Octopus Overlords

geezer wrote:

Grifman wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:36 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:24 pm

geezer wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:19 pm Apparently she passed a polygraph. As I understand it that’s good enough for Rand Paul and Mike Pence, so we should be about done on this nomination. Right?

I thought those were voodoo?

Only when it's convenient, I guess?

I don’t know why polygraphs are pointed to as evidence. It’s kind using a horoscope as evidence.

Right. But a few days ago these two gents were advocating a polygraph as the arbiter of truth WRT the NYT op ed. So I wonder what they’ll say now. (Pro tip - I don’t actually wonder. I’m pretty sure HER result will be dismissed as not credible)

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has told a reporter from The Washington Post that he now believes that the committee should postpone its vote on the nomination until they hear more from the accuser.

Moliere wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:33 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:24 pm Only when it's convenient, I guess?

Like budget deficits, court nominees, and rule of law. Politics is all theater regardless of who is in office. That's what makes our current reality show President so timely.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:17 am And hey look, Franken did step down.

Zarathud wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:29 amEm, so what's your point? Where are you taking this?

Zarathud wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:29 am Em, so what's your point? Where are you taking this?

That you're a poor oppressed Republican? That you don't care about the nomination to the Supreme Court? That unless liberal comedians making bad groping jokes lose, bad conservative jurists actually groping (and more) must win? That rape is funny?

Kavanaugh is a bad pick because he's been political, too deferential to the Presidency, and too right-wing to be the swing vote. And apparently a shitty teenager (and likely adult too).

Debra Katz, the lawyer for a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, said Monday that her client would be willing to testify in public to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"The answer is yes," Katz, who represents Christine Blasey Ford, said on CNN's "New Day."
Ford's willingness to testify before Congress marks both a major development from a woman previously reluctant to face the brunt of public scrutiny and a significant pressure point on Kavanaugh's nomination, which could decide the balance of the nation's top court for a generation.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:42 amI do wonder if the GOP will ultimately let Ford testify. Maybe they'll see if they can get away with her testifying at a closed door hearing.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:42 am I told you guys his confirmation is not a lock.

Given the importance of this to the GOP, and the GOP's willingness to do very unpopular things that they want to do, I do still think that he will probably be confirmed. But his odds of not getting confirmed are rising.

I do wonder if the GOP will ultimately let Ford testify. Maybe they'll see if they can get away with her testifying at a closed door hearing.

Defiant wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:18 am

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:20 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:42 am I told you guys his confirmation is not a lock.

A 36 year old deus ex machina is hardly anything anyone could account for.

Given the importance of this to the GOP, and the GOP's willingness to do very unpopular things that they want to do, I do still think that he will probably be confirmed. But his odds of not getting confirmed are rising.

I do wonder if the GOP will ultimately let Ford testify. Maybe they'll see if they can get away with her testifying at a closed door hearing.

I think it'll be closed door and it won't change anything. They are afraid of the mid-term. Like it or not they learned from Anita Hill. Especially now with #metoo no good will come from televising it. They will confirm Kavanaugh if it means twisting and breaking every arm they have to. This is possibly the biggest policy agenda beyond paying the rich that they have. They will get it done. Plus they have good reason to believe they will not be held accountable in a meaningful way.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:52 am My point is just that the narrow vote margin and Kavanaugh's unpopularity meant that one significant spark could throw his nomination into doubt. It just so happens that this may be the spark.

The main things that I would be worried about is whether Flake may decide that he's comfortable sinking Kavanaugh's nomination, and whether Collins may decide that she has more to fear in the 2020 general election than she does in the 2020 primary. I think both will ultimately vote yes, but they're concerns.

Also, I think this provides a ready means for red state democrats to vote no. They can just call for a full investigation of Ford's allegations. The GOP won't be willing to do that, because the additionanl time and scrutiny probably would not be helpful for confirming Kavanaugh. But when the GOP refuses to do that, the red state democrats can just say "I'm not opposed to Kavanaugh, but especially in light of these allegations it is irresponsible to confirm him to a lifetime appointment, so I can't vote yes at this time."

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:28 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:52 am My point is just that the narrow vote margin and Kavanaugh's unpopularity meant that one significant spark could throw his nomination into doubt. It just so happens that this may be the spark.

And what I'm saying is they'll do everything in their power to bury it. The lesson from Anita Hill was that televising it caused harm but confirming him got them a Conservative seat for 30 years. They will do nearly anything to confirm him now.

The main things that I would be worried about is whether Flake may decide that he's comfortable sinking Kavanaugh's nomination, and whether Collins may decide that she has more to fear in the 2020 general election than she does in the 2020 primary. I think both will ultimately vote yes, but they're concerns.

Should Collins have some fear about 2020. Sure. A little. Very little. The problem is the GOP. If she votes no, her funding well will dry up. Again they will break limbs here. If she votes yes, will the voters think much about Kavanaugh? Almost certainly not if history is a guide. So what is her answer. She is playing her usual double game. She is pretending concern but her vote is a lock.

