Sinn Fein

***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Kavanaugh

10,403 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

Yup this is silly.  Obviously you're gonna need additional resources because of Kavanaugh's long history as a prosecutor and with the Starr investigation, but those resources should be found elsewhere.  Fund the office that usually does this work instead of borrowing crim attorneys. 

FWIW the former prosecutor/congressional candidate they quote there is running as a Dem, so this obviously isn't a partisan issue.

Isn't it more likely that this is due to pressure from Republicans to expedite the process rather than Dems trying to find dirt?

Share this post


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

No pearl clutching, just noting something unusual.

 

:lmao: at volunteers.  

 

Here’s a good thread on this. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Here’s a good thread on this. 

I'll catch that tonight.  My work hates the twitterverse.

Share this post


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

Isn't it more likely that this is due to pressure from Republicans to expedite the process rather than Dems trying to find dirt?

Probably, it's a pretty standard request for every shred of paper and obviously Kavanaugh's got more than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sat in on Senate Judiciary’s meeting this morning.  (LOOK AT ME!  I have free time and didn’t check to see if DC is humid AF in July!)

I didn’t quite follow everything that was going on - the acoustics weren’t great from my back corner seat - but one of the objections that seemed to be raised by the Dems was an apparent plan to have Kavanaugh’s work summarized in a report rather than give Judiciary Dems access to all the documents on Kavanaugh and let them do their own research.  I might not have heard that right.  

Also, there was preemptive objections to the expectation that Kavanaugh and his supporters might be able to suppress some unflattering emails and such, citing executive privilege from the time Kavanaugh worked in the White House.  It was brought up a few times than Kagan disclosed everything, a standard they don’t expect Kavanaugh to live up to.

What else?... Grassley opened with a long statement about how the “McConnell rule” didn’t apply to Kavanaugh and the Mueller investigation shouldn’t be a factor in Kavanaugh’s nomination because the President isn’t being investigated in that and Clinton nominated SCOTUS justices while under investigation so get bent.  

Some other discussion about Kavanaugh’s writings about expansion of executive powers.  Apparently Kavanaugh has taken the position on paper that the President has the power to not enforce a law he thinks is unconstitutional.  (I didn’t catch what source was cited, but both sides seemed to agree such writing existed)

Booker talked about the recent confirmation of a person (didn’t catch his name) to a high position in DOJ without having tried a case before and having ties to Alfa Bank, which is known to be run by Russian oligarchs.  Was wondering aloud why were we even bothering to put candidates through a confirmation vetting and hearings if the Republicans are just going to rubber-stamp everyone Trump nominates.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Booker talked about the recent confirmation of a person (didn’t catch his name) to a high position in DOJ without having tried a case before and having ties to Alfa Bank, which is known to be run by Russian oligarchs.  Was wondering aloud why were we even bothering to put candidates through a confirmation vetting and hearings if the Republicans are just going to rubber-stamp everyone Trump nominates.  

Guessing it's Brian Benczkowski. In any other time in our history this would be a huge potential scandal given his Russian connections.

Barely caused a ripple in the news cycle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the congressional oversight hearings today, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because he is biased and therefore cannot function as part of the judicial system.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no way this guy gets confirmed after the last 4 days of revelations, right? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, snitwitch said:

no way this guy gets confirmed after the last 4 days of revelations, right? :unsure:

If two Republican Senators in states with Democratic governors resign and are replaced by left-leaning appointees in the next 30 days, Kavanaugh has a tough climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....this guy would rule in favor of letting insurance companies deny people with pre-existing conditions, which means my son who has Type1 Diabetes can be denied coverage on our very expensive ($1,975 per month) health care plan.

Neat.   Real neat.  

Hope those of you supporting this guy are happy doing this to a child and his family.  

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

So....this guy would rule in favor of letting insurance companies deny people with pre-existing conditions, which means my son who has Type1 Diabetes can be denied coverage on our very expensive ($1,975 per month) health care plan.

Neat.   Real neat.  

Hope those of you supporting this guy are happy doing this to a child and his family.  

It's shameful that as a country we can't solve this problem, and allow good people, and children, to suffer needlessly.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

It's shameful that as a country we can't solve this problem, and allow good people, and children, to suffer needlessly.

and GM, too

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

So....this guy would rule in favor of letting insurance companies deny people with pre-existing conditions, which means my son who has Type1 Diabetes can be denied coverage on our very expensive ($1,975 per month) health care plan.

What's the basis for this assertion?  I looked and didn't find anything conclusive.

This seems to be more of a legislative issue than a judicial one, no?

Edited by Sand
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

What's the basis for this assertion?  I looked and didn't find anything conclusive.

This seems to be more of a legislative issue than a judicial one, no?

From USA Today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/13/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-could-kill-obamacare-column/778695002/
 

I'm sure it's nothing.  Still, as a father of a child with a disease that is incredibly expensive absent health care coverage (and is still costly with it) my heart sinks reading pieces like this or hearing we are about to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court who will rule against families like ours when the time comes.  It sucks, man. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

So....this guy would rule in favor of letting insurance companies deny people with pre-existing conditions, which means my son who has Type1 Diabetes can be denied coverage on our very expensive ($1,975 per month) health care plan.

