The General
Footballguy
What the hell did this guy do to Fox News type Republicans? They hate this dude. He seems like a reasonable guy.
He became a lightning rod because of the situation he was put in more than anything else IMO.What the hell did this guy do to Fox News type Republicans? They hate this dude. He seems like a reasonable guy.
It does seem that way. Tom Cotton taking his turn to get all indignant about him now.He became a lightning rod because of the situation he was put in more than anything else IMO.
No opinion on MG but curious about this. Are these Trumpers? Never Trumpers? Other?Fox News type Republicans
Can be both. On my Venn diagram of the Fox News type Republican the overlap of MAGA and Never Trumper is a smallish sliver.No opinion on MG but curious about this. Are these Trumpers? Never Trumpers? Other?
and yet think they are completely different circles.Can be both. On my Venn diagram of the Fox News type Republican the overlap of MAGA and Never Trumper is a smallish sliver.
Whoa. Ever hear of "Borking"? Or getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees? They've been at the "ends justify the means" game in terms of substantive dissent via non-confirmation and parliamentary procedures for a long-time.and yet think they are completely different circles.
Garland is a lightning rod because he represents the bar set by McConnell the the end justifies the means and they are terrified that the Dems will follow suit. I personally don't think the Dems have the guts to go there, but they might prove me wrong one day.
Sounds like some Kavanaugh and Squee shenanigans.rockaction said:Whoa. Ever hear of "Borking"? Or getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees? They've been at the "ends justify the means" game in terms of substantive dissent via non-confirmation and parliamentary procedures for a long-time.
You should probably read more of my writings hererockaction said:Whoa. Ever hear of "Borking"? Or getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees? They've been at the "ends justify the means" game in terms of substantive dissent via non-confirmation and parliamentary procedures for a long-time.
Filibuster ensured some level of compromise between the parties and brought a stable and steady hand to laws. Without a filibuster we will be creating and uncreating laws every few years making our system a see-saw of uncertainty. Populism will rule and it will not have good consequences.You should probably read more of my writings here
The bar has been sinking and sinking and sinking for as long as I can remember. The bar's current position was set in this last "stunt". That doesn't change the previous lowerings. And personally, I find it pretty weak to try and tie them together or use either "sides" actions as justification for anything.
ETA: Though I will admit, when I was watching the removal of the filibuster rules, my thought was "finally". I think it's possibly the most petulant, passive aggressive "rule" we have in our legislature. It's completely childish and needs to be done away with.
Garland seems to be a poltical hack, which lately seems to be the norm. He is no where near the moderate he was presented as when Obama nominated him.What the hell did this guy do to Fox News type Republicans? They hate this dude. He seems like a reasonable guy.
That doesn't seem to be the case in other western democracies. And in many of those a snap election can be called that could shift majorities in their legislatures quickly. A guarantee that the POTUS turns over every 4 years insures at least some stability.Filibuster ensured some level of compromise between the parties and brought a stable and steady hand to laws. Without a filibuster we will be creating and uncreating laws every few years making our system a see-saw of uncertainty. Populism will rule and it will not have good consequences.
Wondered what could possibly be the response to my comment. Without the filibuster there's concern that we'll create "laws" every few years and turn our system into a see-saw. Glad we're sidestepping that landmine in spectacular fashion!!!! (hello ruling by executive order!!!!)That doesn't seem to be the case in other western democracies. And in many of those a snap election can be called that could shift majorities in their legislatures quickly. A guarantee that the POTUS turns over every 4 years insures at least some stability.
Finally, if far reaching legislation was able to be passed the voters could hold their reps accountable. As it is now everyone can just point to the other party as the problem and nothing gets done.
Really wish you guys would stop using this as an example for anything.rockaction said:Whoa. Ever hear of "Borking"?
He wasn't fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the 'Saturday Night Massacre' when President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox following Cox's request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also considered the order "fundamentally wrong"[16] and resigned, making Bork acting attorney general. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox.
You're so far off you're traveling north and telling us to look south. Dinsy, you're one of the few die-hard partisans that brings consistently warped views of history and politics to the fore. It brings nothing of substance. You have an opinion. Nothing else. We know what Bork did on the "Saturday Night Massacre," whether that had residual effect on his nomination will largely be unknown because...Really wish you guys would stop using this as an example for anything.
Bork was Bill Barr, before Bill Barr. Except, somehow, he may have had less integrity when it came to protecting the DOJ.
He wasn't fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.
I think that it was more civil rights issues than free speech issues, but the criticisms were misplaced when compared to his record.You're so far off you're traveling north and telling us to look south. Dinsy, you're one of the few die-hard partisans that brings consistently warped views of history and politics to the fore. It brings nothing of substance. You have an opinion. Nothing else. We know what Bork did on the "Saturday Night Massacre," whether that had residual effect on his nomination will largely be unknown because...
That has nothing to do with why he wasn't confirmed. He wasn't confirmed because of Roe and free speech concerns. That was what almost the entirety of the confirmation hearings centered around, with Arlen Specter being the noted defector from the Republican Party. The reason "Borked" became a term of art is because many court watchers at the time found his non-confirmation unfair, because jurisprudence had theretofore not been used against judicial nominees.
Anybody reading this and that is interested in history should not take Dinsy's opinion as fact-based. They should instead research the hearings that took place. Dinsy's version is nowhere close.
Were other conservative Supreme Court Justices who'd written about and supported anti-liberal positions confirmed prior to, or after, Bork was denied? Scalia was confirmed before Bork's nomination 98-0. Kennedy was confirmed after Bork's nomination 97-0.You're so far off you're traveling north and telling us to look south. Dinsy, you're one of the few die-hard partisans that brings consistently warped views of history and politics to the fore. We know what Bork did on the "Saturday Night Massacre," whether that had residual effect on his nomination will largely be unknown because...
