Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Everyone seems to be forgetting the massive witchhunt/circus that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. That was a new low by any standard.

I don't know what ideological bubble you've been living in, but the majority of people would say that that was anything but a witch hunt or a circus. The sexual assault allegation was credible in the eyes of many.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

A rape allegation from college years that never resulted in anything, and was disputed.

Meanwhile, a charged rapist is a national hero.

No. He's not a national hero. No one knows his name because of who he was or what he did throughout his life. The only reason people know his name is because of what happened to him.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Well, the standard for being appointed to the supreme court should be higher than to not get killed by police.

The democrats approach to that whole hearing was a costly mistake though and probably cost some senate races in 2018. And really, there was no end game. If they succeeded in disqualifying Kavanaugh, it would have probably been someone worse.

I was speaking to the presumption of innocence alone.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Everyone seems to be forgetting the massive witchhunt/circus that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. That was a new low by any standard. I have never seen such unsubstantiated and manufactured outrage in my life. We are way beyond having qualifications mean anything in these appointments anymore it is more about the identity politics than anything.

Really? I found the parallels to the Clarence Thomas hearings similar, and the outcomes the same. The credible witnesses were vilified, the powerful rewarded, and the subordinate punished.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

A rape allegation from college years that never resulted in anything, and was disputed.

Because, boys-will-be-boys and BEER!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Everyone seems to be forgetting the massive witchhunt/circus that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. That was a new low by any standard. I have never seen such unsubstantiated and manufactured outrage in my life. We are way beyond having qualifications mean anything in these appointments anymore it is more about the identity politics than anything.

It was a mess. The allegations in themselves were not necessarily disqualifying. Kavanagh's beahviour in response to the situation should have been disqualifying.

The Republican senators were reprehensible and disgusting. The Democratic senators fumbled the situation a bit, but the sad truth is that there really is no 'right' way to handle sexual assault allegations.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

On the contrary, I've said on many occasions in this thread that I view the Republican actions as hypocritical and cynical. The difference it seems is that I'm also willing to acknowledge that the Democrats did exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the Republicans had the power to do things, and the Democrats did not.

My refusal to ignore hypocrisy wherever it exists seems to indicate I do not view this as a team sport in any fashion. I have my opinions on policy, but I'm willing to be honest about what I see. That seems like a pretty rare thing around here. People are either happy to live in self-delusion or they are so partisan they don't care about their own side's nonsense.

I think that the issue is you don't understand the purpose of the senate. The Republicans have utilized the senate in an effort to weaponize the courts for a generation. Through their refusal of due process for a democratic president they have created a precident that within a few short years they have ignored in order to fill the courts with underqualified idealogues. If they had gone ahead with the Obama Garland nomination I would agree but they didn't, and they actively blocked it.

Now you are quick to play the both sides game but it sounds ridiculous. Because it is merely one side asking for the same rules and the other being intransigent at best and dictatorial at worst.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Well, the standard for being appointed to the supreme court should be higher than to not get killed by police.

The democrats approach to that whole hearing was a costly mistake though and probably cost some senate races in 2018. And really, there was no end game. If they succeeded in disqualifying Kavanaugh, it would have probably been someone worse.

It also ensures that the current outrage by the Democrats rings hollow. None of this is about flip flops by the republicans, or recently invented precedents. This is about the Democrats being outraged that the Republicans are stealing their ability to install their own politically minded justice.

The Democrats don't even know who is nominated yet, so they can't credibly make a complaint about the qualifications or historical partisanship of the nominee. All of this is designed to create a frenzy within the left - the manipulations seem to have worked if this thread is any indication.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I think that the issue is you don't understand the purpose of the senate. The Republicans have utilized the senate in an effort to weaponize the courts for a generation. Through their refusal of due process for a democratic president they have created a precident that within a few short years they have ignored in order to fill the courts with underqualified idealogues. If they had gone ahead with the Obama Garland nomination I would agree but they didn't, and they actively blocked it.

Now you are quick to play the both sides game but it sounds ridiculous. Because it is merely one side asking for the same rules and the other being intransigent at best and dictatorial at worst.

underqualified idealogues?

What makes you think they are underqualified? Are you qualified to judge that (pardon the pun)?

What makes you think they are idealogues? They certainly haven't acted like them since getting confirmed.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It also ensures that the current outrage by the Democrats rings hollow. None of this is about flip flops by the republicans, or recently invented precedents. This is about the Democrats being outraged that the Republicans are stealing their ability to install their own politically minded justice.

The Democrats don't even know who is nominated yet, so they can't credibly make a complaint about the qualifications or historical partisanship of the nominee. All of this is designed to create a frenzy within the left - the manipulations seem to have worked if this thread is any indication.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I think that the issue is you don't understand the purpose of the senate. The Republicans have utilized the senate in an effort to weaponize the courts for a generation. Through their refusal of due process for a democratic president they have created a precident that within a few short years they have ignored in order to fill the courts with underqualified idealogues. If they had gone ahead with the Obama Garland nomination I would agree but they didn't, and they actively blocked it.

Now you are quick to play the both sides game but it sounds ridiculous. Because it is merely one side asking for the same rules and the other being intransigent at best and dictatorial at worst.

The essential problem with BoLevi's position is that he's assuming that the Democrats would be doing the inverse of what the Republicans are doing if they had the ability - i.e., that if they had been able to confirm Garland in 2016, and RBG had still died when she did, the Democrats would be making the argument that no replacement should be nominated and that the next guy should do that. And hey, maybe he's right. We'll never know.

