snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10 July 2018, 10:33 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebobo View Post
He should be buying the farm any day now.
Keep that up and you'll be working in Trump's White House.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11 July 2018, 12:21 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is online now
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Keep that up and you'll be working in Trump's White House.
Yep. A post that removes any lingering doubt any of us may have had that Trump's supporters have some sense of common decency.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11 July 2018, 12:44 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,264
Default

I disagreed with McCain quite a lot of the time; and, from the sound of the article I posted, often still do.

But he appears to have been trying, most of the time, to be a decent human being. Being a decent human being includes, IMO, not being nasty about other people's illness.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11 July 2018, 01:47 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,367
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
There is actually legal and lawful precedence for the Dems insisting the confirmation is postponed until after the midterm elections.

The McConnel Rule: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b5e692f40c31

Of course the chances that the Republicans will follow the rules they created is pretty much zero. So I'll start looking for that Unicorn.
That is something that has really come to irritate me, when it comes to the DNC. They keep acting like they are dealing with reasonable adults, have been doing so for their past few decades, even though it should be abundantly clear that they are not. Bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle are fine ideals, but they only work when both sides are made of reasonable adults who, despite differing views, genuinely want to work together and get stuff accomplished. It doesnít work when one side is made up of reasonable adults and the other side is made up of demon toddler spite children who will happily burn down everything to keep the other side from winning.

They have repeatedly tried moderation, compromising, and bipartisanship, even though it has always blown up in their face and it probably makes the GOP hate them even more; no one, not even a bully, likes a toady.

They also have made conceding the battle even before itís been fought, which is an incredibly dumb strategy for obvious reasons. Most Americans, when polled, overwhelmingly support so-called liberal causes, yet the DNC persists in believing that we live in a Center-Right nation. They have continually let the other side dictate the terms. As such, they spend their lives on the defensive.

Given how many times their strategy has backfired, either the DNC is unbelievably naive or more than just a wee bit disingenuous about whom they are supposed to representing.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12 July 2018, 04:44 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,109
Default

I mentioned this in another thread, and I'm partially cutting and pasting, but it's for a very different point.

Kavanaugh was once a zealous advocate of impeachment for Bill Clinton, including advocating for articles of impeachment for lying to staff which caused them to perpetuate the lies, and misleading the public, and refusing to cooperate with the Starr investigation by being interviewed. Then he worked in a high level position in the George W. Bush white house. (Staff Secretary, which is in many ways similar to the Chief of Staff position, but less well known.)

That apparently drastically changed his perspective. In 2009, which means it was after Obama's election, he published a law review article taking the position that presidents should be immune from all suits, prosecutions, and even investigation while in office. (I have not personally read it, and don't know the details, but this is how It's been described.)

I happen to not agree with either of those positions, and I think it marks him as fundamentally an extremist to have shifted from one to the other. But, more importantly, I also think this may be a huge, I mean, YUGE!, reason for his nomination, and it might offer the slimmest of hope that he could be rejected. I think Dems should focus almost all efforts on this idea that presidents should be, in a practical sense, above the law, and that even investigations should not be allowed. I think even a number of Republicans have said, for example, that the Russia investigation should be allowed to run its course.

It is a very dangerous opinion, and an extremely dangerous time for a Justice of the Supreme Court to hold it. I think the general public might be alarmed by it as well. It seems like potentially a very important point to focus on, and potentially less divisive and polarising than abortion, so that it doesn't just fall into the pattern of Democrats trying to obstruct a nominee from the other party.

I am very interested to hear how far he would take it. For example, the Russia investigation originated as a counter-intelligence investigation. That includes identifying potential foreign agents who may have been trying to influence the election via campaign officials -- wittingly or unwittingly. So the original investigation included looking into what contacts campaign officials had with known or suspected foreign agents, without necessarily any suspicion that the campaign officials had done anything wrong, or knowingly collaborated. That kind of investigation is crucial to national security. At the same time, such an investigation could, conceivably, require a president to be interviewed by law enforcement, or testify before a Grand Jury. I am curious if Kavanaugh would say that the president could decline to cooperate with that kind of investigation -- which, by it's nature, could certainly reveal wrongdoing by the president. And not just decline to participate, but should he be able to shut it down or put it on hold?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12 July 2018, 05:28 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,975
Default

I don't know that I would take that paper as proof of how much he has changed when he doesn't seem to believe everything he wrote in that paper (at least not when it benefits himself). For example (pdf):

Quote:
The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the President. Six months is sufficient time for senators to hold hearings, interest groups to register their preferences, and citizens to weigh in on the qualifications of a judicial nominee for lifetime office. At the end of that time, it seems that senators should stand and be counted. If a home-state senator or a group of ideologically-committed senators wishes to block a judicial nomination, they can do so. But they can do so by persuading their colleagues and voting, not through procedural maneuvers.
If he really thought this should happen, then he should refuse the appointment to the Supreme Court as Merrirck Garland's appointment confirmation vote should have happened mid-September by his timeline.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12 July 2018, 07:18 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,109
Default

How does that in any way compel him to refuse the appointment?

If there had been such a rule, Garland would presumably have been voted down. Democrats did not have a majority. If a vote had been forced, do you think they would have hesitated to vote Garland down on the same principle? All a rule forcing a vote would do is remove the ability to filibuster/defeat a cloture vote. That's already been reduced to a majority vote now, so there's really no point in requiring a vote, is there?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12 July 2018, 07:35 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,264
Default

It was my impression at the time that Garland had a good deal of general non-partisan backing, at least before Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court. If hearings had actually been held and a vote actually taken, it's possible that he might have been confirmed; some of the Republicans might have voted for him.

