Supreme Court Decisions

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So this is how you see the profile in courage for Dems..wait until the Republican vote..

They won't have to worry about their consciences. I think it will be 53 or 54 yes like Gorsuch. Manchin even voted for this guy with ties to the Russian bank. Kavanaugh is easy for him.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Of course maybe there's something really repulsive about Kavanaugh, or there's traction on the pro-choice side that can topple the nomination.
Right, I'd say this is unlikely, but also not impossible. You never know what might come out about a guy.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

Of course maybe there's something really repulsive about Kavanaugh, or there's traction on the pro-choice side that can topple the nomination.
Right, I'd say this is unlikely, but also not impossible. You never know what might come out about a guy.


As if anything matters any more. Unless what comes out is that he's secretly a progressive, his ticket is stamped.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Three things are going on now:
A) Kavanaugh has a credit card problem/pay back scheme
B) Anthony Kennedy's son's loan to Trump looks fishy
C) There seems to be an unprecented "deal" between Kennedy and Trump on the pick.

Likely nothing will come of these but it could haunt them. History will certainly look at this in unflattering terms. Cumulatively it could be something but I think there needs to be one more "thing". Three things are more than coincidence but you need something with juice to move things to get a "Borking".

p.s. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, how many Catholic justices will be on the court?
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As to your last question, six. Three are Jewish, six are Catholic. No other group is represented.
It is a lot like when I was in law school in the early 1980s. There was a hugely disproportionate number of Jewish students, and more Catholics than would be found as a portion of the general population.

Protestants, atheists and non-religious groups all need affirmative action help.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Non-Ivy Leaguers also need some help. It would balance out some of the thinking or methods, IMO.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kjkbear said:

As to your last question, six. Three are Jewish, six are Catholic. No other group is represented.
It is a lot like when I was in law school in the early 1980s. There was a hugely disproportionate number of Jewish students, and more Catholics than would be found as a portion of the general population.

Protestants, atheists and non-religious groups all need affirmative action help.




Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In regards to Bork, that situation played out exactly as intended by the Constitution. Reagan appointed a nominee, Bork, who was far out of the mainstream at least in terms of the views of the Senate majority. The Senate kicked him back and Reagan appointed a moderate conservative, Kennedy, which the Senate approved unanimously.

To say that everything changed after Bork is just propaganda. Everything changed after Merrick Garland.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gaining traction... It's an issue. If this were any other job, this wouldn't be an issue. However integrety and if someone else paid off the debt is an issue.

The Mystery of Brett Kavanaugh's Baseball-Ticket Debt

Quote:

How did the nominee for the Supreme Court spend $60,000 to $200,000 on Washington Nationals seatsand how did he pay it off so quickly?

Quote:

The eye-popping figurestens of thousands on baseball tickets!not only show how pricey America's pastime has become. They also spotlight Kavanaugh's own financial situation and the bruising contours of a high-stakes confirmation fight, and the raise the question of how he paid the debt off so quickly.

The more important, and curious, question is not how Kavanaugh accrued the debts attributed to the baseball tickets, but how he paid them down. It's strange to imagine that a man of comparatively modest means would put tens of thousands of dollars on credit cards to buy baseball tickets, but even stranger that they would have been paid off so fast. The White House says that Kavanaugh's friends reimbursed him for the tickets, and that he no longer buys them. The fact remains that Kavanaugh suddenly cleared at least $60,000 and as much as $200,000 in mysterious debt over one yearsums large enough that senators might well want to know who the sources of the payments were.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bork was the only nominee rejected at least since 1960 for political philosophy reasons. The others before that had ethics problems (Fortas when LBJ wanted him to be Chief, Carswell nom by Nixon), Haynesworth (white supremacist nom by Nixon). Weeks after Bork, Douglas Ginsburg was withdrawn by Reagan because he admitted using marijuana). Then Kennedy, third choice, sailed through.

Things did change with Bork, and then took another turn, a more unfair one, with Garland. And for those who think political correctness is wonderful, well, it brought you Clarence Thomas. Think about the hearings back then. Had Thomas not been African American, he would either have been withdrawn as a nominee, or voted down by 87-13.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

In regards to Bork, that situation played out exactly as intended by the Constitution. Reagan appointed a nominee, Bork, who was far out of the mainstream at least in terms of the views of the Senate majority. The Senate kicked him back and Reagan appointed a moderate conservative, Kennedy, which the Senate approved unanimously.

To say that everything changed after Bork is just propaganda. Everything changed after Merrick Garland.
In your rush to be profound and partisan, you misunderstood the context in which the reference to Book was made. Not a surprise given you lack of background in the area. who often comments on things he has no knowledge, and therefore is unable to understand the context in which a reference was made. Since Bork, no nominee has been willing to speak substantively on the law. To quote a presently sitting liberal Justice: To wit: "When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public. This all started with the Bork nomination."


Spin as you might, the term "Borked" to anyone who went to law school means one thing. It also means that no one has discussed any substantive question in a hearing since then. Garland never had a hearing, and thus was not Borked. He probably would have been hard to Bork, since (1) he would not say anything substantive, and (2) was not very ideological. Nevertheless to quote President Obama, a lawyer by training: "Since Robert Bork, there's been politics involved in nominations in the past on both sides,." He's right. Over the past three decades, presidents and senators from both parties have ratcheted up the tension over Supreme Court nominees. And the lynchpin of that conflict is what has become an utterly meaningless ritual: the confirmation hearing


Re the impact of Bork, there are countless articles and books. I suggest you read the following:

Easy Reading:

Robert Bork's Nomination Changed Everything, Maybe Forever, Nina Totenberg, NPR 12/19/12
Don't Bork Judge Garland, Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Nominations will Never be the Same, Bloomberg


From some legal scholars/writers none of you probably have ever heard of:

The Sad Legacy of Robert Bork, The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen (2012)
The Bork Effect, Natalie Roseberry, University of Illinois
Confirmation Messes, Old and New, Ellen Kagan, Chicago Law Review (1995)

The impact of the Bork nomination is taught in essentially every Jurisprudence class, and I can't envision anywhere close to your uninformed interpretation.

I will leave you with a commentary from retired liberal judge James Robertson:

In the summer of 1987, I led a team of young lawyers to oppose President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Our work, which today would be called opposition research, found its way into the devastating confirmation hearing testimony of Erwin Griswold, the former Harvard Law School dean who had been Bork's predecessor as solicitor general.

I do not claim that the work of my little team had any real impact on the Senate's 58-to-42 vote rejecting Bork's nomination. Griswold was only one in a parade of powerful anti-Bork witnesses, and Bork's arrogance and tin ear for politics were his own worst enemies. As distasteful as the battle was, the end the successful nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy after Bork's defeat seemed to justify the means.

Nevertheless, I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible political mistake. While the nation did wind up with a much more acceptable choice, the treatment of Bork touched off a Thirty Years' War on judicial appointments. We have politicized the judicial confirmation process far beyond historical norms and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It's time for a truce...

"We did it to Garland because we had the votes, and you don't" and consider instead where the argument goes from there. It goes on and on and on. We will struggle without end, each obstructionist act lacking any better reason than the most recent insult. This is the Hatfield's and McCoys. The Jets and Sharks.

Are there no statesmen in politics today? No game theorists? It is true that Democrats would not receive many points for making a cooperative move that can be coerced anyway, but (as the Harry Reids and Mitch McConnells of this world love to remind one another) there will be another election, and what goes around comes around. A peace offering, plainly labeled as such, just might lead to something that is better for the country than mindless, vindictive tit for tat.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kjkbear said:

Bork was the only nominee rejected at least since 1960 for political philosophy reasons. The others before that had ethics problems (Fortas when LBJ wanted him to be Chief, Carswell nom by Nixon), Haynesworth (white supremacist nom by Nixon). Weeks after Bork, Douglas Ginsburg was withdrawn by Reagan because he admitted using marijuana). Then Kennedy, third choice, sailed through.

Things did change with Bork, and then took another turn, a more unfair one, with Garland. And for those who think political correctness is wonderful, well, it brought you Clarence Thomas. Think about the hearings back then. Had Thomas not been African American, he would either have been withdrawn as a nominee, or voted down by 87-13.
I agree with this.