But suppose a politician wanted to pass a new law that, for the purposes of an example, made it illegal to wear a t-shirt on the weekend. Suppose I fought tooth and nail to oppose that law, but wasn't able to stop it, and weekend t-shirt wearing became illegal. Then the following weekend, I go outside in my long-sleeved shirt only to see that same politician out wearing his t-shirt, completely shamelessly breaking the law he just forced through.

Am I a hypocrite for being angry, and saying, "what the hell, you just passed a law that prevented me from wearing a t-shirt like I wanted to, and I see you just flaunting the law openly? That's crap. You passed the law against my objections, at the very least you should now have to obey it"? BoLevi seems to think so. I don't.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What makes you think they are idealogues? They certainly haven't acted like them since getting confirmed.

We know about the Federalist Society:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

Of the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States, five (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito) are current or former members of the organization.[2]

Politico Magazine wrote that the Federalist Society "has become one of the most influential legal organizations in history—not only shaping law students' thinking but changing American society itself by deliberately, diligently shifting the country's judiciary to the right."

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The essential problem with BoLevi's position is that he's assuming that the Democrats would be doing the inverse of what the Republicans are doing if they had the ability - i.e., that if they had been able to confirm Garland in 2016, and RBG had still died when she did, the Democrats would be making the argument that no replacement should be nominated and that the next guy should do that. And hey, maybe he's right. We'll never know.

I actually don't think they (the Dems) would have the balls to do it. Just like they don't use executive orders as much as Republican presidents. Their voter base seems to have less of a tolerance for authoritarian processes and have less respect for power. Republicans on the other hand are going to admire Trump more for this.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think they would have had the balls to do it 9 months out from the election, like McConnell did. But fewer than 50 days away, I could see it. I think it's more or less a certainty that they would object if a lame duck attempted to appoint a new justice.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The essential problem with BoLevi's position is that he's assuming that the Democrats would be doing the inverse of what the Republicans are doing if they had the ability - i.e., that if they had been able to confirm Garland in 2016, and RBG had still died when she did, the Democrats would be making the argument that no replacement should be nominated and that the next guy should do that. And hey, maybe he's right. We'll never know.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm identifying a fact: the Democrats fought against a concept in 2016, and now are fighting the reverse in 2020. That's all I'm claiming.

I do not think it is a coincidence that in both cases they were arguing in their own interest. Perhaps you do.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm not assuming anything. I'm identifying a fact: the Democrats fought against a concept in 2016, and now are fighting the reverse in 2020. That's all I'm claiming.

That isn't all you're claiming. You make an additional claim in the very next sentence, actually:

I do not think it is a coincidence that in both cases they were arguing in their own interest.

Additionally, you're claiming that the fact you've identified has some significance. Others disagree because of the context and the order in which events occurred. The hypothetical scenario I posited, which you ignored (tellingly), demonstrates what you're missing.

[nik-]

guys ...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm not assuming anything. I'm identifying a fact: the Democrats fought against a concept in 2016, and now are fighting the reverse in 2020. That's all I'm claiming.

I do not think it is a coincidence that in both cases they were arguing in their own interest. Perhaps you do.

Something pretty big happened in between. In 2016 they argued for appointment, now they are arguing for keeping the rules at least consistent.

Both times they were arguing to respect the rules and norms in place.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I do not think

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm identifying a fact: the Democrats fought against a concept in 2016, and now are fighting the reverse in 2020. That's all I'm claiming.

An individual piece of information, in a vaccuum, devoid of context, means nothing.

Spoiler!

I do not think it is a coincidence that in both cases they were arguing in their own interest. Perhaps you do.

A political party standing up for the interests of its voters? Oh my, now there's a shocker.

That was never the issue here. The issue is how a party goes about furthering its interests. There is absolutely no precedent for what MM did in 2016; he made up some bull#### justification for doing it. Now you're arguing that the Democrats shouldn't even expect consistency from MM. You're making a fool of yourself by repeating the same talking points over and over, no matter how many times they've been addressed. Please just stop.

[PepsiFree]

Just one more meme is finally gonna break the troll. I can feel it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That isn't all you're claiming. You make an additional claim in the very next sentence, actually:

Additionally, you're claiming that the fact you've identified has some significance. Others disagree because of the context and the order in which events occurred. The hypothetical scenario I posited, which you ignored (tellingly), demonstrates what you're missing.

Yes of course it is significant in my view. It is obvious that it is not significant in others' views. People can decide whether they feel it is significant or not, I don't think the facts are in question. In 2016 the Democrats wanted one thing. In 2020 they wanted another. It seems to me also that deciding whether their inconsistency is significant or not is also in alignment with an individual poster's partisan leanings. With hypocrisy seemingly existing only in the eye of the beholder, it is unsurprising that politics has grown so divisive.

As for your analogy: you're correct, I did not address it. I view analogy to be a weak form of argument, at least in most cases. If you have a point, you can usually just make it directly to greater effect. I only respond to points of discussion that interest me, which I realize is an indulgence. If I don't respond to a post or a point, I won't tell people that their point is disinteresting, I will simply move past it. I know from your posts on here that you don't fall into the regular emotional traps that are more the rule than the exception in threads like this, so I felt a quick explanation was warranted.