What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

Sweet J said:
summary? 
Click to expand...
Booker is expressing frustration with the process for getting committee confidential docs released – he says members didn't get some docs until right before the deadline. He also questions why some docs were confidential, saying they didn't include sensitive info.

Booker just now says he's going to release an email about racial profiling which has been marked committee confidential, saying he understands he may face serious penalties for doing so, including ouster from the Senate.

ETA: That's from twitter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin said:
In the context of a SCOTUS nomination hearing, do you think Kamala Harris is looking for bar conversations? I doubt that's the situation you are imagining. If Kavanaugh had a lunch meeting with 2 partners at Kazowitz, etc would you think he remembers it? I think so.
Click to expand...
One question.  Does any of this matter for his confirmation if no names are ever produced?

 
whoknew said:
Booker just now says he's going to release an email about racial profiling which has been marked committee confidential, saying he understands he may face serious penalties for doing so, including ouster from the Senate.
Click to expand...
Holy balls indeed. 

 
Dedfin said:
Didn't he attempt to delay an abortion of a young woman who jumped through all the hoops to get one? The strategy for Rs is to not make abortion illegal, but to make it too challenging to get. Considering those that seek these procedures are commonly vulnerable young woman without resources, slowing down this process makes them effectively illegal. This is not new.
Click to expand...
If the alternative is a conservative who is 100% against abortion, I will take this guy.

 
JohnnyU said:
One question.  Does any of this matter for his confirmation if no names are ever produced?
Click to expand...
I have serious reservations about this man's truthfulness.  If I do, maybe some senators do, as well.  It may matter a great deal what his answer is and what the truth is. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
Harris never narrowed the question not to include random conversations.  

If Kavanaugh had a lengthy conversation about the investigation with someone he knows well at that law firm, yes, I assume he would remember it. 

It was just a terrible line of questioning, in my opinion.  
Click to expand...
"Have you had any conversations..."

That question would include casual conversations like the one you suggested and real ones like the one I did. So either would have been fine. She didn't ask for all conversations, which might have been more challenging. But sense she in all likelihood wasn't looking for casual conversations, then that doesn't matter. Any single conversation recalled would have been "yes". But he didn't answer yes, he obfuscated. The question, and the implication of the question/non-answer is pretty straight forward.

 
Punxsutawney Phil said:
If the alternative is a conservative who is 100% against abortion, I will take this guy.
Click to expand...
I think the effect is going to be the same, but I understand your point of view. Abortion rights is not a priority to me. I'm more concerned with labor vs capital and that corporations have disassembled The American Dream. So you can understand how I dislike all R nominees because they are all corporate pawns. One of these terrible humans is as bad as the next.

 
Sweet J said:
I have serious reservations about this man's truthfulness.  If I do, maybe some senators do, as well.  It may matter a great deal what his answer is and what the truth is. 
Click to expand...
I think this is all kabuki. One of the few things I learned is that these hearings may be kabuki but they are also for a historical record, which is important to keep for (reasons). IMO there is a 0% chance any of these Republican senators will vote no because of a racial profiling memo, even if Kavanaugh is going off on someone like a Kramer standup comedy act.

 
Dedfin said:
I think this is all kabuki. One of the few things I learned is that these hearings may be kabuki but they are also for a historical record, which is important to keep for (reasons). IMO there is a 0% chance any of these Republican senators will vote no because of a racial profiling memo, even if Kavanaugh is going off on someone like a Kramer standup comedy act.
Click to expand...
Right.  And we have on record what he said in 2006.  I really hope this plays out with all the facts. 

 
Dedfin said:
"Have you had any conversations..."

That question would include casual conversations like the one you suggested and real ones like the one I did. So either would have been fine. She didn't ask for all conversations, which might have been more challenging. But sense she in all likelihood wasn't looking for casual conversations, then that doesn't matter. Any single conversation recalled would have been "yes". But he didn't answer yes, he obfuscated. The question, and the implication of the question/non-answer is pretty straight forward.
Click to expand...
What I assumed (and I could be wrong of course) is that he didn't remember a conversation but didn't want to answer "no" in case there was some casual conversation he'd forgotten or someone that worked at the firm that he didn't remember.  The question mentioning the firm's name makes it reasonable to assume there is a particular conversation that Harris has some knowledge about and he likely wonders if he isn't recalling something.  It makes sense that he'd want more information to help jog his memory in case such a conversation actually existed.