There is a great deal of irony with the Bork nomination process. He was really the first Judge overtly supporting the "original intent" theory, which threatened many recent Court precedents (importantly, those based on the privacy right, which is not spelled out in the Constitution, and therefore under Bork's views does not exist). That is what led to strong opposition initially by many Democrats and a few Republicans. In any event, what killed Bork's nomination was that he answered how he would rule in future cases that resulted in many unhappy endings for for both liberals and conservatives alike, and he exhibited a very nasty disposition (think hanging judge). No one liked him. He got GOP votes, but only when the GOP was sure all Dems, who controlled the Senate. would vote in opposition. (He should have been pulled).

Candidates have learned to adopt rhetorical "moves" that allow them to skate away from questions about discussing cases results . Thus, an originalist like Scalia sailed through, as did overly liberal judges like Sotomeyer and Kagan. Thomas, also an originalist, might have sailed through absent the Anita Hill scandal.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

In regards to Bork, that situation played out exactly as intended by the Constitution. Reagan appointed a nominee, Bork, who was far out of the mainstream at least in terms of the views of the Senate majority. The Senate kicked him back and Reagan appointed a moderate conservative, Kennedy, which the Senate approved unanimously.

To say that everything changed after Bork is just propaganda. Everything changed after Merrick Garland.
In your rush to be profound and partisan, you misunderstood the context in which the reference to Book was made. Not a surprise given you lack of background in the area. who often comments on things he has no knowledge, and therefore is unable to understand the context in which a reference was made. Since Bork, no nominee has been willing to speak substantively on the law. To quote a presently sitting liberal Justice: To wit: "When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public. This all started with the Bork nomination."


Spin as you might, the term "Borked" to anyone who went to law school means one thing. It also means that no one has discussed any substantive question in a hearing since then. Garland never had a hearing, and thus was not Borked. He probably would have been hard to Bork, since (1) he would not say anything substantive, and (2) was not very ideological. Nevertheless to quote President Obama, a lawyer by training: "Since Robert Bork, there's been politics involved in nominations in the past on both sides,." He's right. Over the past three decades, presidents and senators from both parties have ratcheted up the tension over Supreme Court nominees. And the lynchpin of that conflict is what has become an utterly meaningless ritual: the confirmation hearing


Re the impact of Bork, there are countless articles and books. I suggest you read the following:

Easy Reading:

Robert Bork's Nomination Changed Everything, Maybe Forever, Nina Totenberg, NPR 12/19/12
Don't Bork Judge Garland, Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Nominations will Never be the Same, Bloomberg


From some legal scholars/writers none of you probably have ever heard of:

The Sad Legacy of Robert Bork, The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen (2012)
The Bork Effect, Natalie Roseberry, University of Illinois
Confirmation Messes, Old and New, Ellen Kagan, Chicago Law Review (1995)

The impact of the Bork nomination is taught in essentially every Jurisprudence class, and I can't envision anywhere close to your uninformed interpretation.

I will leave you with a commentary from retired liberal judge James Robertson:

In the summer of 1987, I led a team of young lawyers to oppose President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Our work, which today would be called opposition research, found its way into the devastating confirmation hearing testimony of Erwin Griswold, the former Harvard Law School dean who had been Bork's predecessor as solicitor general.

I do not claim that the work of my little team had any real impact on the Senate's 58-to-42 vote rejecting Bork's nomination. Griswold was only one in a parade of powerful anti-Bork witnesses, and Bork's arrogance and tin ear for politics were his own worst enemies. As distasteful as the battle was, the end the successful nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy after Bork's defeat seemed to justify the means.

Nevertheless, I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible political mistake. While the nation did wind up with a much more acceptable choice, the treatment of Bork touched off a Thirty Years' War on judicial appointments. We have politicized the judicial confirmation process far beyond historical norms and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It's time for a truce...

"We did it to Garland because we had the votes, and you don't" and consider instead where the argument goes from there. It goes on and on and on. We will struggle without end, each obstructionist act lacking any better reason than the most recent insult. This is the Hatfield's and McCoys. The Jets and Sharks.

