Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Squirm for political reasons = fishing.  Nothing to see here then unless they know of someone from that firm he talked to.

This certainly seems like a slam dunk nomination which makes the squirming really odd. Kavanaugh’s got this, why the nervousness? He’s going to be a USSC Justice but he looked like a green horn on occasion.

The Dems really tasked him on his piece on Hawaiii, on whether the President could obstruct, the stolen emails, and the Kasowitz issue. They exposed him, I’m really surprised, not that they came at him but that he was so uncool.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’ve hinted at this before, but I’m not sure I’ve been explicit about it... I was molested when I was a child. The preparator was an older person in my neighborhood.  My parents were friends

Yes.  If MT believes he was wrong to be angry at someone's stupidity, that's fine.  But I think he could reasonably be angry instead at someone's callousness and lack of empathy. I've been extrem

I know people hate when lawyers tell non lawyers what do or how to look at something. I get it, I really do. But this guy is being interviewed to be given a job where we, in our profession, are requir

17 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

It wasn't brought up by me.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

I live in southern mn and the winters aren't that bad here.  Long but on average not that bad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 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.

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.  

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

Yup.  Fairly simple to answer, too.  "I've discussed the investigation with a number of people, just like everyone else. It's front page news all the time. I don't specifically recall discussing it with someone I know to be an employee of that firm, but it's certainly possible." Unless there's some big reveal coming, which I doubt, that would have been the end of it.  That's basically the answer he gave anyway, but he spent 5 minutes looking guilty as hell first.

Oh my GOD did he look guilty.  It's like how I act when my wife asked if I went gambling a couple of months ago.  "ummmm. . . what do you mean by 'gambling'?  I mean, I might have been like, 'I bet my secretary is totally lying about needing to take a sick day.'  Right?  So. . . who DOESN'T gamble?  And if you mean by 'gamble, was I taking a chance on something, I take chances all the time. . . ."

 

An easy answer was RIGHT there for the taking.  The fact that he didn't take it . . . something is weird here. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sweet J said:

summary? 

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.

Edited by whoknew
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 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.

One question.  Does any of this matter for his confirmation if no names are ever produced?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

 

Holy balls indeed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

If the alternative is a conservative who is 100% against abortion, I will take this guy.

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

One question.  Does any of this matter for his confirmation if no names are ever produced?

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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.  

"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.

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

If the alternative is a conservative who is 100% against abortion, I will take this guy.

I don't mean to get all law-nerdy.  But it's ok to be 100% against abortion.  What matters is the justice's legal reasoning.  There may have been Justices who ruled in favor of Roe who are "against" abortion. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

If the alternative is a conservative who is 100% against abortion, I will take this guy.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

Right.  And we have on record what he said in 2006.  I really hope this plays out with all the facts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.  

Okay, I guess it comes down to if we thought he was being truthful or not. Thanks :thumbup: for the perspective

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

Right.  And we have on record what he said in 2006.  I really hope this plays out with all the facts. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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. 

I mean... it was probably Kazowitz.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 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. 

And you know this, how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Bender said:

All she did was ask a question. In a respectful manner. And asked again and again because it wasn't answered.

I didn't think she came off terribly at all. I thought he did.

Her questioning was not respectful. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 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.

Again, she is a successful prosecutor. Not really how they operate, right? 

Edited by ConnSKINS26
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I gave you my reasoning.  She wouldn't mention any names, because IMO she doesn't know any.

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.

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

Cory Booker just tweeted out the committee confidential documents on racial profiling that were discussed at the Kavanaugh hearing.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037719598215376897

Interesting.  I'm not sure I understand any of it, but from the snippets I read, he's a remarkably clear thinker and writer. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by unckeyherb
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

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.


×
×
  • Create New...