Supreme Court

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think that'll happen but you're right that it could. But the Dem energy is huge and Kavanaugh turned off a lot of independents as well. So, we'll see ...

 

It could certainly galvanize the left also, but Republicans have shown to be more adept at this.

 

I also wonder about the MeToo angle.  The Avenetti/Ramirez component to this has been far more detrimental than helpful.

[Badsmerf]

The election is a month away. The rekindled enthusiasm the gop base is showing will be evaporated once kavanaugh is confirmed. I don't view it as authentic. I see them just getting a little excited because "libtards" are really pissed about this guy. Some people just want whatever others don't want. The conservative media is trying to frame it as his anti abortion bias, and not that he is a bad candidate. Also, some are saying this will be the first conservative court in decades.... I don't think the court has been neutral in decades. One issue doesn't make it neutral.

[PseudoSABR]

 

A lot of political capital was spent here and possibly was galvanizing to the right. I hope this doesn't turn out as a terrible political miscalculation.

The right's base is always galvanized.  I don't think Kavanaugh motivated anyone who wasn't already motivated on the right.  I do think it galvanized lots of women, in the middle and on the left though.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Senate moderate Susan Collins say she thinks Brett Kavanaugh is just the guy to heal partisan divisions on the Supreme Court

 

 

not making that up

[PseudoSABR]

 

Senate moderate Susan Collins say she thinks Brett Kavanaugh is just the guy to heal partisan divisions on the Supreme Court


not making that up

wtf

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

wtf

indeed

[Squirrel]

surprise, surprise

 

 

NOT!

[TheLeviathan]

It's all politics.  Manchin and Murkowski did each other a favor, Collins gets to look like a centrist.  

 

Flake and Sasse look like Trump's whipping boys again.  At some point you'd think they'd just have enough of getting their ass handed to them and sabotage a big moment just as a middle finger to Trump.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It could certainly galvanize the left also, but Republicans have shown to be more adept at this.

 

I also wonder about the MeToo angle.  The Avenetti/Ramirez component to this has been far more detrimental than helpful.

However this played out, I thought it would be more galvanizing to the losers.

 

We'll see if that's the way it goes.

[gunnarthor]

 

However this played out, I thought it would be more galvanizing to the losers.

 

We'll see if that's the way it goes.

I can't find the link but I read an article earlier today that said just that.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree Brock, but the Republicans have played the "Woe is Us!  The Left has to be stopped!" card for victories far bigger than this.

 

Hell, they're still effectively doing it with Trump's win.

[gunnarthor]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/susan-collins-2020-election-kavanaugh_us_5bb7a778e4b01470d05150d0?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=main_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages

 

Collins vote will raise 2.5m for her 2020 opponent. That person might be Susan Rice.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree Brock, but the Republicans have played the "Woe is Us! The Left has to be stopped!" card for victories far bigger than this.

 

Hell, they're still effectively doing it with Trump's win.

Oh, definitely, but America has a pretty solid track record of hating whatever party is in power.

 

And we haven’t had an election since the GOP took control of the entire government.

[D. Hocking]

So it appears now the GOP has successfully pushed the narrative that women who don't report an incident when it happens are suspect, that the man should be treated as the victim and the women treated passive aggressively or patronizingly.    They also made it clear that a man can lash out and act angry and spew threats and be rude to women firmly but politely asking him questions - and it just shows how strongly he feels and that he must be the wronged party.   I am not sure I would recommend a woman act like that on the stand, I don't think it would take too much for revive the "women are emotional and not as rational as men" men for the same people who praise Kavenaugh for his strong, heart-felt response.

 

Someone also needs to point out that while there has been no smoking gun, nothing was actually refuted, and that one of the reasons there was not as much corroborating evidence was the investigation was very limited and did not even talk to Kavenaugh and a number of key people.

 

I saw the clip of Trump mocking Ford by jeeringly saying "I don't remember" multiple times, but saw far less coverage of people pointing out a number of things Trump claimed Ford did not remember - year - description of the house etc., she remembered quite well.   That Trump's taunt was not only offensive, a large portion of it was untrue.

 

I did hear someone discussing some of Colln's recent statements about how the standard for Brett  was not matched and then compared them to some strong statements she made criticizing Franken and did not seem to have the same standard for Al.    Collins actually probably would do better with her voters if she had voted no, so am not sure why she is so bulldogged about staying the party line.   Her statements the past couple of days have had a Trumpian quality about cherry picking some facts and ignoring others, that I would imagine she is going to be vulnerable in 2020.

 

Has Jeff Flake ever followed through with any substance in his posturing?   He seemed to a little bit last week with calling for the investigation, but when all was said and done, he fell in line with pretending it was sufficient and not incredibly limited and ham-strung.  