That has nothing to do with why he wasn't confirmed. He wasn't confirmed because of Roe and free speech concerns. That was what almost the entirety of the confirmation hearings centered around, with Arlen Specter being the noted defector from the Republican Party. The reason "Borked" became a term of art is because many court watchers at the time found his non-confirmation unfair, because jurisprudence had theretofore not been used against judicial nominees.
Anybody reading this and that is interested in history should not take Dinsy's opinion as fact-based. They should instead research the hearings that took place. Dinsy's version is nowhere close.
And those six Republicans voted against him specifically because of his writings on censorship and abortion. Arlen Specter of PA voted against him because of his views on civil rights, censorship, and his theories about judicial review.Were other conservative Supreme Court Justices who'd written about and supported anti-liberal positions confirmed prior to, or after, Bork was denied? Scalia was confirmed before Bork's nomination 98-0. Kennedy was confirmed after Bork's nomination 97-0.
I don't doubt that public opposition centered around his written work, but I think you're missing the point if you think that's why there were enough people against him to scuttle his nomination. Six REPUBLICANS voted against him.
Which anti-liberal positions? Ted Kennedy claimed he’d roll back civil rights laws. His actual record on civil rights issues was quite “liberal.”Were other conservative Supreme Court Justices who'd written about and supported anti-liberal positions confirmed prior to, or after, Bork was denied? Scalia was confirmed before Bork's nomination 98-0. Kennedy was confirmed after Bork's nomination 97-0.
I don't doubt that the hearings and public opposition centered around his written work, but I think you're missing the point if you think that's why there were enough people against him to scuttle his nomination. Six REPUBLICANS voted against him.
Who is "he"?Which anti-liberal positions? Ted Kennedy claimed he’d roll back civil rights laws. His actual record on civil rights issues was quite “liberal.”
Ok. I'm not sure what that has to do with my argument, but OK.Bork was charged, while as a law professor at Yale, to draw the redistricting map of CT back around 1971. He drew it in a way that did not help the GOP.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Former-Yale-Law-School-professor-says-11568674.php
Nixon promised to nominate Bork for the next Supreme Court vacancy if he fired Cox. According to Bork!Bork's nomination precipitated a contentious Senate debate. Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts and his role in the October 1973 Saturday Night Massacre.
It's hardly revisionist history or partisan to recognize it. Especially in light of the fact that 58 Senators voted against him in-between the unanimous confirmations of Scalia and Kennedy.For a time today, it seemed like the Senate Judiciary Committee and Bork had entered a time warp, as the judge fielded questions in the same Senate Caucus Room where the Watergate hearings were conducted in 1973--and about the same events.
The 60-year-old jurist stiffly turned aside a suggestion from Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) that he had acted illegally in firing Cox in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. “No, I don’t think it was, senator,” Bork said.
He said he had fired Cox because Nixon had given him a legal order to do so.
I'd have to take a really long time to unpack this. If I disqualified every artist because of their politics, I'd have very little to listen to or appreciate. If I disqualified every politician or judge because of their take on pop culture, I'd have few politicians to back, really. I can understand the impulse to censor -- I can also understand the need for artistic works to be reproduced as the artist wants, without expurgation. I fall heavily against he censorship side of things, largely because I believe in the marketplace of ideas and the sanctity of speech qua speech. As a policy concern, my main argument is: Who determines and by what standard? I think that it's impossible for a normative inquiry into censorship and where and how it should be done. Simply because censorship is so ends-based, how are we to go about ensuring that processes remain uncorrupted and efficacious?I used to listen to interviews with Bork when he wrote that Slouching Toward Gommorah book. He was a smart guy but a fanatic. It’s interesting that you seem to like him @rockaction; he used to quote Dead Kennedy lyrics as examples of music that he thought society should ban or heavily censor.
Anyone who goes to Wikipedia and reads the Wikipedia article would be hard-pressed to come away with your take on things. It's a non-cited line in the Wiki, and the rest of the Wiki focuses around civil rights, Roe, etc. For anybody interested, here's the article Ejotuz is pulling from selectively. Nothing about 1973 has a cite to it.This article is from July, 1987 - prior to the hearings: Bork Irked by Emphasis on His Role in Watergate.
Because he is a partisan hack who the left tried to pass off a some moderate.What the hell did this guy do to Fox News type Republicans? They hate this dude. He seems like a reasonable guy.
Mitch McConnell? I can't remember. Is he a good guy or a bad guy. What is china's position on him?"I’m voting to confirm Judge Garland because of his long reputation as a straight-shooter and legal expert. His left-of-center perspective has been within the legal mainstream.
For the country’s sake, let’s hope our incoming attorney general applies that no-nonsense approach to the serious challenges facing the Department of Justice and our nation."
-Mitch McConnell
He’s a partisan hack.Mitch McConnell? I can't remember. Is he a good guy or a bad guy. What is china's position on him?
Not sure I understand your objection. I think this is a good policy generally.https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-reporters-records-merrick-garland-e2348419815ef84dc75cbecd7e546b39?
What a load of ####.
The rich protecting the rich.
I would think this would be something you would support. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the story.https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-reporters-records-merrick-garland-e2348419815ef84dc75cbecd7e546b39?
What a load of ####.
The rich protecting the rich.
DOJ Will Not Prosecute Trump Officials After IG Referred Findings of False Testimony on Census
Investigators verified that former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross misled Congress, but the Biden administration said it won't pursue prosecution.
Parts of this story have been retracted. It wasn't Garland's decision. It was made by Barr during the Trump admin.urbanhack said: