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.

Merrick Garland (1 Viewer)

The General

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. 

 
The General said:
Can be both. On my Venn diagram of the Fox News type Republican the overlap of MAGA and Never Trumper is a smallish sliver.
Click to expand...
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.

 
The Commish said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds like some Kavanaugh and Squee shenanigans.

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Zow
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.
Click to expand...
You should probably read more of my writings here :shrug:

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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
You should probably read more of my writings here :shrug:

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.
Click to expand...
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.  

 
jon_mx said:
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.  
Click to expand...
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. 

 
The Z Machine said:
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. 
Click to expand...
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!!!!)  :lmao:  

 
The odd thing is that McConnell is one of the Republicans that has already said he’ll vote to confirm Garland, as have all 50 democrats.  Everything else is just delay.

 
rockaction said:
Whoa. Ever hear of "Borking"?
Click to expand...
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.

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. 
Click to expand...
He wasn't fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that it was more civil rights issues than free speech issues, but the criticisms were misplaced when compared to his record.  

 
rockaction said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

That six Republicans voted against him means nothing about 1973. There's no proof there, and you're maintaining a position that has no record in historical narrative about Robert Bork's confirmation hearings. It just isn't warranted to say that, and it's untrue.

It doesn't measure up to the historical narrative, either now or at the time. It was about civil rights, censorship, judicial review, and voting representation concerns.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which anti-liberal positions?  Ted Kennedy claimed he’d roll back civil rights laws.  His actual record on civil rights issues was quite “liberal.”

 
the rover said:
Which anti-liberal positions?  Ted Kennedy claimed he’d roll back civil rights laws.  His actual record on civil rights issues was quite “liberal.”
Click to expand...
Who is "he"?

I'm saying that to believe Bork was rejected for policy reasons you have to ignore that the Senate confirmed Scalia 98-0 the year before.  Scalia wasn't exactly a blank slate.

And I'm not saying it was the only reason -- just that you don't get 58(!) Senators voting against him without his role in Watergate.  (Rightly in my opinion.)

 
So we should ignore both the historical record, the unofficial narrative then, the unofficial narrative now, for Dinsy Ejotuz's insistence that it was about Watergate?

Not likely.

 
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. 

 
Democrats, 1987: We successfully blocked a conservative Supreme Court justice so that we could get.......a slightly less conservative Supreme Court justice! The ends truly do justify the means!

Republicans: Amateurs.

 
This article is from July, 1987 - prior to the hearings:  Bork Irked by Emphasis on His Role in Watergate.

It's mentioned in the opening section of his Wikipedia entry:

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.
Click to expand...
Nixon promised to nominate Bork for the next Supreme Court vacancy if he fired Cox.  According to Bork! 

Then he fired the Watergate prosecutor after two of his colleagues resigned instead of doing it.  And 10 years later he was nominated!

I mean, how can that guy possibly be seated?!

It was an extensive subject of the hearings themselves:

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. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
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? 

Bork thought a theory of community standards would fit the bill, and that federalism would instruct us where to live. Fair enough, I guess. My baseline of freedom and attendant thoughts are different than his. I don't think any process can remain uncorrupted enough, nor effective enough, to ever justify prior restraint on publication or even expurgated restraint on publication. But I do know that there are conundrums presented by both views, and there are really smart people on both sides of the coin. I got shouted down in a law school class defending, of all people, Catharine MacKinnon, just for saying that there were definitely smart and persuasive people that had argued for censorship. This was greeted with jeers. All I defended was their intelligence. It's a real hot-button thing, censorship. I disagree with those arguing for it. I can also see their points and concerns.

Let's just say I don't mind a little more judicial "activism" or policy rendering by the courts than Bork did. I'm fully on board with Gorsuch's judicial philosophy. Judicial philosophy is a really weird thing when it comes to both Democratic and Republican "sides" on the issue. There is always a tension between the legislature and the courts, the primacy of each, and what that means for policy and judicial review.

It would take a much, much longer amount of time than I have to explain it and to explain the history of that evolution. It's too broad for even a doctoral thesis. Let's just say that Bork's writings in The Tempting Of America: The Political Seduction Of The Law was a fairly good primer of Bork's judicial philosophy rather than the Slouching book, which was almost a decade later and when Bork had retired from judging. That was he work of an old curmudgeon who did not like society's movements away from a different time. It was a Get Off My Lawn Book extraordinaire.

I used to work a hop, skip, and a jump from Robert Bork. He and Walter Berns were close pals and talked about society and legal stuff all of the time. It isn't so much a love for his judicial philosophy and all that as it is a familiarity with him, the politics of his, and the hearings from 1987. I know in conservative circles that it still burns people to this day, and they haven't forgotten nor forgiven. One could say Garland's lack of S. Ct. seat is a direct result of the politics played with Bork.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
This article is from July, 1987 - prior to the hearings:  Bork Irked by Emphasis on His Role in Watergate.
Click to expand...
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination

The Congressional Testimony I looked at, and its table of contents, barely has anything mentioning it.

https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/bork/hearing-pt5.pdf

I am sure that if one wants to look at the end a pt1.pdf substitution will also suffice.

 
I can't tell which I'm more gobsmacked about -- that you're arguing the Saturday Night Massacre (fire this guy and I'll appoint you to the Supreme Court) wasn't so wrong that it ought to immediately DQ anyone from every holding an office of public trust again, or that you seem to think it wasn't relevant to the 58 Senators who voted against him, or that you think I'm partisan for believing it should and did matter.

But whatever.  Agree to disagree.  You can have the last word.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd encourage anybody who wants to know about the hearings to took for themselves -- both in the record and in conventional narrative -- to determine the truth of Dinsy's statements. I think you'll find the Wiki assertions he made aren't cited to any source and that almost every reputable narrative has Bork against various PACs and committees that opposed his nomination on his civil rights and censorship writings. Dinsy produces one article before the hearings as proof, but that article is about executive privilege rather than staying focused on the Saturday Night Massacre, though I'm sure that comes up in the article given that it's the Times and they certainly haven't forgotten.

In addition, Rover was correct about Bork's record being more liberal than otherwise thought. I think I'm correct about the Saturday Night Massacre. Anyone with an interest in bipartisan politics can research it on their own accord.

I'm not gobsmacked by anything. I expect this kind of wrangling from people who can't let Watergate go and compare Bork to Barr. Bork was a law professor before and after the Saturday Night Massacre at Yale, for heaven's sake.

 
I'd also recommend people look at the historical record -- specifically the link of the Bork hearings that rock himself was kind enough to post.  His link is to Part 5, but the other four are available as well.

There are more than 1,600 references to "Cox" (1100+) and "Watergate" (500+) in the five transcripts and supporting documentation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 "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

 
the rover said:
 "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
Click to expand...
Mitch McConnell?    I can't remember.   Is he a good guy or a bad guy.       What is china's  position on him?

 
Seems like a good selection and a good man.   Only question though is he is bad health?  Did not look or sound that good during his interviews.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
E
What are Your Thoughts on Democrats Calling Supreme Court Illegitimate, and State AG’s Vowing not to Enforce Abortion Bans?
7 8 9
Replies
401
Views
8K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
R
CNN / Fox News comparison not close
Replies
25
Views
611
supermike80
supermike80

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top