Also, I think this provides a ready means for red state democrats to vote no. They can just call for a full investigation of Ford's allegations. The GOP won't be willing to do that, because the additionanl time and scrutiny probably would not be helpful for confirming Kavanaugh. But when the GOP refuses to do that, the red state democrats can just say "I'm not opposed to Kavanaugh, but especially in light of these allegations it is irresponsible to confirm him to a lifetime appointment, so I can't vote yes at this time."

True Manchin may worm his way out with this but I think you are not handicapping the situation correctly. I still hold to my very, very, very unlikely chances of this nomination going down. Absent actual evidence this will all be noise that'll haunt him but not stop him. This is all about power and the GOP isn't going to give any up.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:52 pm Has a SCOTUS nominee ever required a VP tiebreak vote to be confirmed?

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:57 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:52 pm Has a SCOTUS nominee ever required a VP tiebreak vote to be confirmed?

No.

On January 26, 1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Matthews for a position as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Matthews was a controversial nominee, and as the nomination came near the end of Hayes's term, the Senate did not act on it. Upon succeeding Hayes, incoming President James A. Garfield renominated Matthews in March 1881, and the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 24 to 23, the narrowest confirmation for a successful U.S. Supreme Court nominee in history. He served on the Court until his death in 1889.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:52 pm It's just that there are a number of things that could go wrong, including "unknown unknowns", and any one of them could throw things into doubt. If a second accuser comes forward, for example, Kavanaugh is probably done, GOP will to power or not. Flake's already said that he wants the vote delayed - what is Flake finally says fuck it altogether? The latest is that apparently both Ford and Kavanaugh are going to testify on the allegations - what happens if Kavanaugh craps the bed and it runs on the nightly news for a few days? What if Heller starts to see his polling going south quickly and gets nervous? And I agree that Collins probably has more to fear from the GOP base than the GOP electorate in this case - but if the Ford situation gets worse, it's not crazy to think that that could change (and more to the point, it's not crazy to think that Collins's assessment of that could change).

Has a SCOTUS nominee ever required a VP tiebreak vote to be confirmed?

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:44 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:52 pm It's just that there are a number of things that could go wrong, including "unknown unknowns", and any one of them could throw things into doubt. If a second accuser comes forward, for example, Kavanaugh is probably done, GOP will to power or not. Flake's already said that he wants the vote delayed - what is Flake finally says fuck it altogether? The latest is that apparently both Ford and Kavanaugh are going to testify on the allegations - what happens if Kavanaugh craps the bed and it runs on the nightly news for a few days? What if Heller starts to see his polling going south quickly and gets nervous? And I agree that Collins probably has more to fear from the GOP base than the GOP electorate in this case - but if the Ford situation gets worse, it's not crazy to think that that could change (and more to the point, it's not crazy to think that Collins's assessment of that could change).

It isn't that it is crazy to believe there is hope. I just don't think there is any hope. This feels like it is all about grasping at straws and I get it. This is another horrible development as our nation's heart is stolen away by and for the extremely wealthy.

Anyway I don't believe in absolutes which is pretty much why I don't say 100% on his confirmation. That said, I agree that more accusers coming out would be a tough one for the GOP to ignore but I think they might just try. Like I said before they are worried about a few seats in the Senate. They don't have time to vette another nom in time. I mean I guess the very slim option is they ditch him and literally balls to the wall and confirm a nom lame duck. I can't put anything beyond them anymore. They absolutely can not and will not let this the opportunity slip away. That would be unacceptable to their money base.

It isn't like they have shown they are anything but willing to do despicable things for power. In that vein Mrs. Ford is pretty brave because she is now in the cross-hairs of every dirty political operative and fortune seeker you can probably imagine. I will be less than shocked if dirt about her appears tout suite.

Has a SCOTUS nominee ever required a VP tiebreak vote to be confirmed?

This is hardly a norm they'd care about at this point. As long as he is legally confirmed and they don't risk total Armageddon they will do it.

The White House hasn’t asked the FBI to investigate the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were in high school, a request required for the bureau to take further action, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings just weeks before the midterm elections.

Hatch, if hearings found her allegations to be credible: "If that was true, I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today. That’s the issue. Is this judge a really good man? And he is. And by any measure he is."

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:14 pm Not a surprise - Hatch is one of the worst people in the Senate. He is a huge hypocrite that turns a blind eye to all sorts of bad behavior as long as that person has that R next to the name.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:29 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:14 pm Not a surprise - Hatch is one of the worst people in the Senate. He is a huge hypocrite that turns a blind eye to all sorts of bad behavior as long as that person has that R next to the name.

Whereas many Dems were calling for Franken to step down, which he did.

But it's a both sides horse race because Bill Maher is still employed.

Did I do that right?

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:13 am Is that the plan?

em2nought wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:28 am

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:13 am Is that the plan?

Actually, the plan was to not say anything else, sit back, and wait 'til it's all out in the open, and then decide. The parent's almost foreclosure & his mother being their judge, her pink hat wearing, her anti-Trump marching pink, her students saying don't get on her bad side she carries a grudge, his friend being a booze hound, his friend mentioning a Kavanaugh in his book, curiously having so many women lined up to say what a good guy he is, and on and on.

... but you obviously wanted me to answer with that reference and I couldn't resist.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:41 amYou are the problem with America today. You, personally.