Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think I have the context for most of it, and it's definitely great writing (especially for emails).  I don't fully endorse all his positions, but they aren't crazy or anything.

Edit: especially for the time periods in which they were formulated.

Yeah, I'm struggling to understand the significance of this as a layman. Why would Booker do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think I have the context for most of it, and it's definitely great writing (especially for emails).  I don't fully endorse all his positions, but they aren't crazy or anything.

Edit: especially for the time periods in which they were formulated.

Yeah, not sure why Booker went through all the trouble to release these.  :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rodg12 said:

Yeah, not sure why Booker went through all the trouble to release these.  :shrug: 

I didn't read it, was it another nothing burger by the dems?  If yes, stay tuned for the next one.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is just to illustrate that they are protecting documents for no good reason. As in why the #### is something like this confidential?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dawgtrails said:

I think it is just to illustrate that they are protecting documents for no good reason. As in why the #### is something like this confidential?

This would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

I didn't read it, was it another nothing burger by the dems?  If yes, stay tuned for the next one.

At the very least, I just want some fries with my nothingburger this time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

I didn't read it, was it another nothing burger by the dems?  If yes, stay tuned for the next one.

If anything I think it paints him in a good light as a very thoughtful person.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I think it is just to illustrate that they are protecting documents for no good reason. As in why the #### is something like this confidential?

I think it was meant to illustrate the Hawaiian representative's point that he resisted the classification of Native Hawaiians as Native Americans and to show that he argued for the use of race classification as a factor in airport security.  Which I don't agree with and may play well to the Democratic base, but his legal positions (especially 15-16 years ago) are reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I think it is just to illustrate that they are protecting documents for no good reason. As in why the #### is something like this confidential?

It was internal executive branch discussion regarding potential policy, policy on a subject that was super sensitive. It's incredibly routine to extend priviledge over internal executive branch discussions on policy.

All this really did was make Booker and fellow Democrats look like they are crying over absolutely nothing. If that's the worst that is out there, then they really are just a bunch of screaming Chicken Littles attempting to draw attention for their presidential run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 7 professionals in Kasowitz's DC office.  Assuming Kavanaugh talked to somebody from the DC office (Kasowitz himself is in NY), Clarine Nardi Riddle has a potentially relevant bio.  She was Lieberman's Senate Chief of Staff and "has a solid record of collaborating with the White House and decision-makers on both sides of the aisle to shape legislation and to assist in the approval of presidential executive and judicial nominations."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think it was meant to illustrate the Hawaiian representative's point that he resisted the classification of Native Hawaiians as Native Americans and to show that he argued for the use of race classification as a factor in airport security.  Which I don't agree with and may play well to the Democratic base, but his legal positions (especially 15-16 years ago) are reasonable.

From his one email released, it seemed like he actually desired race-neutral security measures but acknowledged that he wouldn't get that outcome at that time. From there, it would seem like a matter of making legal arguments to back up the proposed measures and making sure things passed Constitutional muster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

That might make it a bit tricky to answer the question without really searching one's memory with a list of the persons in front of one. 

I live in DC and LOVE talking about the Mueller investigation.  Who knows who I've talked to about it.  But I wouldn't look like a liar liar pants on fire if KH asked me that question, like Kavanaugh did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I think it is just to illustrate that they are protecting documents for no good reason. As in why the #### is something like this confidential?

From the little part of the hearing I caught this morning, I believe this was the intent. There’s apparently a bunch of documents that are marked as confidential for no good reason and this was one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

Yeah, I'm struggling to understand the significance of this as a layman. Why would Booker do this?

Well, one reason to do it is to show that if they are claiming privilege over something as innocuous as this, who KNOWS what is in the tens of thousands of documents that are being kept from the public.  Let's see the documents!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Indestructible said:

There are 7 professionals in Kasowitz's DC office.  Assuming Kavanaugh talked to somebody from the DC office (Kasowitz himself is in NY), Clarine Nardi Riddle has a potentially relevant bio.  She was Lieberman's Senate Chief of Staff and "has a solid record of collaborating with the White House and decision-makers on both sides of the aisle to shape legislation and to assist in the approval of presidential executive and judicial nominations."

That's significantly different than Kasowitz in general - if he spoke with someone in the DC office, he should remember it.  But they have 197 lawyers in New York, where he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

This is really really important.

For our entire history, being caught in a bald-faced lie like this would disqualify a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, we don't live in a country where that matters anymore for the Republican Party.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

From his one email released, it seemed like he actually desired race-neutral security measures but acknowledged that he wouldn't get that outcome at that time. From there, it would seem like a matter of making legal arguments to back up the proposed measures and making sure things passed Constitutional muster.