Neat.   Real neat.  

Hope those of you supporting this guy are happy doing this to a child and his family.  

Narrator: In fact they are happy because...well...I dunno...Jesus, I guess.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

no way this guy gets confirmed after the last 4 days of revelations, right? :unsure:

I think it was going to be a fight as soon as he was nominated. I am not sure the last four days matter other than giving the Dems a little more support to delay a vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sand said:

What's the basis for this assertion?  I looked and didn't find anything conclusive.

This seems to be more of a legislative issue than a judicial one, no?

Kavanaugh is on record with the belief that the executive branch has the power to not enforce a law it believes is unconstitutional.  So if, hypothetically speaking, the House and Senate voted with 90% support to enact sanctions on a dictatorship, the White House could claim the sanctions are unconstitutional and not enforce them.  

Or decide it’s unconstitutional to force health insurance companies to have to cover people with pre-existing conditions and decide to not enforce that part of the ACA.  

Is that the balance of powers we want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Kavanaugh is on record with the belief that the executive branch has the power to not enforce a law it believes is unconstitutional.  So if, hypothetically speaking, the House and Senate voted with 90% support to enact sanctions on a dictatorship, the White House could claim the sanctions are unconstitutional and not enforce them.  

Or decide it’s unconstitutional to force health insurance companies to have to cover people with pre-existing conditions and decide to not enforce that part of the ACA.  

Is that the balance of powers we want?

I'm not sure how this is outside the norm of politics.  I'm sure it's happened many times - the one that sticks out in my memory is when Obama refused to defend DOMA.  Is there a difference here other than political/ideological? 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure how this is outside the norm of politics.  I'm sure it's happened many times - the one that sticks out in my memory is when Obama refused to defend DOMA.  Is there a difference here other than political/ideological? 

Honest question here because my memory is hazy.  My recollection is that Obama directed the DOJ not to defend DOMA in litigation brought challenging the constitutionality of Section 3.  Did the Obama administration actually refuse to comply with Section 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sand said:

I'm not sure how this is outside the norm of politics.  I'm sure it's happened many times - the one that sticks out in my memory is when Obama refused to defend DOMA.  Is there a difference here other than political/ideological? 

Gosh.  Imagine our surprise that you deflected from discussion of the actual topic to re-litigate something Obama did or Hillary might have done.  I apologize to the group for thinking you were capable of better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Gosh.  Imagine our surprise that you deflected from discussion of the actual topic to re-litigate something Obama did or Hillary might have done.  I apologize to the group for thinking you were capable of better.

If you can think of a better example from the W era, please do chime in.  My memory doesn't really stretch back that far on this topic.  What I brought up was the most relevant recent example I can think of.  Again, if you know of a better one, please contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sand said:

I'm not sure how this is outside the norm of politics.  I'm sure it's happened many times - the one that sticks out in my memory is when Obama refused to defend DOMA.  Is there a difference here other than political/ideological? 

it's a little more complicated, nuanced than simply that. Backstory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Kavanaugh is on record with the belief that the executive branch has the power to not enforce a law it believes is unconstitutional.  So if, hypothetically speaking, the House and Senate voted with 90% support to enact sanctions on a dictatorship, the White House could claim the sanctions are unconstitutional and not enforce them.  

Or decide it’s unconstitutional to force health insurance companies to have to cover people with pre-existing conditions and decide to not enforce that part of the ACA.  

Is that the balance of powers we want?

I wonder if he thinks it runs both ways? for example, Congress is exploring the option of requiring their approval over these trade tariffs that Trump enacted. like negotiating treaties, i gather. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sand said:

If you can think of a better example from the W era, please do chime in.  My memory doesn't really stretch back that far on this topic.  What I brought up was the most relevant recent example I can think of.  Again, if you know of a better one, please contribute.

How about you answer the question I actually asked instead of deflecting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sand said:

Kavanaugh is on record with the belief that the executive branch has the power to not enforce a law it believes is unconstitutional.  So if, hypothetically speaking, the House and Senate voted with 90% support to enact sanctions on a dictatorship, the White House could claim the sanctions are unconstitutional and not enforce them.  

Or decide it’s unconstitutional to force health insurance companies to have to cover people with pre-existing conditions and decide to not enforce that part of the ACA.  

Is that the balance of powers we want?

What do you mean by "enforce" in those examples? After Congress passes sanctions and the executive branch implements them, what has to be done by the executive branch to actually enforce them? I don't know how that works.

In the second example, I don't think the executive branch would have to do anything to enforce the requirement about preexisting conditions. If insurance companies refused to comply, they'd get sued by customers. The judicial branch would take over from there. Maybe the executive branch should take separate action against them as well, but I don't know how that works either.

The executive branch does have significant discretion regarding how to deploy limited resources to enforce various laws. I think it's probably fine to prioritize enforcing obviously constitutional laws over enforcing arguably unconstitutional laws. But it should be a genuine prioritization issue, not a pretext to nullify duly enacted laws based on policy differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

How about you answer the question I actually asked instead of deflecting?

