You've said nothing to disagree with that besides calling it 'bunk', because you apparently don't know basic things like how our government functions or what the human observation of time is.

Oh, it is in theory possible to do in a lame duck session. But you have time before the election where 1/3 of the senate is running and don't want to be there. Then you are scheduling sessions over the holidays.

And then you still need a 100% party line vote on the person you nominate, with none of the lame ducks (ones voted out and ones retiring) abstaining. And all of that assumes the vetting and hearings go smoothly.

It could come to that, but would be every bit as damaging for them as confirming this guy, especially if the next choice is polarizing. To get it done, Trump may be forced to put up a 'compromise' candidate.

Quote

You also seem to think that GOP senators don't vote as ordered every fucking time.

If they did, the confirmation would have been last week.

If they did, Obamacare would have been repealed.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 04 October 2018 - 07:29 PM

[worry]

I dunno. The confirmation wasn't last week because the GOP wanted to build cover for some Yes votes. Obamacare was spared because a dying senator with a personal grudge against the president -- who still had an 80+% Trump score -- happened to make his moment at the same time two of the only people with (slightly) lower Trump scores than McCain calculated a No might benefit them more than a Yes. None of this is a sign that GOP senators don't vote in lockstep


I think you both make some valid points, but ultimately the question isn't "Why Kavanaugh?" The answer to that is known: it's because he's the biggest stooge of the various stooges they could choose, suiting the needs of the Trump admin and McConnell and co.'s corporate wishlist. But even all of those things are subservient to one basic truth, and it answers the question "Why Double-Down on Kavanaugh?"



When you scrape away everything else, that's always the heart of American conservatism.

[Nevyn]

worry, on 04 October 2018 - 09:08 PM, said:

I dunno. The confirmation wasn't last week because the GOP wanted to build cover for some Yes votes. Obamacare was spared because a dying senator with a personal grudge against the president -- who still had an 80+% Trump score -- happened to make his moment at the same time two of the only people with (slightly) lower Trump scores than McCain calculated a No might benefit them more than a Yes. None of this is a sign that GOP senators don't vote in lockstep

Usually it doesn't come to a vote. The Obamacare one was unique because Trump and McConnell wanted to try to dare the last wavering few to vote no on so central a Republican promise.


They knew multiple senators didn't like it, and tried to strongarm them.

Often, when those senators don't like something, thats when it comes off the table and gets softened or changed, or any kind of compromise sought. They usually don't even hold a vote if they are going to lose.

Both parties have a degree of party discipline, and it gets higher the narrower a majority is. But that does not make it true that all the Senators are the same, and that none of them resist or try to moderate.
And I don't doubt you could get party line on any number of issues.

But if the only reason to push this guy is what Obdigore alleges, you wouldn't get 50 senators in lockstep just for that. If its just to get Trump his ruling? Flake and Corker would vote no just to flip him the bird on the way out the door.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 04 October 2018 - 09:45 PM

[worry]

A lot of ACA repeal bills that the more wild and unruly House passed the Senate would never pass, that's true. Especially because most of those were during Obama's term. But let's not forget that both chambers actually did pass a bill even then and Obama had to veto it. But that was still all politics. When DJT came into office, the effort became more 'real' and to my recollection a lot of the wrangling had to be done in the House more so than the Senate. But leave all that aside, or else we'll be arguing every single attempt to its finest lines. Obviously these people are also piranhas who want to get their own bite of any bill that momentous, in both chambers.

Like I said, I think you're both hitting on truths, but nothing is the whole truth except winning for winning's sake, power for power's sake, cruelty for cruelty's sake. Regarding Obdi's argument, your specific quibble with him seems to be missing something imo: the absolute given that Kavanaugh already agrees with every other judge on the list created for Trump by the Federalist Society on 99.99% of conservative goals. So Obdi isn't arguing in a vacuum that Trump's personal desires for pardon powers are alone what matters. It's that those exist on a mountain of other GOP desires that all the judges already agree on. There's 25 nearly identical Crap Sundaes and the Kavanaugh Sundae happens to have the specific brand of cherries on top Trump wants. He really really wants those cherries, so why not do their best to give em to him. Everyone's already getting sundaes anyway.

[Tsundoku]

“White House Denies Trump Was Mocking Kavanaugh Accuser After Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser”. Genuine CNN headline. Sums it up really.

