SCOTUS Watch

[malchior]

Buying or discussing any of the GOP fighting or talking points has to be heavily, heavily discounted because no matter what happens the Republicans will invent a paper thin defense or counter accusation to justify whatever ramrod action they have planned. In effect we need to stop repeating their bullshit justifications as if they wouldn't have done exactly all the same things they would do anyway.

[Scoop20906]

I tend to agree but....with cautious optimism I'll note that a recent poll shows the GOP has dropped in its favorability rating wth women by 18%. Maybe there's hope for the future? Maybe?

We will talk in November as we are trying to figure out how the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite this utter insanity.

Quoted for truth.

You deserve it.

[El Guapo]

I tend to agree but....with cautious optimism I'll note that a recent poll shows the GOP has dropped in its favorability rating wth women by 18%. Maybe there's hope for the future? Maybe?

We will talk in November as we are trying to figure out how the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite this utter insanity.

The Republicans have a shot at gaining a seat or two in the Senate if things break their way, but there's no way to look at any of the polling or anything else related to the midterms and conclude that the Republicans have any chance (above .001%) of gaining House seats - there's just literally almost zero objective support for that possibility.

[Chaz]

November is going to be a test of how strong those gerrymandered levees actually are.

[Smoove_B]

Dean Gerken Joins the ABA in Calling for Further Investigation.

[Smoove_B]

there's just literally almost zero objective support for that possibility.

Are we talking about elections next month or what happened in November of 2016? Just trying to clarify.

[LawBeefaroni]

(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?

Getting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.

If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).

I don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.

I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..

[stessier]

Plus a minority (I hope) who felt like "boys will be boys" and it was a long time ago anyway. The whole thing is really fucking depressing.

In my neck of the woods, this is by far the majority opinion. It is incredibly hard to come to work some days because of the conversations that begin that way.

[malchior]

(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?

Getting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.

If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).

I don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.

I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..

This and honestly I think they want to prove they can do anything and get away with it. This is as much a power play as the tax debate. They are rewarding various power centers and showing they have the ability to execute.

[Kurth]

(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?

Getting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.

If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).

I don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.

I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..

Yeah. Maybe so. Aside from voting their conscience, that’s really the only explanation that makes any sense.

Neither Corker nor Flake would be motivated by a desire to protect Trump by installing Kavanaugh on the court. And, as far as loyalty to party, I don’t think the incredibly slim chance that a Barrett nomination would go sideways would outweigh the potential consequences the GOP face in the mid-terms and beyond by pushing through Kavanaugh.

[El Guapo]

there's just literally almost zero objective support for that possibility.

Are we talking about elections next month or what happened in November of 2016? Just trying to clarify.

So, going by 538, there is currently about an 80% chance that the Democrats take the House. That was about the same odds that Clinton had of winning the presidency in 2016. Highly probable at this point, but far from a sure thing.

But the odds that the Democrats not only fail to take the House, but also lose seats? Effectively zero, barring some earthshaking event like literal election rigging.

[El Guapo]

(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?

Getting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.

If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).

I don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.

I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..

Yeah. Maybe so. Aside from voting their conscience, that’s really the only explanation that makes any sense.

Neither Corker nor Flake would be motivated by a desire to protect Trump by installing Kavanaugh on the court. And, as far as loyalty to party, I don’t think the incredibly slim chance that a Barrett nomination would go sideways would outweigh the potential consequences the GOP face in the mid-terms and beyond by pushing through Kavanaugh.

Corker and Flake are both pretty conservative generally, which explains part of it, but not all of it. I mean, I would have thought that basic ego would compel Flake to poke Trump in the eye in a notable way at least once.

[hepcat]

If her claims are true, they weaponized a victim's pain for their own ends. No matter the reason for it, it still feels wrong to me.

So I'm not clear - what should Feinstein and/or the Democrats have done differently? If Feinstein had come public in late July, would that be ok in your view? Or should the Democrats have kept it all non-public, even if it meant potentially handing a lifetime SCOTUS seat to a sexual abuser?

This timeline by politico helped to clear up a few things for me.

I would say that in late July when Feinstein received the info, it should have gone straight to the FBI for investigation. Feinstein claims she wanted to respect Ford's request for confidentiality. That's a fine sentiment, but the FBI can do that during the course of an investigation.

Why did Feinstein then sit on this info until mid September before revealing it to other Dems on the committee? Ford hadn't said "go ahead and share this with your peers" at this point, so you can't claim it was because of Ford's request for confidentiality.

Listen, I'm disappointed in both sides over this whole thing. I think it was handled badly from the very beginning. But I hope this disappointment doesn't translate into "you're the enemy" by my fellow haters of Trump.