I'm ambivalent on the issue.  I can see justification for the executive branch for not implementing or enforcing a law that there is strong evidence to believe is unconstitutional.  I can also see an argument for "that's what the judicial branch is for".  Justice takes time, though.

Now, ### for tat.  Get me a better example that is Bruce approved.

 

11 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What do you mean by "enforce" in those examples?

Aim this at Bruce - he's the author of that, not me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 11:00 PM, General Malaise said:

From USA Today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/13/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-could-kill-obamacare-column/778695002/
 

I'm sure it's nothing.  Still, as a father of a child with a disease that is incredibly expensive absent health care coverage (and is still costly with it) my heart sinks reading pieces like this or hearing we are about to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court who will rule against families like ours when the time comes.  It sucks, man. 

The article suggests that he thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional.  Not the preexisting condition provision.  Obviously, the preexisting condition provision doesn't work without the individual mandate, but I doubt he'd find that provision itself unconstitutional 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sand said:

I'm ambivalent on the issue.  I can see justification for the executive branch for not implementing or enforcing a law that there is strong evidence to believe is unconstitutional.  I can also see an argument for "that's what the judicial branch is for".  Justice takes time, though.

Kavanaugh says the judicial branch having a role in arbiting whether the executive branch made the right call or not when declaring a law unconstitutional.  In other words, Kavanaugh disagrees with the argument “that’s what the judicial branch is for”. I think he’s wrong about that because it gives the executive branch way too much power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

The article suggests that he thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional.  Not the preexisting condition provision.  Obviously, the preexisting condition provision doesn't work without the individual mandate, but I doubt he'd find that provision itself unconstitutional 

I'm still scurrrrred. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

I'm still scurrrrred. :(

You should be.  The GOP is looting the place, and there final FUs to the working clsss will be gutting the ACA, making huge cuts to Medicaid, and one more big tax cut for the wealthy on their way out the door.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I'm still scurrrrred. :(

I do get it, but the majority who upheld the mandate were the four liberals and Roberts.  So if you want to be scared, be scared about the Notorious RBG's health.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

Kavanaugh says the judicial branch having a role in arbiting whether the executive branch made the right call or not when declaring a law unconstitutional.  In other words, Kavanaugh disagrees with the argument “that’s what the judicial branch is for”. I think he’s wrong about that because it gives the executive branch way too much power.

Do you think Sally Yates was wrong to refuse defending the Muslim travel ban?

ETA: That's a bad example because that was an executive order rather than a legislative act. But suppose for the sake of argument that it had been an Act of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is the source of the comments about Kavanaugh.  I haven't read it, but I've seen summaries and I'm not sure it says exactly what Bruce/the Democratic Senators are saying it says.  

Most discussion has been about the first part, where he advocates for Congress to pass legislation suspending any civil or criminal investigation of the President while in office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Do you think Sally Yates was wrong to refuse defending the Muslim travel ban?

ETA: That's a bad example because that was an executive order rather than a legislative act. But suppose for the sake of argument that it had been an Act of Congress.

I think the Muslim ban is unconstitutional. Draw whatever conclusion you need from what you admit is a bad example.   

Share this post


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

I think the Muslim ban is unconstitutional.

Right. Let's say it's an Act of Congress that you believe is unconstitutional. Does that mean that the executive branch should not defend it in court? If it shouldn't, does that also mean that the executive branch should not enforce it?

Share this post


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

Right. Let's say it's an Act of Congress that you believe is unconstitutional. Does that mean that the executive branch should not defend it in court? If it shouldn't, does that also mean that the executive branch should not enforce it?

Maurile, just fast forward to point you’re trying to make.  I haven’t been to law school.  Clearly I’ve made some egregious mistake here to people as learned as you, so just tell me what it is.  

BTW, is taking a user’s quote from here and slapping another user’s name on it a thing we’re all allowed to now, or just mods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to hide the ball. It sounds like you're criticizing Kavanaugh for suggesting that the executive branch should not enforce laws that it believes to be unconstitutional. I'm wondering whether you're taking that position only with respect to laws that you like, such as Obamacare, or whether you'd take the same position with respect to laws that you don't like, such as a hypothetical Muslim ban passed by Congress.

I don't think the issue is all that clear cut. On the one hand, I do think the executive branch should have some discretion regarding how it prioritizes its enforcement efforts. On the other hand, I don't want the executive branch to nullify Congressional acts it doesn't like for political reasons. Back on the first hand, members of the executive branch do take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which arguably includes refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws.

It's not an issue I've given a ton of thought to, but it's one that doesn't strike me as having an obviously right answer that covers all situations. It seems nuanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

BTW, is taking a user’s quote from here and slapping another user’s name on it a thing we’re all allowed to now, or just mods?

Nobody should do that. I don't know how it happened. Sorry. It wasn't on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

16 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Jerry Rice is not a HOFer.  

You're going to need to unpack this one a bit.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now