So All Those Questions That The Dems Are Asking Kavanaugh And Believe To.....

[global1]

be critical to this guys confirmation - he dodges with the response that he can't answer because they are "hypothetical"? Weasel!!!!!!!!

[SHRED]

1. We saw this coming

He is a weasel.

[global1]

7. This Process Is So Bogus And All For Show.....

Grassley made some comment earlier this a.m. about those protesters yelling out to disrupt the proceedings are just detracting from the American People getting to make their own decisions on Kavanaugh.

The American People have no voice in this decision. It's a done deed.

The Repugs have the votes to confirm this guy and will vote in mass to do just that. Somebody made the comment yesterday that the Dems have made up their mind and they will vote no on his confirmation. He eluded to obstruction by the Dems. Well if it's obstruction by the Dems to vote 'no' in mass. What is it when the Repugs vote in mass to confirm?

Kavanaugh is thrown softball questions by the Repugs - that he most likely had in advance to prepare a good response to. Any question that the Dems ask him that is pointed and would show us the real Kavanaugh - he responds with the weasel words that their question is a 'hypothetical'.

There has to be a better way of picking judges that is non-political and done by the people.

Right now anytime the Dems do anything related to nominations and confirmations of judges - it's political.

When the Repugs do it - they say they are doing the work of the American People.

All judges are political - from the ground on up to SCOTUS. Somehow that political aspect needs to be taken out of the equation.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Yeah, Roe is gone. Lots more. For a generation at least, but

you know, she gave a speech once, so I guess it was worth it, eh!

Not asking you personally, I just will NEVER fucking let them FORGET what they DID TO US

[haele]

9. Row, Griswold, Lawrence...Skinner v Oklahoma (modified Buck V Bell on forced sterilization)

Addington and O'Conner (involuntary commitment of non-violent mental patients); throwing away all Due Process and Equal Protection clause enforcement at a federal level.
So that maybe the states might enforce them. If the Koch, Mercers, and their Tele-evilangelical minions don't stack the decks against the rest of the citizenry of the states. Or the Federal Government decides that only some states rights are legitimate, and all the rest of the rights belong to whatever the Federal Government will consider.

Because Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch could care less about the generations disposable little people who are destined to slave for the "moneymakers" if they aren't attractive enough to pluck from obscurity.

Remember, Fascism is a reaction against Liberalism, Progressivism, and/or Humanism.
It isn't just a willy-nilly label to be pasted over someone's authoritative attitude over someone else's "freedom to do or believe what they want"...

Haele

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. Seems bad, but just think how bad it would be if we had someone who gave ONE speech once.

I am about to lose it again.

[Vinca]

3. The real dirt on Kavanaugh is under lock and key.

Pat Leahy knows Kavanaugh knew about the stolen emails from Leahy's office, but any evidence - emails, etc. - will never be seen.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Yep, America is gone, for good. We might survive in some fashion, but the America our

parents fought and died for, gone.

Too much damage, too much distrust, too much propaganda and lies.

[sarah FAILIN]

15. Stolen emails?

I missed that.

[FBaggins]

4. Welcome to the scotus nomination process

Every single nominee for decades has done that... and at least in theory it’s the answer they should give.


But it sure is frustrating

[unblock]

6. It's not the answer they "should" give,

Though I admit it has become a standard answer that the senate has decided to accept.

But hypotheticals are standard exercises in law school and there's no reason they shouldn't be discussed during the confirmation process.

A proper response would include laying out careful caveats, that's all.

[FBaggins]

18. Yet none of the existing SCOTUS justices agree with you

Not just during confirmation... they agree that it would be unethical for them to prejudge a possible future case. They'll talk about existing rulings but they won't extend that ruling beyond what it includes.

[unblock]

20. it would be improper for them to give a definitive "i would decide this way"

but it would not at all be unethical for them to talk about relevant precedents, relevant clauses under the constitution, etc.

there's quite a lot one can discuss about how one might analyze a hypothetical without prejudging any particular future case.

you just have to be careful with your caveats.

this is basic, first-year law school stuff, really.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. If nobody can ask any questions or get any information from SCOTUS nominees

we might as well just vote for them and get it over with. There would almost be no point to even having hearings, amirite?

[unblock]

5. Also, it's not hypothetical.

It's very much in the air at the moment and people look to the courts for constitution clarity.

of course, if it were an active case, then he couldn't talk about it because it's an active case!

Hypotheticals are exactly the cases you *can* talk about!

[global1]

8. One Could Answer A Hypothetical With A Discussion.....

of looking at the issue from two sides. Discuss that one could look at it this way and this is why they can look at it this way OR one could look at it from this viewpoint and this is why they can look at it from this side.

Now granted - we don't learn how which side this particular candidate will rule on such a hypothetical - but the answer would still give us a look inside the thinking and the process that this candidate takes when making a decision.

[unblock]

19. exactly. if you remove hypotheticals, and also remove live cases, then

the only thing left is the already decided cases, which is like limiting a quiz to problems other people have already solved.

yes, it could be revealing to see if he agrees or disagrees with any particular decision or opinion, but it's much more straightforward to pick a brain by asking the right hypothetical.

[FBaggins]

21. That makes it worse

No judge could answer a question about a case you actually expected them to hear.

[unblock]

22. no no no. i'm not saying he should opine on any actual case

but entirely appropriate for justices and judges and those seeking such jobs to explain their thought processes, what's relevant, important precedents, the differening views they bring to constitutional interpretation, etc.

yes, it would be inappropriate for a justice or nominee to say something like "this particular potential plaintiff has no case" or anything like that. they should avoid the specifics of any case, particularly a likely upcoming case.

however, they very much can and should give guidance as to relevant constitutional questions, in the abstract, in hypothetical circumstances where they can define the parameters where they can give a meaningful comment. even sitting justices have done this often, rbg has done this, as did scalia. the important thing is to get the caveats right, to define the hypothetical in a way that you can decide.

so, he could answer "*if* there are no offsetting constitutional considerations, there appear to be no limits on presidential pardon power" would be insightful without being committal. alternatively, he could say "i would have to weigh the particulars of the case, considering how to balance the potential tyranny of an aggressive prosecutor against the potential for presidential abuse of a self-pardon." against, insightful without being committal.

[NotASurfer]

10. Realistically unless somebody connects the dots to Russian oligarchs

Low odds on stopping confirmation

Working today so can't sit and watch

[Faux pas]

13. I can't stand

listening to him or looking at him.

[MyOwnPeace]

14. Not sure which "him" you're talking about............

from where I sit there's plenty of them! (hint: any Republican on the committee)

[Faux pas]

17. All of them really

but mostly the 'star' of the show.

[Pachamama]

16. Eventually, if confirmed, Kavanaugh will be impeached and this is laying the groundwork

Justice will be served up with his own words

[WillowTree]

23. Curious.......Impeached on what grounds?

If memory serves me correctly, only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached (can't remember the name offhand) and that was about 200 years ago and he was acquitted in the Senate, so this would be somewhat beyond unusual.