[RunningMn9]

like literal election rigging.

It's a good thing that we've put in so much effort in the past 18 months to prevent that.

[Remus West]

Our country had been building to a crisis for a long time, but I’m taken aback how quickly it’s arrived. Dark times ahead.

I'm thankful it's not coming quicker and more violently.

Sadly, I think it comes closer and closer to violence every day. It may not be direct rebelion but we will assuredly see more racial violence. More violence due to poverty and desperation inflicted by the policies of these people. Violence is coming one way or the other. The oppressed always fight back somehow and typically by lashing out at those around them (usually more of their own rather than those who keep them there). It won't solve anything and will probably make things worse but it is coming.

[malchior]

Violence is coming and I loathe it because it possibly ushers in outright fascism or something new.

[Defiant]

I'm fairly certain their motivations include future promises that we'll never kmow about. It's how these things work..

But aren't they retiring? Future promises seem much less relevant when you won't be in office.

[Kurth]

(2) I keep seeing references to the GOP's refusal to allow any corroborating evidence, and I know they refused to allow other witnesses or to compel Judge to appear and testify. But, if we assume Judge would stick with his statement ("I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes"), what corroborating evidence are we aware of that was kept out of the hearing?

There are several questions you could ask Judge that wasn't included in his written testimony. When did he hold his summer jobs that year? Ford said if she had that information, she could help narrow down when the attack occurred. Does Bart O'Kavanaugh in Judge's book refer directly to Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh claims the book was a piece of fiction and Judge just used his name and that the character wasn't based off of him. Did they drink and hang out with friends during the week? Kavanaugh said they never did, and limited his potential timeframe for when the attack could occur to the weekends. That doesn't ring true, and Judge said in his book he would show up to work during the week drunk and/or still hungover. Did Kavanaugh get blackout drunk, or did he just enjoy beer like a normal teenager? Does Judge remember anything about the get-together on July 1st, which sounds an awful lot like the party described by Ford? Does "going to Timmy's for Skis" mean that they were going there for beers on a Thursday? What do the slang terms in the yearbook mean? Kavanaugh says they mean something relatively innocent. Most people know those slang terms as being something totally different, including other people who attended school in that area at the same time.

There's a lot to ask, and if answered correctly could corroborate Kavanaugh's story. Why would they not allow Judge to speak, unless his testimony would have hurt Kavanaugh?

I don’t doubt there are some interesting questions that could come out of Judge testifying (especially re Kavanaugh’s high school drinking habits and the yearbook references), but I don’t see any of what you listed above as actually corroborating the accusation. If anyone who’s been paying attention believes that Kavanaugh wasn’t partying and drinking heavily while at Georgetown Prep, there’s really no point. I take those as established facts based on his own admissions.

It’s possible Judge could have his recollections refreshed and remember some detail that would help piece things together, but that’s really, really speculative and assumes (against the weight of the evidence) that Judge is an unbiased witness who would even be interested in trying to get to the truth in the first place.

Not to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.

[gameoverman]

Plus a minority (I hope) who felt like "boys will be boys" and it was a long time ago anyway. The whole thing is really fucking depressing.

In my neck of the woods, this is by far the majority opinion. It is incredibly hard to come to work some days because of the conversations that begin that way.

At my high school there were a lot, A LOT, of guys who acted like that. There were a lot of girls treated that way. So I think what happens is those guys get older and now they can't view that behavior as wrong, much less criminal, because they themselves did it too! So they play it off as 'boys will be boys'. That's an excuse that sort of lets everyone off the hook. No one has to feel guilty, no one has anything to answer for, and no one has to address the sexual violence girls and women face. It is said that even the people doing wrong don't like to think of themselves as the bad guy. One way around that problem is to normalize the wrong thing you're doing so that it becomes the standard and is acceptable. "Boys will be boys" fits into that perfectly.

[El Guapo]

like literal election rigging.

It's a good thing that we've put in so much effort in the past 18 months to prevent that.

Even given that, the difficulty involved in rigging dozens or more house votes simultaneously while not getting caught is pretty daunting.

[Remus West]

Not to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.

Judge is but a single stone. They needed to get answers to all the questions listed earlier through as many sources as possible. They refused to even allow a single one when there was literally a book of them to draw from when it comes to getting a picture of what K was like as a kid and later in college.

[Remus West]

like literal election rigging.

It's a good thing that we've put in so much effort in the past 18 months to prevent that.

Even given that, the difficulty involved in rigging dozens or more house votes simultaneously while not getting caught is pretty daunting.