That is what I took away from it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rodg12 said:

They just released an email showing he lied during his testimony about when he had knowledge of the warrantless surveillance program.

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1037723994995269632

Not the only time he's lied to Congress either. Which is a crime. A judge who committed a few known crimes appointed by a criminal president seems about right. The fact that a president under investigation for conspiracy even gets to nominate his own judge is ludicrous, yet here we are.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Badly phrased questions. Badly phrased answers. At least they both came off better than the protesters.

The questions aren't badly phrased - they were phrased and rephrased a dozen times. Kavanaugh was just refusing to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Badly phrased questions. Badly phrased answers. At least they both came off better than the protesters.

Very poorly phrased question as well as being combative and accusatory without her seeming to appreciate how poorly phrased was her question.  As for his answer, I was fine with it, though I would hope a Justice could articulate the simple conundrum posed by the poor form of the question much better than did he.  As for the protestors, is there no dress code for these things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

The questions aren't badly phrased - they were phrased and rephrased a dozen times. Kavanaugh was just refusing to answer.

They were phrased in the conjunctive with an undefined term.  They were very poorly phrased unless ones intent in phrasing them was to be combative and to not get an answer.  They were not quite on a par with "when did you stop beating your wife?", but close.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't think any of the liberals/progressives and traditional conservatives on this board will find any middle ground with regarding this guy. Kavanaugh is a traditional conservative's sliver lining. The traditional conservatives and libertarians here may dislike Trump and many of his policies, but they love Gorsuch and they love Kavanaugh. This is why they put up with so much crap from Trump. There is no way they are going to allow themselves to see negatives here.

Edited by Dedfin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

They were phrased in the conjunctive with an undefined term.  They were very poorly phrased unless ones intent in phrasing them was to be combative and to not get an answer.

If they were intended to make him look like a big fat liar liar, they were successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Supreme Court lose legitimacy if (when) Cavanaugh is eventually appointed? I think it does.  Kangaroo court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

Does the Supreme Court lose legitimacy if (when) Cavanaugh is eventually appointed? I think it does.  Kangaroo court. 

It survived the stacking years.  It'll survive this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Badly phrased questions. Badly phrased answers. At least they both came off better than the protesters.

I agree.  She's grandstanding here.  Why won't she just name the person? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

For our entire history, being caught in a bald-faced lie like this would disqualify a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, we don't live in a country where that matters anymore for the Republican Party.

In 1873 President Grant nominated George Henry Williams for the Supreme Court.  His nomination got bogged down in scandal because it was rumored and then proven that he lied about using federal monies to purchase a new carriage for his wife to travel around town.  The kicker was that records also showed that he actually paid the money back and only did it because there was a bank panic that year and his bank wouldn't honor any paper checks during the panic unless they were government funds.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rodg12 said:

They just released an email showing he lied during his testimony about when he had knowledge of the warrantless surveillance program.

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1037723994995269632

That's it for me.  In my opinion that is disqualifying.  And I would like to see him impeached from his current position.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

Does the Supreme Court lose legitimacy if (when) Cavanaugh is eventually appointed? I think it does.  Kangaroo court. 

The Court survived Franklin Roosevelt.  It will be fine with one member nominated by a President that owns several banana slicers that he bought on credit and then filed bankruptcy to avoid paying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

The questions aren't badly phrased - they were phrased and rephrased a dozen times. Kavanaugh was just refusing to answer.

He didn’t refuse to answer. He answered that he wasn’t sure. He explained why he wasn’t sure (in a socially awkward way that may have signaled guilt but IMO people are overconfident about reading such signals) and she pretended not to get the obvious point that “Did you talk to anyone in Group X?” is impossible to answer when you don’t know who’s in Group X. His mannerisms were all wrong, but if she had the goods on him, she sure didn’t show it. And if she didn’t have the goods on him, her faux gotcha nonsense was just annoying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

If they were intended to make him look like a big fat liar liar, they were successful. 

I could see a partisan finding him obstructionist in his refusal to answer, but liar would be going too far from the clip that was posted.  Now she clearly implied that he was, but she clearly did not understand the import of her poor phrasing and she never backed her implications.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

He didn’t refuse to answer. He answered that he wasn’t sure. He explained why he wasn’t sure (in a socially awkward way that may have signaled guilt but IMO people are overconfident about reading such signals) and she pretended not to get the obvious point that “Did you talk to anyone in Group X?” is impossible to answer when you don’t know who’s in Group X. His mannerisms were all wrong, but if she had the goods on him, she sure didn’t show it. And if she didn’t have the goods on him, her faux gotcha nonsense was just annoying.