Are there no statesmen in politics today? No game theorists? It is true that Democrats would not receive many points for making a cooperative move that can be coerced anyway, but (as the Harry Reids and Mitch McConnells of this world love to remind one another) there will be another election, and what goes around comes around. A peace offering, plainly labeled as such, just might lead to something that is better for the country than mindless, vindictive tit for tat.

In your desire to obfuscate with minutiae you overlook the broad historical import of the matter - the Bork saga played out just as the Constitution intended. The rest is just the evolution of time and the changes that come with it. The whole process of a nominee testifying to the Judiciary Committee only became custom in 1955 because a segregationist Senator was upset about the nomination of a pro Civil Right Judge. Before then, this only happened occasionally. So the Bork changed everything crowd ignores the fact that for only 33 years of American history did nominees customarily openly answer questions in the Senate. Times change, things evolve.

Nixon had two justices voted down because they were segregationists. Reagan had Bork voted down. Obama had his Constitutional right to choose a Justice taken away from him.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

In regards to Bork, that situation played out exactly as intended by the Constitution. Reagan appointed a nominee, Bork, who was far out of the mainstream at least in terms of the views of the Senate majority. The Senate kicked him back and Reagan appointed a moderate conservative, Kennedy, which the Senate approved unanimously.

To say that everything changed after Bork is just propaganda. Everything changed after Merrick Garland.
In your rush to be profound and partisan, you misunderstood the context in which the reference to Book was made. Not a surprise given you lack of background in the area. who often comments on things he has no knowledge, and therefore is unable to understand the context in which a reference was made. Since Bork, no nominee has been willing to speak substantively on the law. To quote a presently sitting liberal Justice: To wit: "When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public. This all started with the Bork nomination."


Spin as you might, the term "Borked" to anyone who went to law school means one thing. It also means that no one has discussed any substantive question in a hearing since then. Garland never had a hearing, and thus was not Borked. He probably would have been hard to Bork, since (1) he would not say anything substantive, and (2) was not very ideological. Nevertheless to quote President Obama, a lawyer by training: "Since Robert Bork, there's been politics involved in nominations in the past on both sides,." He's right. Over the past three decades, presidents and senators from both parties have ratcheted up the tension over Supreme Court nominees. And the lynchpin of that conflict is what has become an utterly meaningless ritual: the confirmation hearing


Re the impact of Bork, there are countless articles and books. I suggest you read the following:

Easy Reading:

Robert Bork's Nomination Changed Everything, Maybe Forever, Nina Totenberg, NPR 12/19/12
Don't Bork Judge Garland, Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Nominations will Never be the Same, Bloomberg


From some legal scholars/writers none of you probably have ever heard of:

The Sad Legacy of Robert Bork, The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen (2012)
The Bork Effect, Natalie Roseberry, University of Illinois
Confirmation Messes, Old and New, Ellen Kagan, Chicago Law Review (1995)

The impact of the Bork nomination is taught in essentially every Jurisprudence class, and I can't envision anywhere close to your uninformed interpretation.

I will leave you with a commentary from retired liberal judge James Robertson:

In the summer of 1987, I led a team of young lawyers to oppose President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Our work, which today would be called opposition research, found its way into the devastating confirmation hearing testimony of Erwin Griswold, the former Harvard Law School dean who had been Bork's predecessor as solicitor general.

I do not claim that the work of my little team had any real impact on the Senate's 58-to-42 vote rejecting Bork's nomination. Griswold was only one in a parade of powerful anti-Bork witnesses, and Bork's arrogance and tin ear for politics were his own worst enemies. As distasteful as the battle was, the end the successful nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy after Bork's defeat seemed to justify the means.

Nevertheless, I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible political mistake. While the nation did wind up with a much more acceptable choice, the treatment of Bork touched off a Thirty Years' War on judicial appointments. We have politicized the judicial confirmation process far beyond historical norms and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It's time for a truce...

"We did it to Garland because we had the votes, and you don't" and consider instead where the argument goes from there. It goes on and on and on. We will struggle without end, each obstructionist act lacking any better reason than the most recent insult. This is the Hatfield's and McCoys. The Jets and Sharks.

Are there no statesmen in politics today? No game theorists? It is true that Democrats would not receive many points for making a cooperative move that can be coerced anyway, but (as the Harry Reids and Mitch McConnells of this world love to remind one another) there will be another election, and what goes around comes around. A peace offering, plainly labeled as such, just might lead to something that is better for the country than mindless, vindictive tit for tat.

