SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Buffy]

Why is Kavanaugh such a threat to democracy? Been tuning in and out the hearing here at work and the dude sounds pretty capable and strongly believes in precedent.

For left-ish people with a strong belief in the right to choose, he represents a real threat to Roe v. Wade.

[archibaldcrane]

He's terrible.

https://twitter.com/rebecca_wilhelm/...115138560?s=19

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Tymon]

I mean, we're in an era now where every nominee to the Court is gonna be considered an imminent threat to Democracy by the other party.

I could argue that stacking the court in any direction is an actual threat to Democracy because you then have a sizable number of people in the Democracy no longer represented at all in one of the branches of government.

And you could argue back that elections have consequences. You'd be right. That's where it ends to me really. He's a conservative justice. A highly qualified, respected (by conservatives and at least some moderates) and, as far as we know, not corrupt, conservative justice. He was nominated because the Democrats lost the election in 2016.

The only real issue I take up is that partisanship is going to definitely lead to the court being stacked, which I think is antithetical to the Constitution (ironic.) A lot of previous Presidents nominated justices from differing viewpoints in order to balance the court. That will almost surely never happen again on either side with how much everyone hates each other now.

[Tyrath]

Okay except Obama put up a moderate candidate and he was refused even a hearing.

Get out with the "both sides" rhetoric because both sides aren't trying to rig the nominations in their favor.

[archibaldcrane]

The real "threat to Democracy" he represents is his previous writings that Presidents shouldn't be bothered with legal proceedings, and that he'll invariably uphold partisan gerrymandering.

Those are just a couple of the reasons he's terrible though.

[Tymon]

Okay except Obama put up a moderate candidate and he was refused even a hearing.

Get out with the "both sides" rhetoric because both sides aren't trying to rig the nominations in their favor.

Yeah, one side started it. And we're in the age of whataboutism and emotional politics, which means it's going to continue ad nauseum.

Mark my words, we will never have a peaceful SCOTUS nomination again. Not with our current government. Put that on the record and slap me with it if I'm wrong.

[Dimmauk]

Yeah, one side started it. And we're in the age of whataboutism and emotional politics, which means it's going to continue ad nauseum.

Mark my words, we will never have a peaceful SCOTUS nomination again. Not with our current government. Put that on the record and slap me with it if I'm wrong.

Republicans say Democrats started it with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

[Zealot]

That is grossly inaccurate, nominees have been getting filibustered and opposed since Brandeis.

[Tyrath]

Republicans say Democrats started it with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

But like he got a hearing and was confirmed...so no.

[Salodin]

Yeah, one side started it. And we're in the age of whataboutism and emotional politics, which means it's going to continue ad nauseum.

Mark my words, we will never have a peaceful SCOTUS nomination again. Not with our current government. Put that on the record and slap me with it if I'm wrong.

I feel like the majority of your post lacks any context outside of your lifespan. You saw some contentious government stuff happen and think this is new, it was so peaceful until now, etc, and never realize it's always been like this.

Maybe Republicans weren't always refusing to hold hearings on a democratic pick, democrats weren't always nuking a filibuster to get judicial nominees through, but little by little norms are broken and reestablished just to be broken again. That doesn't mean it's ok to just deal with it, just like it isn't ok to blindly oppose it cause it's not your party. You evaluate each case on their individual fact patterns and make a judgement.

You've been given much evidence for why this guy is a shitty supreme court pick, not just in general but during these times specifically. What reasons can you give for why those dont matter, or are not important enough, in regards to how Democrats oppose this nomination?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Whataboutism is the worst fucking thing since Jar Jar Binks jfc

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Xno Kappa]

I feel like the majority of your post lacks any context outside of your lifespan. You saw some contentious government stuff happen and think this is new, it was so peaceful until now, etc, and never realize it's always been like this.

Maybe Republicans weren't always refusing to hold hearings on a democratic pick, democrats weren't always nuking a filibuster to get judicial nominees through, but little by little norms are broken and reestablished just to be broken again. That doesn't mean it's ok to just deal with it, just like it isn't ok to blindly oppose it cause it's not your party. You evaluate each case on their individual fact patterns and make a judgement.

You've been given much evidence for why this guy is a shitty supreme court pick, not just in general but during these times specifically. What reasons can you give for why those dont matter, or are not important enough, in regards to how Democrats oppose this nomination?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Lindsey Graham was mentioning earlier today on the number of votes previous SCOTUS picks received. Scalia got like 98 and RBG got 93 I believe. There wasn’t a huge drop until Kagan and Sotomayor who still got in the mid-high 60’s. Kavanaugh probably won’t even break 55.

[Salodin]

And I'd argue not a single one of those justices were nominated by a president who is under an FBI investigation and would also have to preside over a case where the defendant is the president who nominated him to the court.

Ds would have no leg to stand on if Kavanaugh would just say that hed recuse himself from any case involving Trump. Hes been ask and told this already. Its telling that he wont make that promise.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

https://twitter.com/JasonOverstreet/...27088067035136

Damn Kamala Harris putting on the squeeze.

[Day]

YASSS SLAY QUEEN

[Tyrath]

I'm a little turned on

[TummieGaruda]

“Be careful of your answer sir”

Harris 2020?

[Xno Kappa]

Oh my...

You can almost see Kavanaugh’s mind going into overdrive on how to answer that without perjuring himself lmao

[Tymon]

“Be careful of your answer sir”

Harris 2020?

I mean, yeah. Half of these guys presiding over this hearing are chomping at the bit to get that #2020 soundbyte lined up.

A guaranteed general election victory doesn't come around all that often after all.

[Tyrath]

A guaranteed general election victory doesn't come around all that often after all.

I'm sure Hillary thought that too