 

[stringer bell]

Yup. And the GOP is getting away with it. I’m saddened but not surprised. I think of the next Dr. Ford going “why bother?” since their lives go on trial with an accusation.

 

I keep thinking to myself that payback will be sweet when the McConnells and Trumps get their comeuppance, but more and more I’m thinking the wealthy and well-connected always come out ahead and the party and philosophy that embodies those sentiments will continue doing what they do without recrimination.

[Badsmerf]

There isn't going to be immediate consequences for most of the gop over this. I do hope there will be in 2020. I'm just preparing myself for some disgusting supreme court decisions over the next decade+. I've read articles on 538 about the political leaning of the court, but I'm curious if there has been a more right wing court than this?

[gunnarthor]

 

There isn't going to be immediate consequences for most of the gop over this. I do hope there will be in 2020. I'm just preparing myself for some disgusting supreme court decisions over the next decade+. I've read articles on 538 about the political leaning of the court, but I'm curious if there has been a more right wing court than this?

Probably the courts before the new deal era but that's where we're heading. Remember, for a while, the Supreme Court was an enemy to basic concepts like child labor laws and basic work place regulatory acts by congress. That Supreme Court was fully pro-business and that lasted 30+ years as our country was transforming from rural to more industrial. The Roberts court is very pro-business and anti-union/worker.

 

Roberts himself has done more to limit voting rights of African Americans than anything since the Jim Crow laws. And the court continues, despite the increased video over the last few years, to protect law enforcement from any liability for police abuses.

 

Things are currently bad and have been for awhile. With Kavanaugh, they're going to get much, much worse.

[Doomtints]

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1047875995049627650

[LaBombo]

 

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1047875995049627650

 

Setting aside the question of efficacy, an ad in which seniors are caricatured as a bunch of selfish prats is at the very least in much better taste than Jimmy Kimmel calling for the dis"member"ment of Kavanaugh and an audience cheering in approval.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Probably the courts before the new deal era but that's where we're heading. Remember, for a while, the Supreme Court was an enemy to basic concepts like child labor laws and basic work place regulatory acts by congress. That Supreme Court was fully pro-business and that lasted 30+ years as our country was transforming from rural to more industrial. The Roberts court is very pro-business and anti-union/worker.

 

Roberts himself has done more to limit voting rights of African Americans than anything since the Jim Crow laws. And the court continues, despite the increased video over the last few years, to protect law enforcement from any liability for police abuses.

 

Things are currently bad and have been for awhile. With Kavanaugh, they're going to get much, much worse.

Actually, I think it could play out quite differently.

 

Roberts is ALL ABOUT the legitimacy and legacy of the court and this is HIS court.

 

I can honestly see how he views the Kavanaugh appointment (and Gorsuch, for that matter) is an affront to HIS court and stabilizes it in defense of his legacy.

 

Roberts is not some radical conservative. He cares deeply about the court and its stature in the American system. Maybe he stays the course and keeps doing what he's doing but he didn't stop the ACA from being overturned out of pure legal sensibility. I think he saw something larger, a legacy impact of it.

 

The guy cares about the court and where it's going. I suspect he'll steer it in a far more sensible course than many of us fear.

[Badsmerf]

You're optimistic Brock. I'm not sure I share the same hope. I think they'll dodge roe v wade so they don't have to over turn it. I'm much more worried about big business, religious favoritism, and unprecedented political bias tainting these decisions in the near future. Isn't he the one that said gerrymandering is gobbledygook?

[gunnarthor]

 

Actually, I think it could play out quite differently.

 

Roberts is ALL ABOUT the legitimacy and legacy of the court and this is HIS court.

 

I can honestly see how he views the Kavanaugh appointment (and Gorsuch, for that matter) is an affront to HIS court and stabilizes it in defense of his legacy.

 

Roberts is not some radical conservative. He cares deeply about the court and its stature in the American system. Maybe he stays the course and keeps doing what he's doing but he didn't stop the ACA from being overturned out of pure legal sensibility. I think he saw something larger, a legacy impact of it.

 

The guy cares about the court and where it's going. I suspect he'll steer it in a far more sensible course than many of us fear.

He respects the integrity of the court the same way Collins is a moderate. We hear nice things and occasionally he makes a surprise decision (upholding Obamacare was one but not surprising since it was a significant boost to corporate America's interest).

 

He's had some pretty seminal cases where it's pretty clear he doesn't care about the legitimacy or his legacy. The Court finally permits same sex marriage and what happens? All four dissenters write their own dissents and three of them read them from the bench. If there was ever a time for Roberts to keep the dissent in check, write one respectful dissent, and move on, it was there. But nope. All four railed against same-sex marriage while Roberts dissent was just the least objectionable.  He upheld the Muslim ban which will be this generations Korematsu. He over-threw nearly fifty years of bi-partisan work to gut the voting rights act - twice. He cares not a whit about the integrity of the court. He cares about pushing his agenda and Kavanaugh helps him do that. Roberts himself has lived his entire life in an entitlement bubble. At oral arguments he once mentioned that he'd never even been pulled over for a traffic violation. He has no clue how people view him or the court.