In your desire to obfuscate with minutiae you overlook the broad historical import of the matter - the Bork saga played out just as the Constitution intended. The rest is just the evolution of time and the changes that come with it. The whole process of a nominee testifying to the Judiciary Committee only became custom in 1955 because a segregationist Senator was upset about the nomination of a pro Civil Right Judge. Before then, this only happened occasionally. So the Bork changed everything crowd ignores the fact that for only 33 years of American history did nominees customarily openly answer questions in the Senate. Times change, things evolve.

Nixon had two justices voted down because they were segregationists. Reagan had Bork voted down. Obama had his Constitutional right to choose a Justice taken away from him.
You still don't understand the point being made since I was talking about the way hearings are now (something no one other than you disputes) when you shot your mouth off. Indeed, the hearings after the Bork nomination have become a charade, something that a second year law student knows, and you don't. And it is a big deal in the legal community, notwithstanding your reducing Justice Kagan's primary research topic to minutia.

As for being Bork being too far right, you got Scalia and Thomas who actually were/are to the right of Bork, as well as rather left leaning judges. In an effort to bait and switch, you now whine about Garland is a different context, the inability to not get a hearing thereby reliving Obama of his right to nominate. That will not be relevant in the present situation since the GOP holds a majority (again, the timing of Kennedy's retirement is suspect). I'm not seeing the relevance to this nomination.

The GOP dominated Senate arguably could have exercised its prerogative, and simply rejected Garland after summary hearings disparaging Judge Garland's record on guns, EPA over-regulation, his NRLB decisions as anti-small business, his absolute pro life position, and his views on the death penalty, all while ignoring his support of Citizens United, his vote against detainees at GitMo, and his penchant for screwing criminal defendants (from an e mail by an Obama aide) pushing the matter over to the next President, who was supposed to be Clinton according to all polls.

I know someone is going to add that the then 63 old Garland was put forward as a political sacrifice by Obama, who knew that the GOP dominated Senate would never approve any appointment for the then swing vote, especially after Biden shot his mouth off previously about not allowing any late term appointments. But emails obtained under FOIA suggest otherwise. Obama was actually looking for a moderate that could get through, even it meant appointing someone who had been involved with Citizens United, a decision Obama had previously criticized in his speech to Congress.

Try not to get lost in the minutia.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The GOP ripped off Obama's pick...but turn around will be coming.

I seriously hope the SCOTUS turns on Roe v. Wade...because that will be the national GOP"s prop 187. It will effectively kill the party along with the Trump destruction. The Russia stuff will only make it worse but fccking the economy will end the Libertarian/kill government BS.

My logic is pretty simply really...there's a generational change coming around 2040. Whites will no longer be the majority and the evangelical movement will take a big hit, won't be able to push it's anti-abortion agenda.

The thing is, the GOP won't see it coming, just like they didn't see 187.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nominating Garland because he was a " moderate" and therefore Republicans would love him was more Obama naivite. They were never going to have a vote on him. And if they did he would have lost

So, what happens: the Republican base gets energized and turns out so they can elect Trump and make the pick.. What does the Garland pick do for the Dem base? Nothing as most 64 year old white guys do. Obama should have been "Fighting Barry" and nominated someone whose denial would have fired up his own base-an African American or Hispanic or Asian, rather than kowtowing to Republicans. Of course all these geniuses felt Clinton would be making the pick so it didn't matter.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Three things are going on now:
A) Kavanaugh has a credit card problem/pay back scheme
B) Anthony Kennedy's son's loan to Trump looks fishy
C) There seems to be an unprecented "deal" between Kennedy and Trump on the pick.

Likely nothing will come of these but it could haunt them. History will certainly look at this in unflattering terms. Cumulatively it could be something but I think there needs to be one more "thing". Three things are more than coincidence but you need something with juice to move things to get a "Borking".

p.s. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, how many Catholic justices will be on the court?
Do you have something against Catholics?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey some of you turd covered GOP Bears are blocked. What a tremendous feature on a forum!
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:





Pasta with ketchup? Vote him out on general principle.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


He probably puts ketchup on hot dogs too.



dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

In regards to Bork, that situation played out exactly as intended by the Constitution. Reagan appointed a nominee, Bork, who was far out of the mainstream at least in terms of the views of the Senate majority. The Senate kicked him back and Reagan appointed a moderate conservative, Kennedy, which the Senate approved unanimously.