Why do they care if they get caught? Once the people they want are in place then the people "catching" them will be all theirs. You think Mueller has a chance if a 100% Trump loyalist is in charge of the justice department and overseeing the investigation?

[malchior]

Not to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.

Exactly and there is no way to prove it. By hauling out the same arguments used during Anita Hill about presumption of innocence they are pretending to be standing on principle. It is the paper thin veneer of integrity we see all the time but that is good enough for them.

[Paingod]

Dean Gerken Joins the ABA in Calling for Further Investigation.

There's a dozen screaming-mad baby-men and one GOP Judge willing to ignore him.

[tjg_marantz]

The view was supposed to happen 10 minutes ago and it hasn't. Apparently some back room stuff going on and flake may be flipping.

Fluid to say the least.

Thread

[Skinypupy]

Dean Gerken Joins the ABA in Calling for Further Investigation.

There's a dozen screaming-mad baby-men and one GOP Judge willing to ignore him.

Her, just FYI.

[malchior]

Apropos of nothing but I was in Ireland yesterday and as the only American present I was expected to defend or explain this nonsense. I could not. FWIW the same thing happened in Amsterdam last weekend. They hear the American accent and instantly you are being questioned about our complete dysfuction. From my limited but surprisingly consistent viewpoint across several nations and conversations, people are very concerned in Europe that we've gone bonkers and will drag everyone down. I can't blame them for feeling that way.

Edit: FWIW - American news tends to be on everywhere and people overseas grasp our politics at a level that probably surpasses the average joe on the street here.

[Paingod]

Her, just FYI.

Oh. I thought "Dean" was a name.

They hear the American accent and instantly you are being questioned about our complete dysfuction.

At this point they're probably quizzing you to make sure you're not about to get blind drunk, shit on the floor, and proclaim it was THE BEST, HUGEST SHIT.

[YellowKing]

Listen, I'm disappointed in both sides over this whole thing. I think it was handled badly from the very beginning. But I hope this disappointment doesn't translate into "you're the enemy" by my fellow haters of Trump.

I got your back hep.

It would be utter naivete to believe that the Democrats aren't playing their own political games with this nomination. This is DC, after all. Just because the GOP went utterly insane doesn't mean the Dems suddenly decided to play fair.

My advice to the GOP, however, would be that if you're going to play dirty then don't get butthurt when someone does it back to you.

[tjg_marantz]

The Internet is wonderful

[msteelers]

Not to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.

Of course it all comes down to credibility! That's what the entire thing is about! The witnesses who were supposedly at the party in question all signed statements saying they do not recall that specific incident. The GOP used that to cast doubt on Dr. Ford's credibility. Kavanaugh was able to make whatever claims he wanted about everything from his drinking habits, his social schedule, the slang terms they used... all because he knew there was nobody that could cast doubt on his credibility.

[hepcat]

Apropos of nothing but I was in Ireland yesterday and as the only American present I was expected to defend or explain this nonsense. I could not. FWIW the same thing happened in Amsterdam last weekend. They hear the American accent and instantly you are being questioned about our complete dysfuction. From my limited but surprisingly consistent viewpoint across several nations and conversations, people are very concerned in Europe that we've gone bonkers and will drag everyone down. I can't blame them for feeling that way.

Edit: FWIW - American news tends to be on everywhere and people overseas grasp our politics at a level that probably surpasses the average joe on the street here.

Whenever abroad, it's always best to pretend to be Canadian. I don't think I've been an American when I leave the United States for the last 30 years or so.

[msteelers]

The Internet is wonderful

That was much needed. Thank you.

[Paingod]

I badly needed that.

[El Guapo]

Not to say that I don’t agree that Judge should have been called and should have been questioned. I’m just saying that even if every stone here had been turned over, it looks more likely than not that this would have still come down to a basic credibility determination between Ford who is 100% certain she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh who is 100% certain he did no such thing.

Of course it all comes down to credibility! That's what the entire thing is about! The witnesses who were supposedly at the party in question all signed statements saying they do not recall that specific incident. The GOP used that to cast doubt on Dr. Ford's credibility. Kavanaugh was able to make whatever claims he wanted about everything from his drinking habits, his social schedule, the slang terms they used... all because he knew there was nobody that could cast doubt on his credibility.

Also, with the Swetwick allegations, there's a whole New Yorker article with quotes and people - there's a lot of dig in there. Hell, call Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer and have them testify.

[Carpet_pissr]

Flake just called for a week delay to let FBI investigate.

Not sure what’s happening now....

[Defiant]

[Skinypupy]

Absolute fucking coward.

[Isgrimnur]

What a flake.

[malchior]

This is pretty much the same bullshit they pulled with the healthcare vote. What a douchebag.