I'll state one thing that we should all agree on:  It's not a simple question if he doesn't remember a conversation but isn't positive one didn't happen.  

If he's lying and trying to hide something, then that's different.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
What I assumed (and I could be wrong of course) is that he didn't remember a conversation but didn't want to answer "no" in case there was some casual conversation he'd forgotten or someone that worked at the firm that he didn't remember.  The question mentioning the firm's name makes it reasonable to assume there is a particular conversation that Harris has some knowledge about and he likely wonders if he isn't recalling something.  It makes sense that he'd want more information to help jog his memory in case such a conversation actually existed.

I'll state one thing that we should all agree on:  It's not a simple question if he doesn't remember a conversation but isn't positive one didn't happen.  

If he's lying and trying to hide something, then that's different.  
Click to expand...
Okay, I guess it comes down to if we thought he was being truthful or not. Thanks :thumbup:  for the perspective

 
Sweet J said:
Right.  And we have on record what he said in 2006.  I really hope this plays out with all the facts. 
Click to expand...
You know this better than I do. What is the good of historical records piled on historical records if no govt body acts upon them? I guess I'm saying that the R Senate isn't really interested in a real process here. They are doing these hearings because they have to.

 
bagger said:
And yet you argue it to the death.

By product of watching too much Fox News. My mom does this too...latch onto a incorrect hot take like a gila monster never letting go and taking it to the mat when really it is something pretty minor that nobody really cares about.

Good luck with this.
Click to expand...
Not enough gila monster analogies.  Good work.  I would have screwed this up by going with snapping turtle.

 
No idea how you could watch that and think she's fishing. She's a former prosecutor, and that was a trap. That's why he was so deer-in-headlights, no answer he gave could be good for him if they both know exactly who she's thinking of. She didn't need to lay out all her cards right then. 

 
ConnSKINS26 said:
No idea how you could watch that and think she's fishing. She's a former prosecutor, and that was a trap. That's why he was so deer-in-headlights, no answer he gave could be good for him if they both know exactly who she's thinking of. She didn't need to lay out all her cards right then. 
Click to expand...
it was a trap alright.  She was trying to get him to incriminate himself without her even knowing any names that he was supposedly talking to.  Cryptic questions  in an apparent attempt to throw him off what has been a relatively steady performance.  He didn't bite.  So, she reeled her line in and put another worm on the hook.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26 said:
No idea how you could watch that and think she's fishing. She's a former prosecutor, and that was a trap. That's why he was so deer-in-headlights, no answer he gave could be good for him if they both know exactly who she's thinking of. She didn't need to lay out all her cards right then. 
Click to expand...
I mean... it was probably Kazowitz.

 
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1 20m20 minutes ago

Mazie Hirono announces that she'll also release a Committee confidential document to the press, says that if Cory Booker is going to be punished, "count me in, too."

 
JohnnyU said:
it was a trap alright.  She was trying to get him to incriminate himself without her even knowing any names that he was supposedly talking to.   He didn't bite.
Click to expand...
Again, she is a successful prosecutor. Not really how they operate, right? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
I gave you my reasoning.  She wouldn't mention any names, because IMO she doesn't know any.
Click to expand...
Michael Avenatti disagrees:

Michael Avenatti‏ @MichaelAvenatti 2h2 hours ago

They must have hard evidence of this supposed communication by Kavanaugh. I’m sure they do bc otherwise Harris would not have done what she did in light of the cardinal rule: Don’t over promise to the jury and then not deliver bc you will lose all credibility and be crucified.

 
Sweet J said:
Interesting.  I'm not sure I understand any of it, but from the snippets I read, he's a remarkably clear thinker and writer. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quickly reading that he came off to me as very thoughtful, focused, and intent on getting any decision right, especially in the context of what our world looked like back then.  I'm not a legal mind like some on this board, but am I missing something here?  Does Booker think this is some kind of "Gotcha" moment?  Because I'm not seeing it.

ETA: my guess is that race is such an explosively nuclear topic that the mere discussion of race under a heading of racial profiling will paint him as some kind of racist?  Even though he literally says his goal is race-neutral security systems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm struggling to understand the significance of this as a layman. Why would Booker do this?

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

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
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."

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top