To say that everything changed after Bork is just propaganda. Everything changed after Merrick Garland.
In your rush to be profound and partisan, you misunderstood the context in which the reference to Book was made. Not a surprise given you lack of background in the area. who often comments on things he has no knowledge, and therefore is unable to understand the context in which a reference was made. Since Bork, no nominee has been willing to speak substantively on the law. To quote a presently sitting liberal Justice: To wit: "When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public. This all started with the Bork nomination."


Spin as you might, the term "Borked" to anyone who went to law school means one thing. It also means that no one has discussed any substantive question in a hearing since then. Garland never had a hearing, and thus was not Borked. He probably would have been hard to Bork, since (1) he would not say anything substantive, and (2) was not very ideological. Nevertheless to quote President Obama, a lawyer by training: "Since Robert Bork, there's been politics involved in nominations in the past on both sides,." He's right. Over the past three decades, presidents and senators from both parties have ratcheted up the tension over Supreme Court nominees. And the lynchpin of that conflict is what has become an utterly meaningless ritual: the confirmation hearing


Re the impact of Bork, there are countless articles and books. I suggest you read the following:

Easy Reading:

Robert Bork's Nomination Changed Everything, Maybe Forever, Nina Totenberg, NPR 12/19/12
Don't Bork Judge Garland, Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Nominations will Never be the Same, Bloomberg


From some legal scholars/writers none of you probably have ever heard of:

The Sad Legacy of Robert Bork, The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen (2012)
The Bork Effect, Natalie Roseberry, University of Illinois
Confirmation Messes, Old and New, Ellen Kagan, Chicago Law Review (1995)

The impact of the Bork nomination is taught in essentially every Jurisprudence class, and I can't envision anywhere close to your uninformed interpretation.

I will leave you with a commentary from retired liberal judge James Robertson:

In the summer of 1987, I led a team of young lawyers to oppose President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Our work, which today would be called opposition research, found its way into the devastating confirmation hearing testimony of Erwin Griswold, the former Harvard Law School dean who had been Bork's predecessor as solicitor general.

I do not claim that the work of my little team had any real impact on the Senate's 58-to-42 vote rejecting Bork's nomination. Griswold was only one in a parade of powerful anti-Bork witnesses, and Bork's arrogance and tin ear for politics were his own worst enemies. As distasteful as the battle was, the end the successful nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy after Bork's defeat seemed to justify the means.

Nevertheless, I regret my part in what I now regard as a terrible political mistake. While the nation did wind up with a much more acceptable choice, the treatment of Bork touched off a Thirty Years' War on judicial appointments. We have politicized the judicial confirmation process far beyond historical norms and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It's time for a truce...

"We did it to Garland because we had the votes, and you don't" and consider instead where the argument goes from there. It goes on and on and on. We will struggle without end, each obstructionist act lacking any better reason than the most recent insult. This is the Hatfield's and McCoys. The Jets and Sharks.

Are there no statesmen in politics today? No game theorists? It is true that Democrats would not receive many points for making a cooperative move that can be coerced anyway, but (as the Harry Reids and Mitch McConnells of this world love to remind one another) there will be another election, and what goes around comes around. A peace offering, plainly labeled as such, just might lead to something that is better for the country than mindless, vindictive tit for tat.

In your desire to obfuscate with minutiae you overlook the broad historical import of the matter - the Bork saga played out just as the Constitution intended. The rest is just the evolution of time and the changes that come with it. The whole process of a nominee testifying to the Judiciary Committee only became custom in 1955 because a segregationist Senator was upset about the nomination of a pro Civil Right Judge. Before then, this only happened occasionally. So the Bork changed everything crowd ignores the fact that for only 33 years of American history did nominees customarily openly answer questions in the Senate. Times change, things evolve.