Christ:  One of you will betray me.

Peter:  No...

Christ: Judas!

Judas:  WHAT?!?!

Christ.... try the wine, it's delightful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I could see a partisan finding him obstructionist in his refusal to answer, but liar would be going to far, from th eclip that was posted.  Now she clearly implied that he was, but she clearly did not understand the import of her poor phrasing.

Oh, I have no idea whether or not the man is lying.  But he sure did act like a kid with a mouthful of Oreos telling his mom that he's not sure what she means when she asked him where "all" the cookies went.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's it for me.  In my opinion that is disqualifying.  And I would like to see him impeached from his current position.

This is, to me, far more troubling.  I tend to agree that his lack of candor (being kind) in this matter should be disqualifying.  I am not certain it is grounds for impeachment, though there certainly have been many efforts to make similar actions grounds for impeachment in the past with other officials.  I think th second is still an open question, though for me I would not have officials lie to congress without consequences, even as congress lies to us without them. I want standards and consequences in line with what the Constitution allows, explicitly or implicitly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

This is, to me, far more troubling.  I tend to agree that his lack of candor (being kind) in this matter should be disqualifying.  I am not certain it is grounds for impeachment, though there certainly have been many efforts to make similar actions grounds for impeachment in the past with other officials.  I think th second is still an open question, though for me I would not have officials lie to congress without consequences, even as congress lies to us without them. I want standards and consequences in line with what the Constitution allows, explicitly or implicitly.

Lying to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be an impeachable offense in my opinion.  Full stop.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

Oh, I have no idea whether or not the man is lying.  But he sure did act like a kid with a mouthful of Oreos telling his mom that he's not sure what she means when she asked him where "all" the cookies went.  

I agree that his optics were poor during the exchange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Lying to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be an impeachable offense in my opinion.  Full stop.

We are then in agreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Lying to Congress during a confirmation hearing should be an impeachable offense in my opinion.  Full stop.

no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ericttspikes said:

Not the only time he's lied to Congress either. Which is a crime. A judge who committed a few known crimes appointed by a criminal president seems about right. The fact that a president under investigation for conspiracy even gets to nominate his own judge is ludicrous, yet here we are.

Lying to Congress can’t be a crime, because if it was then Clapper, Brennan, Sessions, Comey and Hillary Clinton would have all been indicted....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think since rules are being broken and choas reigns .... they should stop the hearings and vote Kavanugh in right now right or wrong, legal or not

Why stop with what Booker did? Why stop with simple chaos and arrests? Just go full blown and break every rule and every law until one side comes out on top

 

There are reasons for law and order ... why do the Democrats feel they can break it to get their way ? maybe its time Republicans do it too - and hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rove! said:

Lying to Congress can’t be a crime, because if it was then Clapper, Brennan, Sessions, Comey and Hillary Clinton would have all been indicted....

I'm fine with impeaching everyone on your list.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's it for me.  In my opinion that is disqualifying.  And I would like to see him impeached from his current position.

Does anyone have the exact question asked of him and his exact answer? I think we've seen enough of this circus that I'd like to think we are at least all on the same page as far as making sure that the question asked of him and his answer were referring to the same thing as this email from him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, impeach a president and impeach a Supreme Court Justice. What are the odds on those? Fracking shame the Republican Party turned into. AND, Republicans are okay with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I think since rules are being broken and choas reigns .... they should stop the hearings and vote Kavanugh in right now right or wrong, legal or not

Why stop with what Booker did? Why stop with simple chaos and arrests? Just go full blown and break every rule and every law until one side comes out on top

 

There are reasons for law and order ... why do the Democrats feel they can break it to get their way ? maybe its time Republicans do it too - and hard

Yeah, you may want to find another hill to die on.

Grassley’s office says Booker and Hirono didn’t break the rules by releasing committee confidential documents about Kavanaugh; the GOP contends those documents were cleared for release before 4am today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I think since rules are being broken and choas reigns .... they should stop the hearings and vote Kavanugh in right now right or wrong, legal or not

Why stop with what Booker did? Why stop with simple chaos and arrests? Just go full blown and break every rule and every law until one side comes out on top

 

There are reasons for law and order ... why do the Democrats feel they can break it to get their way ? maybe its time Republicans do it too - and hard

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and it turns out that not only were the emails Booker released cleared for release last night, but that Booker already knew that before his grandstanding today: Link

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.