The current Senate rules, as I understand it, allow the majority leader to block hearings and votes; it doesn't require a majority vote of the Senate to do so, only the one person.

If McConnell had been entirely sure that Garland would have been voted down, I don't see why he would have refused to schedule hearings and a vote. It would have looked a lot better for the Republicans to turn Garland down in that fashion than by refusing to hold hearings.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12 July 2018, 08:11 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,109
Default

It was a move to presumably provide better political/rhetorical cover than voting the nominee down outright. And maybe they would not have voted him down. But I don't think McConnell did this maneuver over the objections of the other Republican senators. They wouldn't even meet with Garland, right? If a rule that they didn't have the power to waive required a vote, I really can't see how they would not have reached the same result, based on R senators saying, I have no problem with him, but it is wrong to confirm a nominee so close to an election, so, I vote nay.

I guess he might have been confirmed under such a rule. I still think that it reduces to an elimination of the filibuster on judicial nominations, which has essentially already happened. And, given that there was no such rule in place, I don't see why Kavanaugh would think he should refuse the nomination, just because the Senate did not enact his suggestion of a new rule.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12 July 2018, 08:17 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,556
Default

That was what I heard about Garland as well: he'd enjoyed bipartisan support up until Obama nominated him (in fact, I saw a number of liberals complain that he was too conservative).
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12 July 2018, 08:41 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
It was a move to presumably provide better political/rhetorical cover than voting the nominee down outright. .
For the party as a whole, it provided far worse cover. It looked much worse than voting him down would have.

For individual Republican senators, it may indeed have provided better cover. But, if they had not been so covered, some of them may well have voted for Garland.

Standing up against McConnell's refusal to schedule a vote would have required a whole lot of them making a loud fuss, at least to have any effect at all. One, or a few, making a large complaint wouldn't have moved McConnell; nor a lot of them grumbling in the corners. That would only have been sticking their necks out for no result whatsoever. Meeting individually with Garland would also have accomplished nothing -- it's the Senate as a whole which holds the hearings that are supposed to matter, and McConnell would have had to schedule those. Voting for Garland would have been a one-at-a-time decision that McConnell wouldn't have been able to block, had there been a vote; and for which they might have been pressured by their constituents -- including, very likely, some Republican constituents expecting Clinton to win the next round, and afraid that Clinton would nominate someone they'd like much less. And, since it would have required a number of them -- 60 votes were still needed at the time -- quiet agreements among a small number of Republican senators among themselves could have given them all a certain amount of cover in the primaries -- look, I wasn't the deciding vote, there were all these other people!

I don't know whether enough of them would have defected. But I strongly suspect that McConnell didn't know whether enough of them would, either.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 13 July 2018, 01:09 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,109
Default

It would take 60 votes to defeat a filibuster. I'm not sure where in this scenario you imagine the Republicans needing to defeat a filibuster of Garland? Democrats wanted a vote. Republicans could filibuster, and it would have required some Republicans to break ranks for Democrats to defeat it.

And hearings are generally held by the judiciary committee, not the whole Senate.

Regardless, I still don't see how having advocated for a rule to require a vote, Kavanaugh either didn't believe what he wrote or else he would turn down the nomination. And a rule requiring a vote, again, would have been a way of advocating for elimination of the filibuster, not addressing the machinations McConnell engaged in.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 13 July 2018, 03:12 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
It would take 60 votes to defeat a filibuster. I'm not sure where in this scenario you imagine the Republicans needing to defeat a filibuster of Garland?
Sorry, I'm tired. I was thinking that at the time it took 60 votes to confirm; but you're right, at the time it took 60 votes to move the vote, not to confirm once the vote was called.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 13 July 2018, 08:03 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
I mentioned this in another thread, and I'm partially cutting and pasting, but it's for a very different point.

Kavanaugh was once a zealous advocate of impeachment for Bill Clinton, including advocating for articles of impeachment for lying to staff which caused them to perpetuate the lies, and misleading the public, and refusing to cooperate with the Starr investigation by being interviewed. Then he worked in a high level position in the George W. Bush white house. (Staff Secretary, which is in many ways similar to the Chief of Staff position, but less well known.)

That apparently drastically changed his perspective. In 2009, which means it was after Obama's election, he published a law review article taking the position that presidents should be immune from all suits, prosecutions, and even investigation while in office. (I have not personally read it, and don't know the details, but this is how It's been described.) ...
I think it is important to remember that the position a lawyer takes is 100% determined by whomever is paying that lawyer. A lawyers position on a case should not be construed with reflecting their personal views on the matter. So you really can't make to many judgments about his views based on the cases he has previously been involved in.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 13 July 2018, 09:10 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,109
Default

Well, no, it is not 100% determined by the client.

And while it's true that you should not assume that a lawyer's personal convictions are the same as their professional positions, he had to at least think it was a legitimate legal argument that impeachment could be based on those things, in order to take that position.

It is my understanding, based on media reports, that he did personally believe in what he was doing while he worked for Ken Starr. If I see a good cite for that, I'll post it.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 13 July 2018, 09:49 PM
RichardM RichardM is online now
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,416
Default

This is the same Ken Starr that was appalled by sex acts that Clinton did but thought it was okay if a top football player did that. Clinton's problem was that he wasn't a good enough football player.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Courtís Liberals to Strike Down Deportation Law thorny locust Soapbox Derby 5 20 April 2018 02:14 PM
Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 60 13 July 2015 07:59 AM
Supreme Court favors corporations snopes Politics 0 01 July 2014 10:58 PM
Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute Psihala Soapbox Derby 23 27 November 2013 08:44 PM
Justice Clarence Thomas breaks seven-year silence in court snopes Moot Court 0 14 January 2013 07:17 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.