Nixon had two justices voted down because they were segregationists. Reagan had Bork voted down. Obama had his Constitutional right to choose a Justice taken away from him.
You still don't understand the point being made since I was talking about the way hearings are now (something no one other than you disputes) when you shot your mouth off. Indeed, the hearings after the Bork nomination have become a charade, something that a second year law student knows, and you don't. And it is a big deal in the legal community, notwithstanding your reducing Justice Kagan's primary research topic to minutia.

As for being Bork being too far right, you got Scalia and Thomas who actually were/are to the right of Bork, as well as rather left leaning judges. In an effort to bait and switch, you now whine about Garland is a different context, the inability to not get a hearing thereby reliving Obama of his right to nominate. That will not be relevant in the present situation since the GOP holds a majority (again, the timing of Kennedy's retirement is suspect). I'm not seeing the relevance to this nomination.

The GOP dominated Senate arguably could have exercised its prerogative, and simply rejected Garland after summary hearings disparaging Judge Garland's record on guns, EPA over-regulation, his NRLB decisions as anti-small business, his absolute pro life position, and his views on the death penalty, all while ignoring his support of Citizens United, his vote against detainees at GitMo, and his penchant for screwing criminal defendants (from an e mail by an Obama aide) pushing the matter over to the next President, who was supposed to be Clinton according to all polls.

I know someone is going to add that the then 63 old Garland was put forward as a political sacrifice by Obama, who knew that the GOP dominated Senate would never approve any appointment for the then swing vote, especially after Biden shot his mouth off previously about not allowing any late term appointments. But emails obtained under FOIA suggest otherwise. Obama was actually looking for a moderate that could get through, even it meant appointing someone who had been involved with Citizens United, a decision Obama had previously criticized in his speech to Congress.

Try not to get lost in the minutia.


Wiaf, we get it. In 1988 the process returned closer to what it was in 1954 because the Senate did it's Constitutional duty with Bork. You and the legal community think this is some kind of abomination. The rest of us don't care.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:



He probably puts ketchup on hot dogs too.






I'm okay with that as long as it's not the only topping.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Back to Supreme Court. Sources are saying absent a bad confirmation hearing, all GOP, including McCain who would travel if he had to, are on board. Collins and Murkowski apparently pledged support for Kavanaugh, but not the other two leading candidates because Kavamaugh has said he favors Wade v. Row. Rumors abound that if the GOP has the votes, Machin, Nelson, and Heitcamp, who are in close races also will vote for approval, as may Jones from Alabama, who has to show he is a centrist to keep his job in such a red state.

I guess those confirmation hearings do matter.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Back to Supreme Court. Sources are saying absent a bad confirmation hearing, all GOP, including McCain who would travel if he had to, are on board. Collins and Murkowski apparently pledged support for Kavanaugh, but not the other two leading candidates because Kavamaugh has said he favors Wade v. Row. Rumors abound that if the GOP has the votes, Machin, Nelson, and Heitcamp, who are in close races also will vote for approval, as may Jones from Alabama, who has to show he is a centrist to keep his job in such a red state.

I guess those confirmation hearings do matter.
There's no such thing as a bad confirmation hearing anymore for the right wing. Right wing media would never report out such a thing. Nobody's vote is going to change - the votes will play out exactly as you suggest above.

I don't even need sources to know that.
77Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you are a resident of Indiana (Donnelly), North Dakota (Heitkamp), West Virginia (Manchin), Montana (Tester), or Missouri (McCaskill), how do you feel about your Senator's Kavanaugh confirmation vote being contingent upon how Collins (Maine) and Murkowski (Alaska) vote on that matter? Are those senators voting the will of their constituents, their conscience, or whatever helps their reelection in their next campaign?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
% Votes supporting Trump position
Heitkamp, 55%
Donnelly, 54%
McCaskill, 45%
Tester, 36%
Manchin, 60%


Kamala Harris, 15%
Bernie Sanders, 11%

Source 538
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
77Bear said:

If you are a resident of Indiana (Donnelly), North Dakota (Heitkamp), West Virginia (Manchin), Montana (Tester), or Missouri (McCaskill), how do you feel about your Senator's Kavanaugh confirmation vote being contingent upon how Collins (Maine) and Murkowski (Alaska) vote on that matter? Are those senators voting the will of their constituents, their conscience, or whatever helps their reelection in their next campaign?
In today's world of politics, ALL senators vote according to what helps their re-election chances in their next campaign. There is no such thing as conscience in today's politics.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lost in the all the other news about Trump's supposed racist tapes (which I don't believe would change anything with anyone even if they did exist), and similar shenanigans, is this tidbit about how the Senate Democrats are being stonewalled from accessing information regarding a potential Supreme Court Justice.