 

Our hope isn't in the courts. It's only in voters. The Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment demanded "separate but equal" for nearly 100 years. The Supreme Court decided the Constitution prohibited workers from organizing for wages and labor laws for 40 years. The Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment didn't protect speech that objected to the war effort. Those horrible cases were changed not because our Constitution was suddenly re-read. They changed b/c people demanded them by marching, causing social unrest and educating others on the problems by forcefully putting those issues on the front page.

[TheLeviathan]

Roberts: Partisan Hack is a narrative born out of ultra partisanship.

 

A guy both sides see as a traitor is already in a good spot IMO.

[ashbury]

I think they'll dodge roe v wade so they don't have to over turn it.

This might be smart politics of them. Milk a few more election cycles with the message that the Court still isn't conservative enough to overturn abortion rights.

A guy both sides see as a traitor is already in a good spot IMO.

That used to be a good rule of thumb, but both sides seem to know the trick by now.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

That used to be a good rule of thumb, but both sides seem to know the trick by now.

 

Perhaps, I just tire of the argument that impugns integrity when the real disagreement is ideology.  There was a time when people could have stark differences in ideology without immediately thinking the other person is an evil snake bent on destroying the world.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You're optimistic Brock. I'm not sure I share the same hope. I think they'll dodge roe v wade so they don't have to over turn it. I'm much more worried about big business, religious favoritism, and unprecedented political bias tainting these decisions in the near future. Isn't he the one that said gerrymandering is gobbledygook?

I think the chance of Roberts voting to overturn Roe v Wade approaches zero. I remember him talking about previous court decisions and how infrequently they should be overturned. It would require direct opposition to a previous ruling to overturn Roe v Wade, which is a tall order that requires a fair amount of mental gymnastics to get through to do it.

 

As for gerrymandering, as much as I WANT to see the court address it, I'm not sure it's the court's job to address it. It's a perfectly sensible stance to believe that it's not the court's job to determine how elections are held. That's a legislative duty and, unfortunately, our legislative entities are mostly broken right now. But that doesn't mean the courts get to jump in and do the legislature's jobs for them. We need to unbreak our legislative system and stop relying on the courts so damned often to clean up the messes those nitwits in Congress leave behind.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think the chance of Roberts voting to overturn Roe v Wade approaches zero. I remember him talking about previous court decisions and how infrequently they should be overturned. It would require direct opposition to a previous ruling to overturn Roe v Wade, which is a tall order that requires a fair amount of mental gymnastics to get through to do it.

 

As for gerrymandering, as much as I WANT to see the court address it, I'm not sure it's the court's job to address it. It's a perfectly sensible stance to believe that it's not the court's job to determine how elections are held. That's a legislative duty and, unfortunately, our legislative entities are mostly broken right now. But that doesn't mean the courts get to jump in and do the legislature's jobs for them. We need to unbreak our legislative system and stop relying on the courts so damned often to clean up the messes those nitwits in Congress leave behind.

 

Of course, finding actions unconstitutional is part of the courts' role......so I'm not sure what you are arguing.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

On a larger point, I've really started to dislike some of the left's arguments that every time the court disagrees with their political view that there's a nefarious plot behind it.

 

Many conservative decisions are made simply to limit the court's powers, which is a good thing when viewed through that lens. That doesn't mean I don't get irritated when they make a decision like Citizen's United but I understand why they do it.

 

In short, let's stop blaming the courts so often for voluntarily limiting the scope of their own power and start placing more blame on those dip****s in Washington who refuse to pass laws to make the country a better place.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Of course, finding actions unconstitutional is part of the courts' role......so I'm not sure what you are arguing.....

Now we're down to ideology, though. Not everyone reads the Constitution the same way and some believe the power of the document is far more limited than others.

 

And that's a reasonable opinion to have, really.

 

Every way this is examined, the blame loops around to the legislature, a group of people who need to start doing their ****ing jobs once in awhile.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Now we're down to ideology, though. Not everyone reads the Constitution the same way and some believe the power of the document is far more limited than others.

 

And that's a reasonable opinion to have, really.

 

Every way this is examined, the blame loops around to the legislature, a group of people who need to start doing their ****ing jobs once in awhile.

 

That's fair.....but it isn't fair to say that limiting voting rights is ideology, imo.....either we are free to vote, or we don't have a constitution that means anything. But maybe that is ideology, and not one of our actual principles.