Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Merrick Garland


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The General said:

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shula-holic said:

He became a lightning rod because of the situation he was put in more than anything else IMO.  

It does seem that way. Tom Cotton taking his turn to get all indignant about him now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorvilleBarnes said:

No opinion on MG but curious about this. Are these Trumpers? Never Trumpers? Other?

Can be both. On my Venn diagram of the Fox News type Republican the overlap of MAGA and Never Trumper is a smallish sliver.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 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.

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 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.

Sounds like some Kavanaugh and Squee shenanigans.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 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 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.

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 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.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 8:11 PM, The General said:

What the hell did this guy do to Fox News type Republicans? They hate this dude. He seems like a reasonable guy. 

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 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.  

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 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. 

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: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2021 at 10:18 PM, rockaction said:

Whoa. Ever hear of "Borking"?

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.

Quote

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. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 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.

I think that it was more civil rights issues than free speech issues, but the criticisms were misplaced when compared to his record.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 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.

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.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 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.

 

Which anti-liberal positions?  Ted Kennedy claimed he’d roll back civil rights laws.  His actual record on civil rights issues was quite “liberal.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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.”

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

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

Ok.  I'm not sure what that has to do with my argument, but OK.

You're the one who's arguing his nomination was killed for philosophical/judicial positions he'd taken.  At least I think so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Quote

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.

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:

Quote

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. 

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.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 8:11 PM, The General said:

What the hell did this guy do to Fox News type Republicans? They hate this dude. He seems like a reasonable guy. 

Because he is a partisan hack who the left tried to pass off a some moderate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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

Mitch McConnell?    I can't remember.   Is he a good guy or a bad guy.       What is china's  position on him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The Associated Press @AP 22m

BREAKING:

Attorney General Merrick Garland bars federal prosecutors from seizing the records of journalists in leak investigations, reversing years of department policy.

https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-reporters-records-merrick-garland-e2348419815ef84dc75cbecd7e546b39?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry...I posted the wrong story. @bigbottom

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/07/doj-will-not-prosecute-trump-officials-after-ig-referred-findings-false-testimony-census/183843/

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Edited by urbanhack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, urbanhack said:

Parts of this story have been retracted. It wasn't Garland's decision. It was made by Barr during the Trump admin.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...