Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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’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

So it is early.  But for those of us who did not sleep, it is late. And survivors and their family members have told their tales in here, and rent the hearts from our very chests, and opened eyes that

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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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?

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
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
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. 

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
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
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.

 

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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

Has the whole world gone CRAZY? IS STEALTHYCAT THE ONLY ONE AROUND HERE WHO GIVES A #### ABOUT THE RULES?! MARK IT ZERO!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GroveDiesel said:

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.

Cory Booker grandstanding?  I can't believe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this hearing is a mockery for the system that's in place - if ya'll can't agree to that, that the chaos and mass confusion is so far overboard ..... then you're justifying any means necessary to get the end result you want (no Kavanugh)

and if you realize that, than you would have to expect the GOP to do the same

and when both sides are full on war, breaking laws and violating everything we stand on as a country .... then where will we be at ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 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.

Seriously? I have a bridge to sell you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

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.

Quote

KAVANAUGH: We're talking about a lot of different things, Senator, here.

LEAHY: Warrantless surveillance program.

KAVANAUGH: And that's talking about a lot of different things. So what you're asking about right there was the specific -- what President Bush called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. That was his name for it.

LEAHY: Which is a warrantless surveillance program.

KAVANAUGH: Along with many others, and that's -- you were asking me about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, TSP I think you called. He -- that story was broken. That testimony's 100 percent accurate. That story was broken in the New York Times. I had not been read into that program.

And when it came in the New York Times, I actually still remember my exact reaction when I read that story. And then the president that Saturday, I believe, did a live radio address to explain to the country what that program was about. There was a huge controversy. And so, everyone was then working on getting the speech together.

And you asked me if I had learned about it before then. I said no, and that's accurate.

That's from this hearing set.

 

This is from 2006: https://apnews.com/26222be147d94bbab527c2f1bc4fe4c3

Quote

 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: “Did you see documents of the president relating to the NSA’s (National Security Agency) warrantless wiretapping program?”

Kavanaugh: “No.”

 

 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GroveDiesel said:

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.

That's the "sheesh"?  Not Cornyn threatening Booker not to release them?

Read between the lines here: The Republicans were bluffing that calling these "confidential" was somehow legally binding. Booker called their bluff and they sheepishly backed down and Grassley just tried to save face.

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

this hearing is a mockery for the system that's in place - if ya'll can't agree to that, that the chaos and mass confusion is so far overboard ..... then you're justifying any means necessary to get the end result you want (no Kavanugh)

and if you realize that, than you would have to expect the GOP to do the same

and when both sides are full on war, breaking laws and violating everything we stand on as a country .... then where will we be at ?

Better than where we're at now with only one side doing it?

Sorry  but you don't get to shove the board game off the table, storm out of the kitchen, burn the house to the ground, and then pull out the instructions and insist that we abide by all the rules. You burned it down, you get to wallow here in the resulting chaos with the rest of us.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Has the whole world gone CRAZY? IS STEALTHYCAT THE ONLY ONE AROUND HERE WHO GIVES A #### ABOUT THE RULES?! MARK IT ZERO!

Democrats have to start bracing for the point when the GOP starts attacking hard - legally and illegally. The left cannot continue to break laws and bully and hate and create chaos ...eventually there will be equal or more retaliation

 

Just seems to me everything has been thrown out the window with the chaotic hearings, the scheduled protesting, the interruptions, the arrests, this Booker deal, the release of op-ed yesterday .........

what's next? a force removal of Trump by a military faction ? civil war ?

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...