I should be long past the stage of being surprised or shocked by anything these arseholes do, but they just keep on plumbing new depths that I had hitherto thought only theoretical ie behaviour like that existed only in a drunken pol sci argument at uni. The subject being "What could someone get away with, the worst sort of behaviour etc and still not only keep their job, but prosper?"

[QuickTidal]

And the President of the United States just called survivors of sexual assault (the women who stopped Flake in the elevator to question him about confirming Bart O'Kavauagh) "paid crisis actors" on twitter.

Fuck. I should stop being surprised when this reprehensible, vile piece of fiery garbage shit non-human sinks lower...every day...

 DT-Ass.png (54.27K)
Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 October 2018 - 02:33 PM

[Nevyn]

This was cited by former justice John Paul Stevens (who commended Kavanaugh as a federal judge) in saying that he thought Kavanaugh had disqualified himself from the court.

A lot of this is coming back to the comments I was making on here when watching Kavanaugh live. Trump wanted a performance of anger and victimhood for political reasons, but a Supreme Court justice can't be so wildly partisan.

It would be really interesting if he made the court how fellow court members reacted if he tried to not recuse himself in some of the more hot button issues. Particularly someone like Roberts, who is conservative, but has a measure of concern about the integrity of and people's faith in the integrity of the court.

Quote

His intemperate personal attacks on members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and his partisan tirades against what he derided as a conspiracy of liberal political enemies guilty of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit" do more than simply display a strikingly injudicious temperament. They disqualify him from participating in a wide range of the cases that may come before the Supreme Court: cases involving individuals or groups that Judge Kavanaugh has now singled out, under oath and in front of the entire nation, as implacable adversaries.

Quote

Judge Kavanaugh’s attacks on identifiable groups — Democrats, liberals, “outside left-wing opposition groups” and those angry “about President Trump and the 2016 election” or seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” — render it inconceivable that he could “administer justice without respect to persons,” as a Supreme Court justice must swear to do, when groups like Planned Parenthood, the NRDC Action Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Naral Pro-Choice America or the American Civil Liberties Union appear as parties or file briefs on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants.

For a Justice Kavanaugh to participate in internal court discussion or oral argument of such cases, much less vote on their resolution, would involve not just an undeniable appearance of conflict but an actual conflict, given his stated animosities and observation that “what goes around comes around.”

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 05 October 2018 - 03:02 PM

[amphibian]

Manchin doing a favor for a sick GOP senator only for that senator to give $5k to his opponent in the election campaign is one of the examples of "not playing the same game".

https://twitter.com/...6525484032?s=19

[Nevyn]

worry, on 04 October 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Like I said, I think you're both hitting on truths, but nothing is the whole truth except winning for winning's sake, power for power's sake, cruelty for cruelty's sake.

I know you buy this, but really little is served by thinking it.

Trump is a walking caricature, so it is easy to fall into it in this era, but caricaturizing your opponents, lumping them all together, and oversimplifying your view of their motivations actually runs counter to both beating them and reasoning with them.


There are a very small minority of alt right people who truly just want to watch it all burn and glory in the cruelty of it all. But there are a much wider swath who are not a part of that at all. They broke with and wrote off first the left and then the center a long time ago in a quite similar way to how you wrote off the right. That included the media, which they wrote off as biased.


The irony of that being that they actually made the media itself more biased. They 'opted out', and the media is about money. So what happens when a newspaper or a cable news network look at their demographics and see that they make all their money from people more to the left? They go for more content those people will "buy".


And so the pattern that has been getting worse for a decade now is one where a block of the right are so reflexively against both media and institutions of the left, that anything opposed or condemned by the left for any reason actually leads them to like it more.


It isn't cruelty for cruelty's sake. The motives don't matter. It is "these people are wrong, and they don't like it, so I do". And that is a good thing to bear in mind, because while the left trails the right in this, it is not an unknown phenomenon there either. As things become more polarized and people cut each other off, not only is the animosity worse, but the range of opinions people are exposed to and consider become tilted to a specific world view. Its sets off one's political compass.


Comparisons to the Clinton impeachment are imperfect, because years have passed and cultural attitudes have changed. But there are some ugly truths for the left to recon with in that past. There were some spectacularly ugly character attacks by major political figures on Clinton accusers. And Clinton became more popular with his base when they went after him, even though everyone knew he was not a guy they wanted around their daughter and that he had likely committed perjury. They liked him more because of the people who didn't.




PS> I was going to reply to your whole post in one reply, but this part is really an aside and got more long winded than i intended, so I will reply to the other paragraph separately to make it easier for the conversations to diverge or end as needed.