Quote:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. Senate said on Thursday they were prepared to sue the National Archives if it does not honor their request for information on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The threat ratcheted up the Democrats' fight with Republicans over documents on the conservative federal judge nominated by President Donald Trump. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer told reporters he plans to meet with Kavanaugh next week.

Democrats are seeking documents from Kavanaugh's service while working in the White House under Republican former President George W. Bush. Last week, several Democratic senators filed requests under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to try and compel the government to release the records.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-kavanaugh/senate-democrats-threaten-to-sue-for-info-on-supreme-court-nominee-idUSKBN1L129B

You know it is bad when the National Archives becomes politicized. Also, I believe Senators should have access to information regarding a potential justice's time in government or the courts (which is what is being requested).
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Back to Supreme Court. Sources are saying absent a bad confirmation hearing, all GOP, including McCain who would travel if he had to, are on board. Collins and Murkowski apparently pledged support for Kavanaugh, but not the other two leading candidates because Kavamaugh has said he favors Wade v. Row. Rumors abound that if the GOP has the votes, Machin, Nelson, and Heitcamp, who are in close races also will vote for approval, as may Jones from Alabama, who has to show he is a centrist to keep his job in such a red state.

I guess those confirmation hearings do matter.
There's no such thing as a bad confirmation hearing anymore for the right wing. Right wing media would never report out such a thing. Nobody's vote is going to change - the votes will play out exactly as you suggest above.

I don't even need sources to know that.
Well, Kavanaugh is done testifying and everything is as predicted. Right wing media calling it a success and left wing media calling him a disaster. Nobody's vote is changing except we'll see in the end which vulnerable Democrats will vote for him based on political calculations.

The Republicans will now put a longtime Republican political operative with possible perjury issues on the Supreme Court.

When the Democrats have the Presidency, Senate, and House in 2021 I think they should increase the Supreme Court to 11 jurists using a simple Senate majority. They would never have the courage to do that though.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perjury on record for a SC justice is a BIG FCCKING DEAL. If a justice can't be trusted NOT to LIE, he's worthless. I hope Kavanaugh drops dead. I'll also say, he's exactly the kind of guy who was mocked, hassled and bullied in school because everyone knew he was a lying arsehole and maybe an butt kicking would bring him some introspection. He's the guy who gets fragged. Now he'll be a SC justice, minus a hail mary.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Perjury on record for a SC justice is a BIG FCCKING DEAL. If a justice can't be trusted NOT to LIE, he's worthless. I hope Kavanaugh drops dead. I'll also say, he's exactly the kind of guy who was mocked, hassled and bullied in school because everyone knew he was a lying arsehole and maybe an butt kicking would bring him some introspection. He's the guy who gets fragged. Now he'll be a SC justice, minus a hail mary.
It's not really a big deal. Republicans don't care and they have the votes. The media barely talks about it. too much money to be made off the likes of Kavanaugh.

Rest assured, if a Democratic Supreme Court nominee had perjured himself it would be all over the news. Fox News and the crowd would see to that.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not a big deal to the GOP...but a big deal to the USA and a cornerstone of democracy. You simply can't have a liar as a SC justice.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Not a big deal to the GOP...but a big deal to the USA and a cornerstone of democracy. You simply can't have a liar as a SC justice.
I'm sure he wouldn't be the first liar on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas, for example.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Come on guys, this isn't really perjury. I'm as anti-Kavanaugh as the next guy, but more because he's a political hack masquerading as an independent arbiter and that he's been appointed by a corrupt and illegitimate president. I understand by the way, that the supreme court is largely filled with partisans at this point, but Kavanaugh gives off far more of the political hack vibe than does Gorsuch or Ginsburg who seem more like they have some sort of first principles.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.